Slashdot Mirror
FCC Proposes To Extend So-Called "Obamaphone" Program To Broadband
jfruh writes: The FCC's Lifeline program subsidizes phone service for very poor Americans; it gained notoriety under the label "Obamaphone," even though the program started under Reagan and was extended to cell phones under Clinton. Now the FCC is proposing that the program, which is funded by a fee on telecom providers, be extended to broadband, on the logic that high-speed internet is as necessary today as telephone service was a generation ago.
It hasn't run out quite yet.
If people making $30,000 a year knew they paid over $1000 a month in taxes, the US government wouldn't have the resources to be so overweening.
Make people actually have to hand their money over to the government instead of never seeing it and could have an honest discussion over how much government the US REALLY wants.
If you don't like that, you really have to ask yourself how much you actually support the rule of "we the people".
Now the FCC is proposing that the program, which is funded by a fee on telecom providers ...
What you mean to say is:
"Now the FCC is proposing that the program, which is funded by an ambiguously labeled "federal tax" or "universal service fee" which the telecom providers dump directly on all customers, likely in excess of any true amount, ..."
That's why your $49.95 flat rate broadband in fact costs you $65+. Thanks 'Bama, we all needed more of that.
Is this the advent of the Obamaporn Program?
How about good old fashioned import duties and a VAT? The US made its revenue for centuries from taxing goods coming from abroad.
You can easily hide income, but a VAT... can't hide that Maybach or Lear Jet.
I find it amazing that not only is cable TV a "right", deserved by all, now broadband is also a "right".
// Yo dude, you should look into some guv'mint subsidised belts
/// Yo dude, check out the brusin' I layed on my baby mama for telling me I should buy a belt!!
/ Yo dude, check out my guv'mint subsidised Facebook post!
Obamapr0n
You don't expect the modern slave mas... er Libertarians to let the government take away their indentured underclass once again without a fight, do you?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
what do we get instead? I live in downtown Seattle and am still stuck on dialup. Comcast has the government-granted monopoly for most of the city, but they do not offer service to many places, especially poorer areas that wouldn't be profitable. Subsidized access would be awesome, and I think it is our right to take from those who have more than they need, but it doesn't help if we can't get the service at all for any price.
A populace that has learned to rely on the government for handouts is a benefit to politicians, but not a benefit to society.
Tax me. I just got a bmw. I can afford it.
My tea party brethren insists that the Obamaphone is a government-issued iPhone. Swear by the Lord (give me a witness!), it's an iPhone. Not a wussy 8GB iPhone, but honest-to-God 128GB iPhone. But whenever I ask to sign up to get my very own government-issued iPhone, everyone stops talking about how all those moochers have the Obamaphone.
A populace that has learned to rely on the government for handouts is a benefit to politicians, but not a benefit to society.
So, when are you going to stop driving on government constructed roads?
Potable water is an essential service. Transportation is pretty damned essential, but I don't see DOT handing out Obamacars. Broadband is far from *essential*, especially considering there are accessible computers in libraries and schools.
...
Awesome. Can't wait for the additional taxes to cover the increased program expenditures
It always comes down to the roads.... why is it that only government can build roads? that is just fucking lame.
I find it amazing that not only is cable TV a "right", deserved by all, now broadband is also a "right".
In a way, it is. Your first comment is actually a little more correct than you realized.
I hunted for a job last year for quite some time before I got my new gig. Let me share some thoughts on the current job climate:
So, to get a job, it's quickly becoming a requirement to have internet access. If we ever expect to help people improve their lives, we have to be willing to give them a leg up to get started. Getting a decent job is a start to better things, so if jobs require internet access, I am all for making it a "right".
Furthermore, I think there is an even greater reason why to do this. While it is possible to call one's congressmen, you'd have to know what to call about. I never receive snail mail copies from my legislators, but I receive email newsletters and follow them on Twitter. Without internet, you would probably have much less of a chance of being informed as well as being able to interact with your representatives. Arguably, since democracy is one of the most important aspects of our society, I would say that allowing access to representatives is a fundamental right, and if those representatives now do a lot of their business and work online, we must require online connections for all.
It's a benefit to society if government handouts are the best way to distribute a good. See justice, fire protection and military defense for undisputed options.
In addition, we recognize that universal access is important for some goods, even if we allow private alternates or supplements. Such as primary education.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Just for the record, the "Obamaphone" program has a name. It's called the "Lifeline Assistance Program" and was started in the 1980s by...Ronald Reagan. It has nothing to do with Obama.
https://www.fcc.gov/guides/lif...
http://www.snopes.com/politics...
http://gawker.com/5947133/the-...
You are welcome on my lawn.
People don't need dependence on free toys like cellphones. They need jobs so they can buy their own if they choose. Having the opportunity to earn wealth of one's own and then choosing how to spend it is true empowerment.
An indentured underclass requires implicit and explicit enforcement from the state in order to exist. I don't think you'll find a single libertarian who wants that.
I make a good living and pay taxes and can't get broadband. Why should a bunch of poor people who happen to live in a city get free broadband?
> libraries
Shutting down across the country and not available in small towns (where many poor live).
> schools
Not open to the adult public.
Roads are handouts? Everyone can use a road. I can't use so and so's Obamaphone or internet connection.
Some reach for the moral argument you just put forward. Others think the moral, neigh Christian, thing to do is to help the poor. Still others believe in studying society, and figuring out how to reduce overall costs, including hidden costs such as crime. This is hard work, takes time, and no answers are a priori correct. Do you know what this last category thinks about the so-called "Obamaphone"?
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
...why is it that only government can build roads?
It's the only way to ensure everybody has access.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Move along folks, no privacy concerns to see here.
While you all continue to whine over your first world problems, whether you get an extra blanket or a life preserver, the ship is still heading towards the iceberg, and we will sink into the abyss of right wing conservative nationalism, just like Europe! Turn it around!
ObamaBand.com is available...
...and basics like the ability to receive a phone call with a job offer while also being out on the town distributing resumes is necessary to empower people to get the job that lets them earn that wealth. The idea that the best way to empower someone is to make them sit at home waiting for a phone call on their land line, while being unable to go out due to lack of cell, and unable to apply to any job at home thanks to lack of internet service, is frankly absurd. Government investing in people to empower them with the tools needed to get jobs and become productive members of society is something I want out of my government, and since enough other people agree with me including enough of the Supreme Court that it's constitutional, I get what I want.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Sure you can, when they are done with it and you now need it more than they do. Same with police service, fire service, ambulance, etc. Or are those handouts in your opinion since you can't use them when they are actively serving someone else?
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Why don't you just take all the resources and just give it to everybody instead of giving it to lowlife shitheads
stole it from a boy on the bus home, bus home...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbYxtf0GAcM
Obamacars
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Are you dense?
It's a benefit to society if government handouts are the best way to distribute a good. See justice, fire protection and military defense for undisputed options.
When the government takes care of one of its primary responsibilities to the benefit of everyone, that is emphatically _not_ a "handout". It's a return on the investment of our tax dollars. Defense, law enforcement and public works are the basic primary responsibilities of governments. It is the legitimate reason we bother to have governments at all.
A "handout" by definition is some kind of special favor that some receive, while others don't. When the military protects the country from foreign invasion, everyone receives the benefit of that.
The best way to get a job is to show up in person, hand someone a resume, and talk with them. While I don't have a problem with having a system that helps people when they're down, the current system just encourages dependence. It does not empower anyone. Ending your diatribe with arguments from popularity and authority doesn't lend much credence to your argument either.
Every tax and fee government imposes on businesses are passed on to the customers.
Ken
There are minimal cost cell phone programs already thanks to MVNOs (which do exist thanks to government regulation). If people could get an Internet connection for $10/month, there wouldn't be any need for a subsidy program.
> And if broadband allows one in a thousand to take online classes
Let's takea look at your "if". As you recall, the FCC also just redefined the word "broadband" to mean service which costs $85-$105 per month. So about $1,000 per year, per person. You say "if one in a thousand" recipients, so 1,000 recipients at $1,000 per year each is $1 million per year. You think it's a good deal if you spend $1 million per year to encourage one guy to do online classes. Note that doesn't actually pay for the classes, you just hope that with faster internet he might take classes.
Did it occur to you that it would be cheaper to pay full tuition for TEN people who actually worked hard at school, proving that they want to be educated and they'll do the work in college? Certainly it didn't occur to you that the million bucks you want to spend is coming from my family, whre I AM struggling to pay for my own college while supporting the family, while my wife waits for her turn to go to school when we can afford it. Then we hope to save up for our daughter to go to school. No, you wouldn't want us, who work to pay for school, to be able to finish college. Much better that you take my paycheck and use it to pay for someone who doesn't work to stream multiple Netflix shows rather than the one they're watching right now.
Damn you guys are bad at math and logic. Friggin think about the costs and consequences of your decisions omce in a while.
Yeah I never heard it called "Obamaphone" before this article.
It sounds like someone trying to associate themselves with something positive as part of their "legacy"...
Who builds toll roads? Private ventures licensed by the government.
Who can use a toll road? Anyone willing to pay for the roads.
Why do you think only government can build roads? The PA, NJ, and hundreds and hundreds of other toll roads were built by toll road authorities that receive ZERO tax dollars.
Ken
We're supposed to use the government to oversee the process and keep it honest, make sure contracts are completed. The work is always contracted out, even with the military these days.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Potable water is an essential service. Transportation is pretty damned essential, but I don't see DOT handing out Obamacars. Broadband is far from *essential*, especially considering there are accessible computers in libraries and schools.
Awesome. Can't wait for the additional taxes to cover the increased program expenditures ...
Yeah; I went for the first 14 years of my working life without a car. Transportation? Essential. Much of it can be done by walking, the rest with busses and rapid transit if you're in an at-all populated area. Sure, I used to regularly walk 20-40 min to get places, but I saved on the gym membership.
I'd say broadband is also an essential service -- and as you point out, that can be provided via libraries. Hey -- I used to have a local library with an internet connection back in the 90's in a rural area pop 3,000. Took me 15 minutes to bike to it. These days I'm sure it's got broadband.
To me it would make more sense to go the UK way: tax the non-essential services like TV to create value to serve over those services. Hey, it works (or at least used to; now people just buy a monitor and stream instead of buying a taxed TV).
Well, it defined broadband as a specific speed. That speed costs different amounts at different locations. And based on the number of connections purchased. Some major cities you can get it for $20. It costs $9.25 by the article.
Well, leaving aside the 10x factor, yeah, I do. I mean, 100k to get someone off public assistance (food/shelter/health/etc) for their working years is a good return on the money.
Tons of free classes out there.
I don't see them as mutually exclusive. Not everyone is close enough to a community college to be able to commute there and live at home. And I think second chances for people who fucked around in high school are supremely important. With a HS diploma, you can do something. Without one, you're living off tax dollars til you get a GED... at least
Maybe a nickle of it.- You want those who succeeded to pay a higher share, fine. I think it's a good idea to ask people who make billions to pay a little more in taxes.
You're not in a great spot, and I empathize. I think it shouldn't be so hard for you. But, I certainly don't think it's inherently noble for you to have to work so hard to succeed. Society shouldn't force you to. We should make it easier.
You seem to think I have computational errors, or that I have logical errors. You didn't really point any out. But I will point out that you had factual errors, since I think that this statement opens that area of discussion.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
You don't need broadband to call 911, or answer a job call-back, or answer a call from your kid's school.
Comcast in Chattanooga does, in fact, provide basic cable for people on welfare/food stamps. I had it. I wasn't getting free HBO but I did get all local channels free which at the time for you "rich" fucks, cost $8/mo. You know nothing, Jon Nyder.
Right, but you're probably okay with the taxes paid to the military-industrial complex, including those taxes used to spy on you, destroy other nations or piss away on stealth planes that aren't stealthy? I suppose bailing out Wall Street was fine, too?
Internet these days is pretty essential as most jobs require online application, government services require online access and doing little things like booking trips to another city (you know, like if you get a job interview across country and don't have the funds for a reliable car) is also 99% done via the Internet.
If you don't have the transportation to get to the library (or time off work for the few hours a week your library is actually open), then the internet is your library.
This space intentionally left blank
Your proposeal of a VAT in response to the earlier post would have the opposite of the effect you intended.
A VAT is NOT a "consumption" or "sales" tax. VAT taxes are hidden-taxes-on-steroids. The VAT is applied at every stage of manufacture, distribution and re-sale and is designed to SEEM tiny to the public while actually being huge - in order to trick the masses into not seeing the true costs of a welfare state (that's why it's so popular in heavily socialistic Europe).
With a Sales tax of 5%, for example, the public sees the full 5% applied to THEM at the cash register when they buy something; this is a reasonably honest interaction between vendor, government, and consumer.
With a VAT of 1%, for example, the public is easily tricked into supporting it with dishonest arguments like "it's ONLY 1%!!!" (which trick the public into thinking their cost will only go up by that deceptively offered 1%), but ends up paying FAR more. This also makes VATs the easiest of all taxes to raise and raise again, always with the argument that it's only a tiny increase. The 1% however gets applied to the raw materials, then to each component made from those materials, then again to each sub-assembly built from the already double-taxed components, then again to the triple-taxed parts as the product is assembled, then again to the product when it goes to distributors, then again when it goes to the store and then again when the consumer buys it. Most of this taxation gets hidden in the price tag of the product (so stupid gullible consumers will get mad at businesses rather than government and the moochers who depend on it).
The VAT is probably the most dishonest and deceptive scheme for government funding ever devised by man. It even distorts the marketplace by artificially distorting prices of products and services based on how many hands things pass through from raw material to end user; thus warping the cost/benefit ratio of various processes and employment situations. No free people should EVER support a VAT.
Yeah I never heard it called "Obamaphone" before this article.
Watch a little Fox "News" ...
Sorry. No, I won't. I don't watch "infotainment", and that includes both "news" programs from Fox and MSNBC, which both just try to confirm the existing biases of the people who are already in their target demographic. Well, that, and they manufacture "sound bites".
Unless you want to bring back real news programs, I'm entirely uninterested in current television "news".
Guess that explains how I missed that little "gem".
In the Reagan years, there were arguments about the then-ballooning social spending with many Democrats complaining that the poor could not be expected to look for and take jobs because many lacked phones and nearly every employer asked for phone numbers in job interviews. The Reagan administration responded by setting up a program that would provide a MINIMAL CAPACITY LAND LINE to the poor so they could accept employer phone calls and get off the backs of the tax payers.
The Reagan program was supposed to remove the excuse for why they were living off their neighbors. Those "lifeline" phones had a limited number of minutes per month and some did not even support making long-distance phones (i.e. the DID NOT give people who refused to work a benefit equal to that which hard working taxpayers were having to buy for themselves). Over the years, however, the Democrats in Washington simply added the lifeline phone service to the social welfare hammock they could offer their supporters in exchange for their votes. Now, under Obama (hence the moniker "Obamaphone") the government is handing out CELL PHONES. Nobody but the rich even HAD mobile phones in the 1980's, and many people with these Obamaphones have better phones and service than most of my older relatives have (they all are retired and save money by having dumb cell phones on very limited plans). There is something SERIOUSLY WRONG when beggers are given better stuff that hard working people can afford after decades of work and careful saving.
You lefties who DESPISED Reagan in the 80's always count on the ignorance of most of your readers/listeners when you trot out your "Reagan gave away phones" or "Reagan gave amnesty" etc arguments. Stop it. We who remember know how severely dishonest you are being. You have ZERO credibility to anybody with a functional brain.
Get rid of legal vote buying. Get rid of the cell phones also and put in some free pay phones. They can stand in line. When the populous votes themselves the treasury...
The Universal Service Fund to subsidize rural telephone service has been around since 1997 and guess who screams the loudest to demand those tax dollars? The "free market" will leave large portions of rural America with zero or super expensive telecom service if they are not subsidized by all the folks in the urban areas of the blue states,
As you recall, the FCC also just redefined the word "broadband" to mean service which costs $85-$105 per month.
Nonsense. In places with competition, it costs much less.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Under previous administrations it was considered a "Lifeline" for those who had no other alternative. Obama didn't change the assistance program itself, but he greatly expanded the number of people who can get a free cell phone. For that reason it became known as the Obamaphone and for that same reason the program is far bigger and more costly that was was under previous administrations.
County libraries near me are open until 6pm MWF and 8pm TR, along with all day Saturday. Plenty of opportunities to head over after work ... assuming you have a job (and if not, you can head over at 10am when they open to look for one.)
... so they get the $145 discounted unit provided by Comcast and their ilk. Then the end user will cruft it up by clicking on every "get rich quick" spam he received, so there's going to be a need for subsidised IT support services to de-cruft theise machines (because they're clasified as "essential services," they can't be denied.) And in the interim, the machines will end up participating in botnets, motivating Comcast (etc.) to petition for funds from Uncle Sugar to build out additional capability to support the increased network load. After all, it's only fair that the government pay for the additional traffic burden imposed by these Lifeline program machines.
But this is just incrementalism at play. To go with the subsidised net service, these poor folks will need a computer
Never seen a government program that didn't have a voracious appetite for cash. This one is no different.
Roads are paid for by fuel tax, vehicle tax and new vehicle tax. The actual spending on road construction and maintenance dwarfs these sources of income (at least in my country, but I doubt it is much different elsewhere).
Are you that fucking stupid or do you actually believe in your autistic mind that Libertarian = whatever you just tried to equate it to? Sigh. Pathetic.
Certainly it didn't occur to you that the million bucks you want to spend is coming from my family, whre I AM struggling to pay for my own college while supporting the family, while my wife waits for her turn to go to school when we can afford it. Then we hope to save up for our daughter to go to school.
(Violins playing)
Schmuck. You don't realize that 35 years ago, public colleges were free* or almost free around the country. City College in New York City was free, the University of California system was almost free, and state colleges around the country were almost free.
They turned out Nobel laureates and the innovators who created Silicon Valley. They paid back the cost of their education thousands of times over.
Your anti-tax politicians took that all away.
When I went to college, they paid me to attend. In Europe, college is still free, and many countries (like Finland) pay expenses as well. That's why you're competing with all those college-educated HB-1s.
Your wife wouldn't have to wait for you to graduate; you would have been able to go to school at the same time. I knew a lot of couples who did that.
Parents didn't worry about sending their kids to college. (Although they should have worried, because that system was coming to an end.)
Now that anti-tax madness has taken over, you have to pay for your college tuition at exorbitant, inflated, free-market levels. You're working like a slave. You have to go into debt. And unlike the big guys, you can't discharge your debt in bankruptcy.
____________
*Yes, they were paid out of taxes, because taxpayers realized that it was cheaper to pay $10,000 in taxes for free colleges than to pay $20,000 in private tuition. They realized it's better to pay taxes after you've graduated when you're using your skills and making a lot of money, than to pay tuition when you're in college and struggling. And "entrepreneurs" realized that when they wanted to expand a profitable business, they need a college-educated workforce, not low-paid illiterates. The tech companies were happy to pay taxes for education. College tuition is free, like he energy in a steam engine cycle is free: you get more energy out than you put into it.
Where are these places with competition? Certainly not in the US, which is the only place that matters, since that's the location this law is intended for.
"government handouts are the best way to distribute a good. See justice, fire protection and military defense for undisputed options"
Note that not one of your examples is actually a government "handout of a good". They are services provided generally, not as transfers to specific individuals.
"We're supposed to use the government to oversee the process
and keep it honest, make sure contracts are completed."
That's what the courts (contract/tort law) are for - a Department of Roadbuilding is not needed for that.
I say guarantee basic services (phone, basic cable, broadband), basic accommodations (place to live, food), and basic health (medical insurance) for those who need it. Provide life and job skills classes open to anyone who wants to attend. Make state university free of charge for those who qualify (via academic track record and testing), vocational training (plumbing, culinary, whatever) free for those who don't qualify for university.
Spread the housing across a given community, rather than concentrating it in one place, to prevent things like a project mentality and generational poverty mindset.
It would be vastly less expensive than the costs we pay for police, prison and emergency services, safer for everyone else, and overall reduce human suffering.
Most people would be happy to work an actual job and pay taxes in order to have "better than the bare minimum" for all of the above and the ability to do things like have food that isn't just staples, go on vacation, have more living space, etc.
For people who don't want more, or who can't work for more, at least this would keep them off of the streets to some extent, and keep them from getting so desperate they resort to crime just to survive.
I have zero problem with my taxes going to pay for such things because, not being an idiot, I'm aware that the alternative (what we have right now) is VASTLY more expensive by pretty much every metric.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
where do you live that 20mbps is 100$ a month?
calling BS on that one.
even in BFE Oklahoma we get that for only $20 a month.
My concern is would this Internet access be filtered, like access through libraries and schools is?
I charge forward recklessly, leaving chaos in my wake.
But, but, but, I HAVE to play Destiny at broadband speeds, I can't win in the Crucible on "DSL", how am I supposed to live my dream of being an internet-gaming-curcuit millionaire if I don't have the tools needed to prepare my skill set for the future jobs this country will need? It is a God Given In-Alienable RIGHT, to have a minimum of 10kb/s. download speed. Anything less is simply un-american!
'Merica!
Fuck Yeah!
Right?
Seems to me it's not the same, who aside from Moss sends an email when there's a fire or emergency? No you dial 911 or 999 depending on country or 0118 999 881 999 119 7253.
Let's also be clear you could not use a phone to look at porn.
Let's assume this is a good program, now where exactly will the funds come from for these underprivileged people to be able to afford computers? Will these be provided?
This is the straw that broke Perl's back.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Maybe you shouldn't have had a daughter that you couldn't afford. Lots of couples can both afford to go to school, because they aren't dealing with the cost and time a child requires. Why should I feel sorry for you because you decided you didn't like how condoms feel? Personal responsibility
Cells phones did not exist under Reagan & Verizon did not exist under Clinton!!! Obama phone is a gimmick to help & enrich Carlos Slim! Cronyism again...only from the most transparent prezidant in history, incompetent Obama.
This is why they're truly fighting the Title II reclassification.
The old POTS lines had to be deployed everywhere. The telecoms were not allowed to cherry-pick where they installed the services based on profit estimates for any given region. Up until now, this has pretty much been the standard with broadband penetration. They install where they believe the best profits can be made and to hell with everyone else. Not an issue if we had true competition, but in a monopolized region, it just screws everyone.
VOIP and Cellular is pretty much how we're going to be conversing remotely in the future. It is no secret the Telecoms are going to remove themselves from the POTS market completely as soon as they can. The copper plant the service utilizes is old and the costs to maintain it are quickly overtaking any profits derived from it.
Since broadband was reclassified, the existing DSL services no longer qualify as broadband so another solution will need to be engineered by the Telcos. This basically means quite a bit of money will need to be poured into this project in order to provide broadband capable services to those originally ignored by the telcos.
THIS is what scares them. Those super profits they've been used to every quarter are about to take a major hit and they know it. Thus, the lawsuits trying to stop the entire process. Too much money is at stake.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Schmuck. You don't realize that 35 years ago, public colleges were free...
Or maybe he does realize that, and you're the smug one sitting there with the "fuck you, I got mine" attitude. It's especially enlightening that you seem to think that those getting screwed by the current system somehow had anything to do with it becoming that way, when in fact it was the previous generation (i.e. YOURS) that made it so. If you want to blame someone, find a mirror.
Certainly it didn't occur to you that the million bucks you want to spend is coming from my family, whre I AM struggling to pay for my own college while supporting the family, while my wife waits for her turn to go to school when we can afford it. Then we hope to save up for our daughter to go to school.
(Violins playing)
Schmuck. You don't realize that 35 years ago, public colleges were free* or almost free around the country. City College in New York City was free, the University of California system was almost free, and state colleges around the country were almost free.
They turned out Nobel laureates and the innovators who created Silicon Valley. They paid back the cost of their education thousands of times over.
Your anti-tax politicians took that all away.
When I went to college, they paid me to attend. In Europe, college is still free, and many countries (like Finland) pay expenses as well. That's why you're competing with all those college-educated HB-1s.
Your wife wouldn't have to wait for you to graduate; you would have been able to go to school at the same time. I knew a lot of couples who did that.
Parents didn't worry about sending their kids to college. (Although they should have worried, because that system was coming to an end.)
Now that anti-tax madness has taken over, you have to pay for your college tuition at exorbitant, inflated, free-market levels. You're working like a slave. You have to go into debt. And unlike the big guys, you can't discharge your debt in bankruptcy.
____________
*Yes, they were paid out of taxes, because taxpayers realized that it was cheaper to pay $10,000 in taxes for free colleges than to pay $20,000 in private tuition. They realized it's better to pay taxes after you've graduated when you're using your skills and making a lot of money, than to pay tuition when you're in college and struggling. And "entrepreneurs" realized that when they wanted to expand a profitable business, they need a college-educated workforce, not low-paid illiterates. The tech companies were happy to pay taxes for education. College tuition is free, like he energy in a steam engine cycle is free: you get more energy out than you put into it.
The other thing about having your education paid from taxes is that the university only considers your ability in accepting you. In Finland, this is an unbiased assessment, as the high schools are fairly uniform here. Universities don't even look at your financial position or anything else. Same for graduate studies (Masters, Licenciate, or Doctorate) - they only consider whether you have what it takes.
Yes, I know Harvard and other big name universities in the US give grants to a few poor kids, but mostly they're looking at rich kid's ability to pay the fees.
Well, not to shit on your parade, but most elite schools in the US (Ivy, MIT, CalTech) agreed to use need-blind admissions. They then offer need-based scholarships. These have ranged from stupid (MIT told a friend of mine she didn't qualify because her parents could sell their house) to generous (Brown).
And the majority of kids at Ivy League schools are on some amount of assistance. And even if they weren't, tuition only covers like 1/3 of the cost... the rest is borne by alumni/endowments.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
The end result of Libertarianism is economic slavery for the underclasses. Libertarianism is "the freedom to starve."
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"Use a library!"
"But they closed all the libraries due to public spending cuts. They said everyone already had smartphones!"
"So use your smartphone!"
"While Fox News said Obama was handing out free iPhones the reality is that it's not actually a smartphone"
Also, if you read the article (I know, I know, who has time for that before coming here to lay out their highly informed and expert opinion), you'd see that the money is not an "increased" expenditure, it's just a provision to allow the already allocated funds to be used for more than simply a landline since the legislation was written during the Reagan era and doesn't explicitly mention broadband for some reason. You think they'd have written it in if they meant for your precious taxes to be used for it, but such as it is. I can't think why they'd need to review the documentation.
and you understand that government mandated loans drove the cost of those schools up right?
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Really? Name calling? Let's see how that works for you...Idiot! Go get a real education.
Your logic is faulty (comparing supposedly 'not-for-profit' community college to 'for profit' private college) & claiming college was/is 'free' for what really amounts to 'paid for by someone else or by your future expected earnings' is disingenuous. TANSTAAFL! Notihng is free (ok. maybe air but even that's debateable), someone is paying. And if it is the expectation that the rest of us pay for someone's tuition today under the premise that the individual will 'pay it back' through their future earnings then the equivalence is that the individual has a 'debt obligation' no different than a loan (at an interest rate to account for inflation. Since if it was out of taxes the taxes go up with inflation as salaries increase & even tuition goes up with inflation). Seriously whether the $10K tuition for a community college comes direct from the government (under the expectation that the individual will pay back this 'loan' via future taxes) or from the individual who takes out the loan it is still $10K! Not 20K!
If a student chooses to take out a $20K loan to go to a private college & then can't get a job or can't get a good enough job to pay back their debt obligation perhaps that student shouldn't have gone to a private institution, perhaps they should have taken out a $10K loan and gone to that 'low-cost community college' since surely the cost of the education @ the community college can't depend on who is giving them the money (the government or the student).
Oddly, Education is the one thing I"m 'willing' to pay taxes on, at least up through high-school since I do believe that a 'well educated populice is important for the security of a nation'. But I'm not stupid about it either. If an education at a 'community college' costs $10K then its $10K whether its directy from the governmeent or via a student under a student loan. Furthermore subsidizing a higher level education for people to take degrees for which there are no jobs or no sufficiently high-paying jobs doesn't make the nation more 'secure' or ensure the taxes I pay today will be 'repaid' by that student in the future.
By the time someone decides to go to college they should be sufficiently 'self aware' of their expectations for being a 'productive member of society' that they understand that whether giving them a loan to go to college or that paying for it out of taxes we'll recoup from them later amounts to exactly the same thing. But in fact they don't, so giving them the loan directly demonstrates that they have a 'debt obligation' that they 'must' pay back. If they make poor choices in where they spend that money (private or community college) that is their own damn fault & no I'm not willing to 'subsidize' someone's poor choices.
Now, what this has to do with 'subsidizing broadband' I have no idea, but if you're going to call a guy a 'Schmuck' for busting his ass to better himself under the full expectation he has for becoming a 'productive member of society' and 'paying his own way'...in my books that makes you an idiot.
When's the last time you applied for an entry level position that didn't require specialized skills? Local managers can't even talk to people w/out going through central HR and guess what, everything has to be submitted through the HR portal.
Wallmart and places used to have terminals setup in store for this but those are long gone - or still sitting there broken and never fixed.
You can talk to the manager all you want but they can't accept applications, there is no paper application and they really need to you to log into the company HR portal and apply like everyone else.
and you understand that government mandated loans drove the cost of those schools up right?
That's right.
It's cheap to have the government set up a school like City College and pay the costs directly.
It's much more expensive to have the government give (or loan) people money, and tell them to buy their education from the private sector in the free market.
so there were no roads in america prior to the 16th amendment establishing an income tax????
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Okay, yeah. That's gonna work super well with the company I'm applying to that outsources their HR services to another firm...
In inflation-adjusted dollars, how much in state funding did public higher education institutions receive in 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, and finally, 2015?
Watch where you go there. Next thing you know the socialists will be saying "you're absolutely correct. There should be government provided basic broad band for everyone" (but you can pay for more if you want).
Which is true even if a company 'requires' submitting a resume on-line. In which case the latter can be handled in a number of ways like encouraging 'free public terminals' at government buildings, not-for-profits or Starbucks/McDonalds (as a 'good corporate citizen' as opposed to Starbuck's program to 'talk to customers about racism') or as I noticed at Smiths provide a terminal IN THE STORE for people to submit a job application...why isn't the government stumping for that for every business like this to do? It's a trivial amount of money for any company 'requiring submission on line' to provide access to a computer/terminal to complete the job application while you're there & encourages people to go to the place of business to meet the local manager etc., shake their hand, look them in the eye & tell them how much you can do for them or at least make sure they know your a 'person' not a 'resume'.
Telling people that 'we only accept submissions online' is just a way to get them out of your hair.
Or even the idea that everyone needs a cellphone 'just in case' they miss that 'inevitable call with a job offer' doesn't encourage job seeking. What's wrong with simply telling a manager 'I'm sorry, I know this is an inconvenience for you but I don't have a cellphone at this time, but I really would like to work for you & I'll be home between the hours of x & y & you can call me then or I'd be more than happy to follow up with you in a day or two".
In other words, what's so freakin' bad about admitting you don't have everything 'everyone' (the inevitable 'everyone but me') has? And encouraging job seekers to go in person & employers not to just fob off everyone as a 'resume' would do far more good then just subsidizing broad band.
No, No, No, No, No!
Stop giving the drug dealers and those who refuse to work benefits! Make them earn it!!
This administration is so backwards and are intent upon destroying the USA!!
In the US, for example, the sales tax applies only one time at the point of sale, NOT at every intermediate "wholesale" stage. American businesses have Taxpayer IDs that they use to identify themselves to vendors and then their purchases from those vendors are not taxed if the thing purchased is going to be re-sold at retail. Apparently some countries apply the sales tax at every stage since that is the only way to explain the whacko Wiki page.
As for the VAT not compounding, that too is deceptive on Wiki for many reasons but one is the usual dupe-the-simple-minded garbage: as the base value of something rises, the "value added" effect multiplies. When a manufacturer claims to add 1% to the value of an item that costs him 100 Euros, and then the cost of that thing rises to 120 Euros, most manufacturers will still claim that they add 1% to the value (it's human nature to resist certifying that you add less value to things with your labor than you used to add). If the VAT truly only taxed the value added at each step, nobody would implement it; it would provide no better income to government in exchange for a huge increase in tax collection and processing overhead thus making it horribly inefficient for any economy.
I was in the military in the Reagan years and am perfectly aware of the fact that inflation exists and things are more expensive now, but your perception seems to be that of a relatively young (Gen-Y?) person who has not yet learned the value of work and money.
I had a regular landline phone back then (not a free Reagan-era "lifeline" phone) and I paid approx $14.00 per month. Today I have a basic cell phone from Verizon with about 400 minutes per month for $49 (and change). I pay about 400% of what I did in the 80's in exchange for less usage (but accept that as a trade-off for mobility) but this is still far beyond the baseline of inflation for the past 30 years. Most of my older relatives do indeed have cell phones contrary to your assumption that old geezers prefer stone tablets, and I know two of them you pay about $100 per month to Verizon for their plans (not for deluxe features but for talk time).
If these new "Obama [cell]phones" were going to be the approximation of the Reagan-era "lifeline phones" they should only have basic calling functions (place a call, get a call), no long-distance connection, no other function, no GPS, no texting, no games, no camera, no web browsing, and perhaps 60 minutes per month of talk time. As such, they should cost maybe $20 a month. That's NOT what Obama is providing; this is NOTHING like the Reagan-era dirt-cheap and highly-limited lifeline phone program which was never intended to let poor people jabber on the phone with their friends and relatives on the backs of their hard-working neighbors. THAT program was just to get people a phone so employers and perspective employers could call them; they were expected to get OFF the program once they got regular paychecks and could afford to pay for their own fully-capable phones (NOBODY was supposed to stay with lifeline service) for the long-term. When you make give-aways too comfortable, people get hooked on them and they won't want to become self-reliant.
It's fundamentally evil to take from people who work and save in order to give BETTER stuff to people who refuse to work and save.
"The best way to get a job is to show up in person, hand someone a resume, and talk with them."
That used to be the best way. The way a job search today works is spending hours on the internet filling in all sorts of forms, your life history, your banking info, etc. etc.
See subject: From http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ?
Your "DNS lookup" b.s.? 1st: Blocking ads gains speed!
2nd: Hosts exceed SLOWER remote DNS lookup (prone to exploit via Kaminsky redirect flaw which 99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it!)
I avoid it PUTTING WHERE I SPEND 95%++ OF TIME ONLINE @ TOP OF MY HOSTS FILE via 30 favs - Exceeding remote DNS indexed lookup lag after query/turnaround for resolution (do the math binary search) over 3++ million records w/ most efficient blocking format = better loadspeed + internal parse & no bloat in hosts cached in LOCAL system RAM via 2 kernelmode subsystems (diskcache & ip stack = no context switch overhead to usermode) vs. remote DNS for utmost in speed, efficiency + reliability (my program keeps hardcodes current) vs. downed DNS too.
Remote DNS matches hosts abilities not efficiency or speed = inferior for home users!
* Hosts gain MORE SPEED + EFFICIENCY & ease of maintenance (via http://start64.com/index.php?o...) vs.:
1.) Remote DNS & w/ less resource use + added on apps complexity/room for breakdown & exploit w/ added resource + CPU & power use w/ a local setup DNS (worse if separate system) & complexity of deny rules vs. hosts simple entries
+
2.) "Almost ALL Ads Blocked": Hosts do so more efficiently doing more vs. AdBlock's BLOAT & regex complexity vs. hosts simple entries + addons add overheads layered over slower browsers in usermode increasing messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode (run some addons concurrently see what I mean) + other I/O operations involved in addons + memory + CPU overuse + complexity (regex vs. hosts entries) bolted-on in SLOW usemode vs. hosts in PURE kernelmode via a high cpu serviced layer of operation by IP stack. Addons = easily detected by native browser methods + clarityray shutting 'em down (hosts aren't).
APK
P.S.=> Hosts != bribed = AdBlock/ABP to NOT DO 1 JOB IT HAD by default... apk
See subject: From http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ?
Your "DNS lookup" b.s.? 1st: Blocking ads gains speed!
2nd: Hosts exceed SLOWER remote DNS lookup (prone to exploit via Kaminsky redirect flaw which 99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it!)
I avoid it PUTTING WHERE I SPEND 95%++ OF TIME ONLINE @ TOP OF MY HOSTS FILE via 30 favs - Exceeding remote DNS indexed lookup lag after query/turnaround for resolution (do the math binary search) over 3++ million records w/ most efficient blocking format = better loadspeed + internal parse & no bloat in hosts cached in LOCAL system RAM via 2 kernelmode subsystems (diskcache & ip stack = no context switch overhead to usermode) vs. remote DNS for utmost in speed, efficiency + reliability (my program keeps hardcodes current) vs. downed DNS too.
Remote DNS matches hosts abilities not efficiency or speed = inferior for home users!
* Hosts gain MORE SPEED + EFFICIENCY & ease of maintenance (via http://start64.com/index.php?o...) vs.:
1.) Remote DNS & w/ less resource use + added on apps complexity/room for breakdown & exploit w/ added resource + CPU & power use w/ a local setup DNS (worse if separate system) & complexity of deny rules vs. hosts simple entries
+
2.) "Almost ALL Ads Blocked": Hosts do so more efficiently doing more vs. AdBlock's BLOAT & regex complexity vs. hosts simple entries + addons add overheads layered over slower browsers in usermode increasing messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode (run some addons concurrently see what I mean) + other I/O operations involved in addons + memory + CPU overuse + complexity (regex vs. hosts entries) bolted-on in SLOW usemode vs. hosts in PURE kernelmode via a high cpu serviced layer of operation by IP stack. Addons = easily detected by native browser methods + clarityray shutting 'em down (hosts aren't).
APK
P.S.=> Hosts != bribed = AdBlock/ABP to NOT DO 1 JOB IT HAD by default... apk
See subject: From http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ?
Your "DNS lookup" b.s.? 1st: Blocking ads gains speed!
2nd: Hosts exceed SLOWER remote DNS lookup (prone to exploit via Kaminsky redirect flaw which 99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it!)
I avoid it PUTTING WHERE I SPEND 95%++ OF TIME ONLINE @ TOP OF MY HOSTS FILE via 30 favs - Exceeding remote DNS indexed lookup lag after query/turnaround for resolution (do the math binary search) over 3++ million records w/ most efficient blocking format = better loadspeed + internal parse & no bloat in hosts cached in LOCAL system RAM via 2 kernelmode subsystems (diskcache & ip stack = no context switch overhead to usermode) vs. remote DNS for utmost in speed, efficiency + reliability (my program keeps hardcodes current) vs. downed DNS too.
Remote DNS matches hosts abilities not efficiency or speed = inferior for home users!
* Hosts gain MORE SPEED + EFFICIENCY & ease of maintenance (via http://start64.com/index.php?o...) vs.:
1.) Remote DNS & w/ less resource use + added on apps complexity/room for breakdown & exploit w/ added resource + CPU & power use w/ a local setup DNS (worse if separate system) & complexity of deny rules vs. hosts simple entries
+
2.) "Almost ALL Ads Blocked": Hosts do so more efficiently doing more vs. AdBlock's BLOAT & regex complexity vs. hosts simple entries + addons add overheads layered over slower browsers in usermode increasing messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode (run some addons concurrently see what I mean) + other I/O operations involved in addons + memory + CPU overuse + complexity (regex vs. hosts entries) bolted-on in SLOW usemode vs. hosts in PURE kernelmode via a high cpu serviced layer of operation by IP stack. Addons = easily detected by native browser methods + clarityray shutting 'em down (hosts aren't).
APK
P.S.=> Hosts != bribed = AdBlock/ABP to NOT DO 1 JOB IT HAD by default... apk
See subject: From http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ?
Your "DNS lookup" b.s.? 1st: Blocking ads gains speed!
2nd: Hosts exceed SLOWER remote DNS lookup (prone to exploit via Kaminsky redirect flaw which 99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it!)
I avoid it PUTTING WHERE I SPEND 95%++ OF TIME ONLINE @ TOP OF MY HOSTS FILE via 30 favs - Exceeding remote DNS indexed lookup lag after query/turnaround for resolution (do the math binary search) over 3++ million records w/ most efficient blocking format = better loadspeed + internal parse & no bloat in hosts cached in LOCAL system RAM via 2 kernelmode subsystems (diskcache & ip stack = no context switch overhead to usermode) vs. remote DNS for utmost in speed, efficiency + reliability (my program keeps hardcodes current) vs. downed DNS too.
Remote DNS matches hosts abilities not efficiency or speed = inferior for home users!
* Hosts gain MORE SPEED + EFFICIENCY & ease of maintenance (via http://start64.com/index.php?o...) vs.:
1.) Remote DNS & w/ less resource use + added on apps complexity/room for breakdown & exploit w/ added resource + CPU & power use w/ a local setup DNS (worse if separate system) & complexity of deny rules vs. hosts simple entries
+
2.) "Almost ALL Ads Blocked": Hosts do so more efficiently doing more vs. AdBlock's BLOAT & regex complexity vs. hosts simple entries + addons add overheads layered over slower browsers in usermode increasing messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode (run some addons concurrently see what I mean) + other I/O operations involved in addons + memory + CPU overuse + complexity (regex vs. hosts entries) bolted-on in SLOW usemode vs. hosts in PURE kernelmode via a high cpu serviced layer of operation by IP stack. Addons = easily detected by native browser methods + clarityray shutting 'em down (hosts aren't).
APK
P.S.=> Hosts != bribed = AdBlock/ABP to NOT DO 1 JOB IT HAD by default... apk
See subject: From http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ?
Your "DNS lookup" b.s.? 1st: Blocking ads gains speed!
2nd: Hosts exceed SLOWER remote DNS lookup (prone to exploit via Kaminsky redirect flaw which 99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it!)
I avoid it PUTTING WHERE I SPEND 95%++ OF TIME ONLINE @ TOP OF MY HOSTS FILE via 30 favs - Exceeding remote DNS indexed lookup lag after query/turnaround for resolution (do the math binary search) over 3++ million records w/ most efficient blocking format = better loadspeed + internal parse & no bloat in hosts cached in LOCAL system RAM via 2 kernelmode subsystems (diskcache & ip stack = no context switch overhead to usermode) vs. remote DNS for utmost in speed, efficiency + reliability (my program keeps hardcodes current) vs. downed DNS too.
Remote DNS matches hosts abilities not efficiency or speed = inferior for home users!
* Hosts gain MORE SPEED + EFFICIENCY & ease of maintenance (via http://start64.com/index.php?o...) vs.:
1.) Remote DNS & w/ less resource use + added on apps complexity/room for breakdown & exploit w/ added resource + CPU & power use w/ a local setup DNS (worse if separate system) & complexity of deny rules vs. hosts simple entries
+
2.) "Almost ALL Ads Blocked": Hosts do so more efficiently doing more vs. AdBlock's BLOAT & regex complexity vs. hosts simple entries + addons add overheads layered over slower browsers in usermode increasing messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode (run some addons concurrently see what I mean) + other I/O operations involved in addons + memory + CPU overuse + complexity (regex vs. hosts entries) bolted-on in SLOW usemode vs. hosts in PURE kernelmode via a high cpu serviced layer of operation by IP stack. Addons = easily detected by native browser methods + clarityray shutting 'em down (hosts aren't).
APK
P.S.=> Hosts != bribed = AdBlock/ABP to NOT DO 1 JOB IT HAD by default... apk
I can see that having a land line for 911 and employment calls might be a necessity, but a cell phone, give me a break.
America is supposed to be a land of opportunuty.
If you are honestly working to better yourself, then I'm more than willing to help out.
But if you just want a handout to goof off, then I'd rather my money be spent so I can goof off.
Why should I work to pay for your leisure time?
One fundamental thing that is limited is our time here in this life.
While some like work, time off to to do other things is a valuable, limited resource.
I envy folks that manage to have to whole day free to do as they please.
Can someone please explain why the social contract should be that I work so that others who are able to work don't have to?
20 Mbps isn't broadband, under the administrations new rules. The subsidies start at 25 Mbps in rural areas and the plan is to require at least 100 Mbps. Can you get 100 Mbps for $20? Probably not, but if you you slacked off in high school, you'll be able to get it and have someone else pay for it now.
If not, then just let them use their existing free cell phone as a WiFi hot spot with a restricted data plan.
I have been paying taxes for many years (longer than most have been living), and can't get broadband where I live without excessive fees ($20K to $40K for install depending on when I ask) from cable companies, and the phone company says 'no', we don't serve you. Even land line modems are at best 20kbaud, where it worked nicely at 56kbaud where I was before I moved here. (The copper has degraded since then too.) And we all have been paying about $0.50/month for each line so that 'rural' areas can get broadband and good phone service since the 1980's. (That money is federally allowed, but not REQUIRED to be put into rural infrastructure, like the law was advertised that it was to be used for. The money is also not forwarded to the governments, but retained by phone line providers for more profit, IMHO.) So I say NO to 'free obama-band' till you live up to what you already 'provided for' in statutes that are already in place.
... "When you pry the source from my cold dead hands."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Roads are for the public good. I haven't seen anyone pony up to pay my phone bills. I bet you're one of those Bush/Obama nuts that thinks spying on everyone makes us safer.
I don't have a car, I do pay $83/mo for unlimited transit in the county,
That's fine if you happen to live somewhere that offers at least some minimal level of bus service on Sundays and holidays. My city does not (source: fwcitilink.com).
Public internet access can be provided at the library.
If you're already working, and the library and other government offices are closed for the evening or for the weekend when you're off work, good luck using the Internet terminal in the library or other government office to find a better job. Same with public transit that stops running for the evening or for the weekend.
Any NEW pregnancies while on assistance must be aborted (it'll be free)
And watch the single-issue pro-life base in the United States of America vote the murderers out of office.
My nearest library is...3 miles away. Not too bad. Except there are almost no sidewalks the whole way.
That's 15 minutes on a bicycle there and 15 minutes back. Some people in my home town cycle farther just to donate their blood plasma. How much do an entry-level bicycle and a helmet cost?
But does the U.S. government provide a means-tested subsidy for relocation using Greyhound buses, as a means of promoting interstate commerce when the supply and demand for labor happen to be in different states? That would be closer to "Obamacars".
County libraries near me are open until 6pm MWF
So how should someone who gets off work at 5:00 catch a bus there and have time to do any substantial self-education or search for a better job? Using the Internet only on Tuesday evenings and Thursday evenings isn't very helpful because potential employers who send a message on Friday morning usually expect a reply before Tuesday night.
along with all day Saturday
The county library branch near me is closed on Saturdays from late May through the end of August. (Source: acpl.info)
Toll collection has proven itself practical for highways but not for city streets.
Wallmart and places used to have terminals setup in store for this but those are long gone - or still sitting there broken and never fixed.
Then be a squeaky wheel. Call the manager daily and recite the following script each time: "Hi, my name is [name], and I am interested in working at [address of store]. I noticed that the employment application terminal at that store was out of service on [date of last visit]. Has it been fixed yet?"