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".
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!
The reason for income tax, vs a VAT or consumption tax, is the incentives and disincentives. The VAT incentive is to redirect consumptions to necessities and investment and disincentive is against luxuries by increasing the prices. However, there is only so much you can spend money on, so wealth can slowly accumulate and the tax is ultimately regressive due to its nature at high enough incomes. Income taxes main incentive is on consumption and investment, as the tax is only realized when money is taken out and the disincentive is on labor by decreasing the wages. However, there is only so much income you need so wealth can slowly accumulate and the tax is ultimately regressive as higher incomes can convert their income to other things. Really, the supply-side U.S. would never switch because, as you mentioned, it is easier to game but also, they love their luxuries.
Tax me. I just got a bmw. I can afford it.
All of downtown Seattle is wired for Broadband. If your building isn't wired, it's isn't because the cable companies. Be really hard for all the business there to just use dial up. And seeing as I've known people who has lived in the various parts of downtown Seattle, and they all have broadband, even the crappy places.
I'm not a fan of the cable companies or the monopolies, but I don't understand this need to lie.
Be seeing you...
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.
The point of tax isn't to punish people for being rich. It's to fund needed state operations as defined by its charter. In the case of the US, the state has greatly exceeded that charter. The last thing we need is yet another tax that reenforces this behavior. It's time washington works within a budget like everyone else. Once those ivy league lawyer brats learn to do that, then we can talk about what is needed and what isn't.
no, its because your telecom company is lying to you. those fees are part of the true cost, but they separate them out. they could charge you an electricity fee, and a building rental fee, and a lunch for executives fee if they wanted. but those wont score poli points. you plumber could charge you a "damn your shit stinks fee" if he wanted, and exclude it from his advertised fee. its a loophole. and your dumb ass fell for it. dont vote, you are not qualified.
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.
It's time Washington works within a budget like everyone else.
Yet we vote out every politician who offers to balance the budget by raising taxes, vote in every politician who promises to expand services without a word on balancing the budget, and borrow trillions of dollars to maintain the status quo. If you want to change Washington, look in the mirror.
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.
When you spend more than you make, do you force your employer to give you a raise to cover the difference? No, you spend less. Its called living within your means, and you have zero understanding of what that means. Just because the government can alter its means to support its lifestyle does not mean that its a good idea.
> 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.
Trust me it's really popular to call new sources of revenue (or old ones renamed and raised) as "fees" rather than taxes. That way politicians get to proclaim in their campaigns that they've never voted to raise "taxes". Sure your bill is higher, but it's the "fees", not more taxes.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
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!”
You don't punish abuse of the credit card by upping the credit limit. You take it away and make the debtor work it off. In this case, I'd like to see this done to the institutional debtors, public or private, who've not paid back what was given to them by corrupt politicians who had no problem bilking taxpayers. Having those politicians serve some jail time wouldn't hurt either.
Its called living within your means, and you have zero understanding of what that means.
When I was out of work for eight months last year, I got a new job but it wouldn't start for another month and the rent was due. I went to the credit union, filled out a loan application and showed them my employment contract. Three days later I got a loan for $2,500 @ 9% interest. I paid my rent, started my job. Almost a year later, I'm about half-way through paying off my loan, saving 21% of my monthly paycheck and getting a raise with my next contract renewal. So I think I know to live with my means.
Just because the government can alter its means to support its lifestyle does not mean that its a good idea.
If we treat a national budget the same way as a personal budget, the economy would collapse into another Great Depression. Europe tried to cut back, suffered back-to-back recessions, and are now buying bonds to inject liquidity into the system. The U.S. could have done a lot more to turn the economy around if wasn't for people like you who insisted on tightening the belt around our collective necks.
...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.
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.
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.
You cannot regularly exceed your budget and expect to remain operational. Governments are no exception. The problem here is that the politicians running things are borrowing on the backs of the taxpayer, not on their own.
If you're talking about the federal debt limit, which most people mistakenly refer to as a credit limit, it limits how many bonds the Treasury can issue to refinance existing debt obligations. The debt limit doesn't prevent Congress from spending like drunken sailors. If the debt limit isn't periodically raised to pay the bills that Congress already rung up on the charge card, the government will default on the debt and the world-wide economy collapses from a worthless U.S. dollar. This almost happened when the government shutdown for 16 days in 2013.
Every tax and fee government imposes on businesses are passed on to the customers.
Ken
Why should I pay an additional amount so that other people can get broadband, cable TV and phones for free?
So they'll keep voting Democrat.
> 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.
You cannot regularly exceed your budget and expect to remain operational. Governments are no exception.
The United State has historically been in debt since the 1790's. If you look at the graph, we spent far more money in World War II than we did to turn around the Great Recession. The graph also shows that the debt will be going up as the baby boomers retire and the tax base (workers) shrinks over the next 20 years, where mandatory spending (social security) will consume 2/3 of the federal budget. The Republicans are talking about balancing the budget in 10 years, but their balanced budget plan doesn't fix the problem in 20 years from now.
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).
The US made its revenue for centuries from taxing goods coming from abroad.
That, and selling off land that the indigenous people were forcibly removed from.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
The point of tax isn't to punish people for being rich.
No, it's to punish people for being middle class and striving to do better. I was never rich and never will be, but every time I made a little more money I paid a lot more tax. Work overtime for extra money when incremental taxes are 40%+? (It's easy to get there with Social Security and Medicare tax, state tax, and federal tax; you don't have to be a high earner). You reach a "why bother" point where being productive is counterproductive.
Issuing bonds isn't a problem. Saving Wall Street from its own mistake is a problem, especially for the banks that believe they're too big too fail. Banks that screw up should fail and suffer the consequences.
> there are about fifty buildings in the Seattle area with CondoInternet,
And, I just moved into one of them. It's $3,300 per month for a two bedroom place, but it's worth every penny since I can work from home four days per week and avoid driving across Lake Washington. I was paying less than that for an entire house near Madison Park near the Arboretum, but I could only get dialup there. That meant I couldn't get our VPN to connect much less get Remote Desktop working. Because of the number of foreclosures, empty houses bought by the Chinese as investments, renters, retired people that won't sign anything, etc., it was impossible to get the required minimum of 60% yes votes as required by Seattle's Director's Rules to get Comcast's pedestals approved. It was simply impossible despite years of trying by the neighborhood association.
If you have the money, you can get faster than dial-up in Seattle, but it costs an arm and a leg.
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.
Debts and budgets are not contradictory. You can have debt AND have a balanced budget.
Organizations, businesses, individuals, even governments do it. They take on debt, get loans or bonds or other money, and have a budget to pay the principle and interest in a certain period of time. Many states even have balanced budget provisions in their state constitutions and routinely get some debt for capital funds to build new schools, zoos, parks, and more; then they make payments and after a few years fulfill the debt obligations. They have debt and a balanced budget.
What groups cannot do is survive in the long term with a budget deficit. When your expenses exceed your income for enough time, eventually your resources will dwindle and fail. That applies to individuals, to businesses, and to governments.
Deficit spending works for a while when you have money in the bank, and it works when you have other resources available to offset the money. You can have debt but still afford to make payments on the loan. But in the long term eventually the groups will reach the critical point where they cannot afford the debt payments, and the US is rapidly reaching the critical tipping point.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
If you stress yourself into a bunch of medical problems working 60 hour weeks, you end up costing more money. Perhaps it's good to encourage people to work smarter not harder. In general, when they're the same number of hours, higher paying jobs are actually less stressful than entry level jobs -- so people have non-financial incentive to move up.
This space intentionally left blank
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
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".
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...
I was never rich and never will be, but every time I made a little more money I paid a lot more tax. Work overtime for extra money when incremental taxes are 40%+?
That is because we're taxing the wrong things. Earned income is not the lion's share of income in the US, and it tends to be the main source of income for people who have limited means.
But, the folks who pay income tax can't afford armies of lobbyists so that is where the taxes fall.
Just make the tax rate something like 0% below $50k/yr, 10% from $50-100k, 20% from $100k-500k, and then have it go up exponentially from there. Somebody making $1M/yr might have a 40% tax, somebody making $10M/yr might have an 80% tax, somebody making $100M/yr might have a 90% tax, somebody making $1B/yr might have a 99% tax, and so on.
Another option is to just tax all money transactions. Anytime money changes hands just charge 0.1% or something like that. For the poor, they'll end up paying an unintended 0.2% tax on the money they make and spend. Something like the financial sector will pay a much higher effective rate, and that is something like a third of the economy.
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.
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.
When you spend more than you make, do you force your employer to give you a raise to cover the difference? No, you spend less. Its called living within your means, and you have zero understanding of what that means. Just because the government can alter its means to support its lifestyle does not mean that its a good idea.
So when you want to buy a house, you don't take out a loan and go into debt. You save up the money in the bank until you can buy it in cash, because you're living within your means.
If everybody was like you, they wouldn't be selling many houses.
Can't the US just print some dollars to pay the debt payments? I would think we'd only hit a wall when people stop buying new debt offerings. I mean, all the debt we already have is stipulated to be paid in dollars only, so we could just create, what, several "Trillion Dollar Coins" and pay it all off tomorrow. That would be a horrible idea because inflation and a likely immediate junk rating for all US bonds, but it could be done.
The US isn't going to be unable to pay the installment... Stop thinking of the govt like a personal checkbook.
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
"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.
Please. the government isn't even close to living outside its means. Extreme deficits only came about because politicians started to insist on cutting taxes. This country had no trouble paying for everything the government did, even while providing almost precisely the same services and social programs we currently do. and the economy and the average citizen not only was doing fine, but was more prosperous than he is today, even with the higher tax burden.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
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.
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!
Except in the real world, each step adds the cost of the tax to their final price. That sum of taxes is ultimately paid by the person buying the final product.
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!
I know it isn't a personal checkbook, but that does not mean money can be printed with impunity.
While in the short term it pays the bill, it does so by deflating the currency, reducing international purchasing power, harming businesses that rely on international trade (which is almost everyone these days), triggering money market changes. In practice countries who attempt that type of manipulation for significant values quickly approach currency collapse. Short term it may seem like a strategy, but long term even a small amount of that destabilizes governments. Small adjustments cause nasty ripple effects through global currency markets and exchange rates, and anything more than tiny adjustments leads to a death spiral. It can take decades to fully recover.
When the US played that game nineteen months ago, not only were global currency markets disrupted and the US buying power significantly decreased by far more money than the debts adjusted, it also resulted in the nation's credit ratings dropping and the rates paid on short-term money increased.
If the congress critters and federal reserve attempt it again this decade we probably would see an even larger drop in global parity. So while they COULD authorize and generate some "trillion dollar coins" to resolve it, the results would be disastrous for both the national and the global economy.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
"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
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.
Why don't you just pay off the loan as fast as possible? It sounds rather waseful to pay a huge interest when you have mony to put in your savings account.
As part of my loan agreement, I had to direct my paycheck not only into my checking account, but also savings and Roth IRA accounts. My combined accounts now greatly exceed what owe on the loan. I could have paid off the 9% loan, but it's not a burden for me to continue paying off on schedule. This isn't like have a 30% credit card debt.
Then why didn't you have a year's worth of expenses on a savings account?
Because I haven't recovered from being unemployed for two years (2009-2010), underemployed for six months (working 20 hours PER MONTH), and filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2011. It's hard to build up a cash reserve when you make just enough money to pay the bills but not enough to get ahead. Most of my contract jobs varied in length and pay between brief bouts of unemployments. I'm fortunate that my current job is "permanent" with annual contract renewals for the next four years.
The European countries that tried to balance their budgets during the recession are now recovering nicely and are able to lower taxes. Those that did not are still in trouble.
The European countries that printed their own currency are doing fine. The countries that are tied together with the Euro are still struggling from their double dip recession. Greece is most likely to abandon the Euro. Who knows what will happen after that.
and heres how it really works
For example, start with a lump of iron ore.
Bob digs it out of the ground, sells to Pete. Pete pays the closest to a traditional sales tax, cause the value added is the value of going from nothing to something. Pete smelts it into iron, and sells it to Bob.
Bob pays tax for the value added to the lump by turning it from a lump of ore into a lump of metal. In addition to adding in the cost of the tax paid on the lump initially.
Bob works that iron into a shovel head, and sells it to Bob. Bob pays tax for the value added by turning it from a lump of metal into a shovel head, in addition to the cost to make the iron, and the price to dig it up. (which he then uses to dig up more ore).
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
if true, why not just print off 100 grand for each american at the start of each year, its only money right?
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Another option is to just tax all money transactions. Anytime money changes hands just charge 0.1% or something like that. For the poor, they'll end up paying an unintended 0.2% tax on the money they make and spend. Something like the financial sector will pay a much higher effective rate, and that is something like a third of the economy.
I support fully. I even posted it on /. a few times before. If we taxed all transactions a nickel, we could raise as much money as we do now, while at the same time limiting the sting of the taxes. When you include bank transactions (think all those HFT bankers) its enormous
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
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
The U.S. Mint has the legal authority to produce enough $1T coins to deposit with the Treasury and pay off the entire national debt. This was one option considered during the 2013 government shutdown. Although perfectly legal under the U.S. Constitution, it would undermine the world-wide confidence in the full trust and credit of the American people.
For instance, you took out a loan on 'future income', similarly the government can budget based on their expectation of 'future income' (taxes but really tied to 'GDP').
The previous poster accused me of not understanding how to live within my means when all I did was pointed out how voters behaved at the voting booth. My personal example was to dispute that point. Seems like some /. posters are resisting the idea of taking personal responsibility at the voting booth, which of course goes back to wanting more government services while someone else pays for it.
It's called Keynesian economics. A 1930's work program to fix America's crumbling infrastructure would do wonders for the economy. Please educate yourself and pick up a shovel.
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.
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
How does that strategy work for places like Argentina, Venezuela, and Greece? History is littered with failed States that tried that as a long term strategy. You can't just create wealth by fiat.
Now if you really wanted to create a true analogy, go get a loan every month, and use a portion to pay off the previous month's debt. How long do you think you could do that? There's a difference between short term borrowing, and running constant debt.
Keynesian economics don't work. You can't create something from nothing. If 1 dollar in infrastructure spending gives you $1.50 in return, why stop at 700 billion? How about 100 trillion in infrastructure spending? 1930's make work programs, amongst other things, turned a run of the mill recession into the great depression.
WTF? Do you like paying interest? If you can pay it off, stop paying for your banker's new Mercedes. You need the money more than s/he does.
Take out credit cards and file for bankruptcy every ten years.
You can't create something from nothing.
Under the fractional reserve banking, a bank can loan out $100 for every $10 on deposit. That $100 is a bookkeeper entry that created money out of nothing. The bank pays you 0.10% on your savings, charge charge someone else 9% on the loan, and keeps the 8.90% difference as profit.
1930's make work programs, amongst other things, turned a run of the mill recession into the great depression
Cutting spending and balancing the budget in the middle of a recession prolonged the Great Depression, which also caused the double dip recession in Europe for those countries tied to the Euro during the Great Recession. Today's politicians have no excuse for ignoring the lessons of Keynesian economics. Much of the human suffering over the last six years could have easily been avoided.
I don't mind helping my local credit union make a profit since they provide excellent service for a lower cost and less stress than the "too big to fail" banks.
"To the great surprise of many consumers, credit card offers reappear in the mailbox within weeks following the announcement of the bankruptcy (it is a public record and published as such). A prime reason is that the consumer is not eligible for another discharge for two to eight years. Therefore, newly acquired debt must be paid. For the creditor, the offer is almost risk-free."
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/120914/best-credit-cards-after-bankruptcy.asp
FDR cut spending and balanced the budget?
I think you should do it.
Please educate yourself. I gave you enough information on economics to get started with.
Opening a hedge fund would be easier, as the tax laws are more favorable.
No, you gave me a link to an economic theory that repeatedly fails when it is tried as a method to spur growth. I ask you again. Did FDR cut spending and balance the budget?
"As the economy improved, more Americans were working, and there was an anticipation of increased tax revenues as a result of the recovery. From 1933 to 1937, unemployment had been reduced from 25% to 14% - still a large percentage, but a vast improvement. FDR's reaction was to turn back to the fiscal orthodoxy of the time, and he began to reduce emergency relief and public works spending in an effort to truly balance the budget. The country then lurched into what is now known as the Roosevelt Recession of 1937-1938. Unemployment threatened to rise to pre-New Deal levels, and the economy came grinding to a halt." http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/aboutfdr/budget.html
That's the argument Keynesians make. Others more grounded in reality would argue it was caused by The federal reserve and it's loose monetary policy starting in 1933. When the Fed slowed the printing of money in 1936 and 37 as it had to do to control inflation, it caused the recession. If it hadn't been printing money like mad in the first place this recession wouldn't have happened. It's a good lesson for today, as we are in a similar situation.
If we're playing the blame game for the Great Recession, I would blame the repeal on the Glass-Steagall Act, and, yes, the Clinton Administration. If the banks weren't at the Wall Street casino table, federally-insured deposits wouldn't have fueled and been at risk when the derivative market for mortgage-backed securities collapsed.
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?"