Posted on 09/27/2012 8:53:24 AM PDT by tcrlaf
“She’s an SEIU thug and she needs an Obama phone?”
Any bets on her properly reporting this SEIU protest income to the Gub’ment?
The key is whether Obama will get more or less of the Musical Daddy vote. I say “less” because he didn’t come through with enough goodies as he promised.
Why should the government be looking for “cheaper options”? Why should the government be involved with this as all? There is no question that there are “cheaper options”. Obama is not paying for this program; the taxpayers are paying for it. I personally am sick of it. I am perfectly willing to use my money and time to help someone in need, but it is not the role of the government to be providing “poor” people with cell phones.
I clicked on your name and read your other posts. We are approaching a critical election and you are spending your time here cutting down Romney? I think a lot of what you write is disingenuous. It is actually downright scary that you are here trying to undercut our side. Go back to the DemocraticUnderground.com where you belong.
Thank you very much, very informative very enjoyable.
My Momma always said Stupid is as Stupid does.
and good Lord these Obamaites ARE STUCK ON STUPIIIIIIIDDDDDDDDD!!!!!
We dissagree. I see a scriptural mandate to individuals churches and yes government to each help the poor. I have no problem with the government spending $120 a year for poor people to have a basic necessity like a phone. It's an itty bitty benefit in the great scheme of things. And if it helps 1 in 100 get a job, get off welfare and pay taxes, it pays for itself.
"We are approaching a critical election and you are spending your time here cutting down Romney?'
I like to think I cut down both candidates equally. You're on a conservative web site promoting a GOP labeled liberal. If anyone goes to DU, I believe it should be you.
Here’s what you get with your free cell phone
A free governmentl phone isn’t a cheap wireless phone or a discounted model. These are recent model, fully featured cell phones, backed by prominent mobile phone companies. You won’t get an iPhone, Android or Blackberry, but you’ll get a basic, modern phone.
In addition to the phone, which comes with voice mail, call waiting and caller ID, you will typically get up to 250 minutes of airtime per month. It’s not a lot of airtime, but anyone complaining should remember that service is made available to you for free, and is indirectly paid for by other Americans. In addition, most companies offer the ability to send and receive text messages.
Still 317 views but 4,615 comments so far.
There were no cellphones back then, and the government did not pay for the phones. It only regulated that people in "dire need" be offered reasonable rates.
Obama didn't give her that phone, nor does the government pay for it. BUT, nothing is for free. Every other user pays a higher rate to subsidize this.
She has some pretty nice earrings and clothes. I guess she should be thanking us, rather than the Obama. Good God, Reagan must be rolling over right now.
That's great. That puts you right up there with Marie Antoinette.
Just messing with you. I'm glad you recognize your individual responsibility and have taken some actions. Now if you would just recognize that you also have a responsibility as a voter to fulfill governmental responsibilities.
"That really makes me sick! You are either stupid or intentionally trying to mislead people here. Since it is fairly obvious that you were too lazy to actually read the link that you provided to FactCheck.org. I will quote a couple relevant parts for you:"
I don't think you followed the conversation very well. Let me help you.
I don't know what church you go to. I am aware of no “scriptural mandate” for the “government” to “help the poor”. It is counterproductive for the government to help the poor. People are the ones who should help those less fortunate than themselves. When the government “helps the poor” they merely make people feel like they no longer have a responsibility to help their fellow man. They dis-empower those who would otherwise be inclined to do good. That is wrong both scripturally and morally.
Then the “poor” end up feeling like they are entitled to every “itty bitty benefit” that they desire. And who do they thank for all of these “itty bitty” multiple billion dollar benefits... the taxpayers or God? No, they thank Obama.
“I have no problem with the government spending $120 a year for poor people to have a basic necessity like a phone.”
You are seriously deluded my young liberal friend. Food, shelter, and clothing are “basic necessities.” When did a cell phone become a “basic necessity”? They are a convenience and in many cases a nuisance. I know a lot of people who don't own a cell phone and do not feel deprived in any way.
By your standards the approximately half the population who don't pay any federal income tax must be “poor”... After all If they don't have enough money to pay any income tax surely they can't afford a cell phone. So I have a little math problem for you... if you multiply $120 + $50 to administer the program times half the population which is 150 million times 10 years what do you get? You can probably do it on your iPhone... $170 x 150,000,000 x 10 = 255,000,000,000. Math may not be your strongest subject that is an "itty bitty" 255 Billion dollars for that “itty bitty benefit” over just ten years not counting for inflation or the interest the half that do pay taxes are going to have to pay for the increased debt.
"I like to think I cut down both candidates equally."
How sweet of you. You must be very compassionate. It would be hurtful and wrong if you cut down Obama more than Romney wouldn't it? You really are a good boy aren't you. I hear that Obama is quite sensitive to criticism. If you could just sit down and talk with Obama I am sure that you could win him to your way of thinking. Oh I forgot... on the issue of "free cell phones" for the "poor" you are already in agreement. Let's see what do you disagree with him about again?
“Question, how can I repeatedly view this youtube video that is a Drudge headline and it keeps saying only “317 Views”?”
excellent question. I was just wondering the same thing..
I am glad that you are finally sharing your true colors. I think that you are getting confused as to where you are posting. To me that sounds like you are advocating for socialism and big government entitlement programs... and not just the “itty bitty” ones. I firmly believe it is entitlement programs and social engineering that is destroying our country. The United States has prospered because it was founded largely on the concept of freedom and personal responsibility.
If you want to make fun of my efforts to help those around me even in jest... I couldn't actually give a damn. I haven't done anything for your approval or anyone elses or for “scripture”. What I have done has been merely for the sake of basic human kindness. I have found that when I do something kind it tends to inspire others to do the same.
I enjoy helping people and am fortunate enough to be in a profession where the government pays me to do it. I do go above and beyond to the point where at times I have been chastised by my coworkers, but don't think that I do not recognize the irony in our conversation. But it is my experiences working with the people that you think of as “poor” that has shaped my opinion. You are dead wrong... government programs don't help poor people. People help poor people government programs enslave them... even the “itty bitty” ones.
I upload videos to YouTube. One of my shotgun cleaning videos has over 177,000 views. Their counter often has a delay or maybe it isn't working at all part of the time. I don't think it is because of some type of malevolent intent. I have to disclose that they have paid me a couple hundred dollars over the last year from people clicking on ads that I let them display.
You appear confused about the definition of socialism. The label Socialism doesn't mean any and everything that you disagree with.
Socialism is about collective ownership of the means of production. Nothing we've said here is socialism. A tax on a free enterprise system is not socialism. Neither is a program to help the poor.
I firmly believe it is entitlement programs and social engineering that is destroying our country."
Well I firmly believe that some safety nets are good for our country. They encourage risk taking, they shore up areas of the economy hit by temporary economic disruptions, they keep people from starving when we do stupid thing like lower our import tariffs and export our jobs overseas, or lower the bank reserve ratios to 1% so there is no room to respond to a liquidity crisis without the President going to the nation and asking for massive loans and shocking consumer psychology, etc.
Entitlement programs destroying our country. No.
Medicare, Social Security, and SS Disability are merely insurance programs. Government run insurance programs, but insurance programs, nonetheless. People paid their premiums through taxes, now they are "entitled" to the insurance benefit. You can question the wisdom of government being in these programs. You can question whether they are being managed prudently. But that's what they are, and they aren't destroying our country.
Food Stamps, Unemployment, Lifeline phones, Medicaid are welfare type programs for the poor. They are a fundamental government responsibility. Our Colonial states had programs for the poor, and we still have programs for the poor. They need to be managed well so that fraud is prevented. And they need to be balanced. We can't spend all our money on the poor. But we don't need to let them starve either.
Social Engineering. That term is so broad, I don't really know what you mean by that. I have my own list of "social engineering" programs I'd like to see changed.
"I enjoy helping people and am fortunate enough to be in a profession where the government pays me to do it."
So you're out of a job if we adopt the libertarian shirking attitude and get out of the helping the poor through government business? Well that is ironic. But your job is safe with me. I'm not in favor of cutting aid to the poor. I'm in favor of helping them up with a job, but not knocking the floor out from under them and letting them hang. Get the economy rolling and there is no need for as much aid. That's the way to cut.
Jer 22:15 Shalt thou reign, because thou closest [thyself] in cedar? did not thy father eat and drink, and do judgment and justice, [and] then [it was] well with him?Jer 22:16 He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then [it was] well [with him: was] not this to know me? saith the LORD.
If "We the people" want to reign, we can't forsake the poor.
And I'm Christian and Southern Baptist. "It is counterproductive for the government to help the poor." Really? I don't buy it. Government has been helping the poor, did people quit helping? You could make the same argument for churches. If churches help the poor will individuals quit? I think that's just an excuse by people who want to shirk their responsibilities.
"Food, shelter, and clothing are “basic necessities.” When did a cell phone become a “basic necessity”?"
1990's? Cell phones are now cheaper and make more sense than a land line. If you want to get a job, it's a necessity. If you have an emergency, it's a necessity. People went without some necessities in the past.
"By your standards the approximately half the population who don't pay any federal income tax must be “poor”"
When did I say that? That's a complete straw man. There's 11 million on the lifeline phone program that's <3% of our population.
"on the issue of "free cell phones" for the "poor" you are already in agreement."
Reagan started the program. But you do smug attitude with the best of the best.
Quoting like you from Wikipedia, “Socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies”. But at the core of socialist philosophy is taking from those who are productive and giving to those who “need”. Because businesses will not be able to thrive at the level of taxation necessary to provide the amount of government assistance that you advocate they will either continue to move their operations to more advantageous parts of the world or fail. We already have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Until that changes... businesses will continue to move offshore.
No, you are advocating policies that will inevitably result in a slide towards socialism no matter how you define it. You do not believe that the governments bail-outs of major industry and financial institutions is a slide toward greater government interference and socialism? You do not believe that a government that is taxing half of its population to subsidize the other half is creeping toward socialism? You do not believe that a middle class which is being sucked down the toilet into poverty and dependence on government benefits is creeping toward socialism? Soon the middle class will be made up mostly of unionized government workers... that is not a creep toward socialism?
Watching the video that started this thread should make it more obvious to you. We are in for big troubles my friend. And all of the government programs you believe will help are only going to make things worse. You are living in a fantasy which is how you are able to convince yourself that a cell phone is a fundamental need. I am sorry that is nuts. Most of us would probably be able to accomplish more without a cell phone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.