sd'sker Posted July 30, 2012 Author Share Posted July 30, 2012 Been in the news for a while now............And while I agree with sd'sker it would be harder to find a job without it.................it begs the question of whether or not taxpayers (many of whom probably have to stretch dollars to pay for their OWN phone should be forced to buy them for others). And if so...................where is the limit? It's probably harder to find a job without a car too............is there enough justification for that too? http://newmediajourn...x.php/item/2462 it is, but at least there is public transit. i do not know if i agree with the gov't providing phones, but the story you provided was a state's decision. i think there should be programs, not sure who should provide them, to help people get phones. there are many different ways to do this. i believe there are a lot of nonprofits that try to help battered women get phones to call 911. Link to comment
Comish Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Been in the news for a while now............And while I agree with sd'sker it would be harder to find a job without it.................it begs the question of whether or not taxpayers (many of whom probably have to stretch dollars to pay for their OWN phone should be forced to buy them for others). And if so...................where is the limit? It's probably harder to find a job without a car too............is there enough justification for that too? http://newmediajourn...x.php/item/2462 it is, but at least there is public transit. i do not know if i agree with the gov't providing phones, but the story you provided was a state's decision. i think there should be programs, not sure who should provide them, to help people get phones. there are many different ways to do this. i believe there are a lot of nonprofits that try to help battered women get phones to call 911. Agree 100% on NONPROFITS helping battered women, etc. (participant in several) The link I provided is Pennsylvania but there is U.S. government precedent for this going back several years............ Link to comment
Comish Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 It's an interesting sidebar, but why bring it up in a conversation about Romney and Obama? You're right. Guess I got derailed when you and I were discussing Obama's role in expanding government........... Link to comment
knapplc Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 It's an interesting sidebar, but why bring it up in a conversation about Romney and Obama? You're right. Guess I got derailed when you and I were discussing Obama's role in expanding government........... What does this cell phone conversation have to do with Obama? Link to comment
knapplc Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I guess a follow-up question I would have for Comish is, is it bad for the government to be involved in giving free phone service to the unemployed, and if so, do we hold the president responsible? Link to comment
Comish Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 It's an interesting sidebar, but why bring it up in a conversation about Romney and Obama? You're right. Guess I got derailed when you and I were discussing Obama's role in expanding government........... What does this cell phone conversation have to do with Obama? Generalized expansion of government... Link to comment
carlfense Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Clever vs salient are not necessarily always mutually exclusive. Did someone say that they were mutually exclusive? I think it's very salient what Obama is doing with the direction of the country... Agreed! Now what does your t-shirt add to that conversation? Link to comment
carlfense Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Under the ubiquitous guise of "fairness", assuming that anyone who has accumulated some artificial threshold of "wealth", has done so unfairly and must surrender more of it to those without it. Do you think that someone who earns $20 million dollars a year should pay a lower effective tax rate than someone who earns $100,000? Also, do you know the basics of marginal tax rates? Link to comment
Comish Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Under the ubiquitous guise of "fairness", assuming that anyone who has accumulated some artificial threshold of "wealth", has done so unfairly and must surrender more of it to those without it. Do you think that someone who earns $20 million dollars a year should pay a lower effective tax rate than someone who earns $100,000? Also, do you know the basics of marginal tax rates? Your condescension knows no bounds.......... Link to comment
knapplc Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 It's an interesting sidebar, but why bring it up in a conversation about Romney and Obama? You're right. Guess I got derailed when you and I were discussing Obama's role in expanding government........... What does this cell phone conversation have to do with Obama? Generalized expansion of government... I think you mean George Bush II, not Obama, then. The cell-phone-for-the-unemployed program, SafeLink Wireless Service, began in 2008. When Bush was president. Further, they got the idea to do this from LifeLine and/or Link-Up, programs started in 1984 and 1987 by every Republican's favorite president, Ronald Reagan. So, to recap, it's OK when Republicans expand government. Just not when Democrats do it. Makes perfect sense. Link to comment
zoogs Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I've said this before to somebody who posted the same thing. Whose money do you suppose Mitt Romney will work with, if he were to be elected president? I hate all these one-liner, gotcha images, T-shirts, slogans, whatever. They do so little for discourse. I reject almost every one of them on sight, because to put it plainly, they are bold-facedly asking you to turn off your critical thinking skills. That request should be highly offensive to everybody. "Hey, if you'll just turn off the brain for a moment, ..." 2 Link to comment
carlfense Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 It's an interesting sidebar, but why bring it up in a conversation about Romney and Obama? You're right. Guess I got derailed when you and I were discussing Obama's role in expanding government........... What does this cell phone conversation have to do with Obama? Generalized expansion of government... Obama is so hell bent on expanding government (even though the government has shrunk dramatically during Obama's presidency) that he time travelled back to 1997 to create the Universal Service Fund to cover cell phones. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted July 30, 2012 Author Share Posted July 30, 2012 Under the ubiquitous guise of "fairness", assuming that anyone who has accumulated some artificial threshold of "wealth", has done so unfairly and must surrender more of it to those without it. Do you think that someone who earns $20 million dollars a year should pay a lower effective tax rate than someone who earns $100,000? Also, do you know the basics of marginal tax rates? Your condescension knows no bounds.......... perceived condescension aside, he brings up a good point. i see a fundamental difference between what people believe is fair (or wealthy, or what each class owes or does not owe), but it might help if the tax code was simplified and more understandable. also, if we had a better understanding of how tax dollars are actually spent in the aggregate, rather than anecdotal stories (whether it be these welfare programs run amok stories or these stories of rich people paying less of a tax rate than their help. although, as a liberal i am more concerned with the latter). Link to comment
carlfense Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Under the ubiquitous guise of "fairness", assuming that anyone who has accumulated some artificial threshold of "wealth", has done so unfairly and must surrender more of it to those without it. Do you think that someone who earns $20 million dollars a year should pay a lower effective tax rate than someone who earns $100,000? Also, do you know the basics of marginal tax rates? Your condescension knows no bounds.......... Those are real questions. That wasn't meant to be condescending. Would you answer them? Link to comment
Comish Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 It's an interesting sidebar, but why bring it up in a conversation about Romney and Obama? You're right. Guess I got derailed when you and I were discussing Obama's role in expanding government........... What does this cell phone conversation have to do with Obama? Generalized expansion of government... I think you mean George Bush II, not Obama, then. The cell-phone-for-the-unemployed program, SafeLink Wireless Service, began in 2008. When Bush was president. Further, they got the idea to do this from LifeLine and/or Link-Up, programs started in 1984 and 1987 by every Republican's favorite president, Ronald Reagan. So, to recap, it's OK when Republicans expand government. Just not when Democrats do it. Makes perfect sense. No, it's not ok when Republicans do it...........they are just as wrong when they do it as in this particular case. My point during this thread was Obama's generalized view of an expanded government..................... I used the cell phone issue as an example of expanded government regardless...... Probably a poor choice to have the phone example juxtaposed within this thread of Romney/Obama...... Link to comment
Recommended Posts