Slashdot Mirror
FCC To Halt Expansion of Broadband Subsidies For Poor People (arstechnica.com)
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced today that the FCC will be "dropping its legal defense of a new system for expanding broadband subsidies for poor people, and will not approve applications from companies that want to offer the low-income broadband service," reports Ars Technica. The Lifeline program, which has been around for 32 years and "gives poor people $9.25 a month toward communications services," was voted to be expanded last year under FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. That expansion will now be halted. Ars Technica reports: Pai's decision won't prevent Lifeline subsidies from being used toward broadband, but it will make it harder for ISPs to gain approval to sell the subsidized plans. Last year's decision enabled the FCC to approve new Lifeline Broadband Providers nationwide so that ISPs would not have to seek approval from each state's government. Nine providers were approved under the new system late in former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's term, but Pai rescinded those approvals in February. There are 36 pending applications from ISPs before the commission's Wireline Competition Bureau. However, Pai wrote today, "I do not believe that the Bureau should approve these applications." He argues that only state governments have authority from Congress to approve such applications. When defending his decision to revoke Lifeline approvals for the nine companies, Pai said last month that more than 900 Lifeline providers were not affected. But most of those were apparently offering subsidized telephone service only and not subsidized broadband. Currently, more than 3.5 million Americans are receiving subsidized broadband through Lifeline from 259 eligible providers, Pai said in today's statement. About 99.6 percent of Americans who get subsidized broadband through Lifeline buy it from one of the companies that received certification "through a lawful process," Pai wrote. The remaining 0.4 percent apparently need to switch providers or lose service because of Pai's February decision. Only one ISP had already started providing the subsidized service under the new approval, and it was ordered to notify its customers that they can no longer receive Lifeline discounts. Pai's latest action would prevent new providers from gaining certification in multiple states at once, forcing them to go through each state's approval process separately. Existing providers that want to expand to multiple states would have to complete the same state-by-state process.
Right before your eyes ;)
See this very article for an example of government's transienceâ"or see Obamacare, which the new administration is trying to pull down.
The only way to get a robust solution is to build one that is self-reinforcing; that is, the only way is to build a solution that is *profitable*, so that there is an incentive to maintain and improve it.
If your solution depends on ideology or is just a way to buy votes for a particular election, then your solution is a house of cards built on a foundation of blowing sand.
WE do.
It's called, TAXES.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
When that "stuff" is a luxury yacht, or three month-long vacations in luxury resorts every year, okay.
When the "stuff" that the poor get less of is the very "stuff" that enables everyone to be more productive, participate more fully in our culture and democracy, find and get better jobs, develop more marketable skills, learn new things, then you're not just being callous and cruel, but also self-destructive and anti-freedom.
Throwing procedural hurdles in front of the disadvantaged is even more salt being rubbed into the open wound.
Let them drink Starbucks!
Seriously, I think local access (rural vs. urban) is a bigger issue than rich/poor. There are lots of free options if you're in an urban area, you only have to expend a little effort.
Think 1930's rural electrification. And, that's coming from a (small "l") libertarian. If ISPs want to make profit from using public resources (RF spectrum, physical rights-of-way), make them build extended networks. Otherwise, let them negotiate with every landowner (including governments big and small) whose property their services cross.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
The more stupid shit they do to try and take from the poor while giving to the rich, the more likely it is that they'll get their stupid asses thrown to the curb in the next election cycle. It's like politicians don't understand that poor people vote too.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
The lifeline subsidy does not come from your income taxes, but from a fee charged to telephone subscribers. This is used to make sure that poor people can call 911 and can participate in our society sufficiently so that they can get a job, go to school, and make use of government services that were formerly only available by phone or personal visit.
These days, getting a job requires use of the internet and you can't really hang around the library for the entire time you're trying to get work. So, it makes sense to give poor people some basic connectivity.
I believe the actual motivation behind this move is the same one that is behind making it more difficult for poor and disenfranchised people to vote - even though there is no evidence of significant voting fraud in the USA: Poor folks and minorities might vote Democratic. Suppression of the Black vote has historically been an important part of Republican strategy, this is just one of many reports on that issue. Having gerrymandered them into the most odd-shaped electoral districts, it becomes time to make sure they can't get news online or participate in democratic discourse.
Bruce Perens.
Leaving aside McCulloch v. Maryland, and the other cases about the ability of the government to regulate trusts and interstate commercial entities in general, I would say that "broadband pipe" could easily fit within the definition of a "postal road".
Your ad here. Ask me how!
..."and to provide for the general welfare"...
That clause alone justifies laws. regulations, and taxes aimed to improve the lives of the poor. It makes economic sense too because keeping poor people poor does not benefit the wealthy. A rising tide raises all boats.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
News at 11.
FFS, how did we ever get to this point? How fucked up as a society are we to decide we can prevent the poors from having internet access, and the !poors get every mouse click and website visit get sold to who knows who?
Seriously, dafuq?
The game plan so far has consisted of: 1) Legalize spying and sale of data by ISPs and 2) Squelching attempts to help the poor get access to basic services necessary to working. I wonder what 3) will be? A SOPA, PIPA or ACTA revival? Expanded powers to prosecute people who infringe on intellectual property? New restrictions on the 4th amendment?
PSA to all those who don't seem to understand this: In today's society access to affordable broadband is required for both education and work. You can't do homework or apply for a job without it anymore. Subsidies like this are an investment in the future of this country, my own experience taught me that. I grew up in a very poor household and if not for similar programs I wouldn't have been able to go to college. Instead of flipping burgers for minimum wage I managed to build a solid career for myself and become a productive member of society.
You might RTFA, but you don't RTFC.
While you are correct that people need access, and that many people need assistance in getting access, the issue should be at the State level as FCC Chairman states. The Federal Government was never intended to be the source of Welfare systems, that is a function of the State.
For some reason, over the last 70 years or so, all social welfare programs have been pushed to the Federal Government. This has caused a massive amount of bloat and comes with an excessive amount of problems. Social Security is a great example of a good idea, but the bureaucracy has completely destroyed the system. Instead of actually saving the money people put in, it has been spent as discretionary funds. There is no money in Social Security, and nothing has been saved since the very early 1970s. People paying in today are the only source of paying people that collect. There is no interest on the money as was promised, and no guarantee that you will get what you are supposed to get. Being 20Trillion in cash debt and 220Trillion in debt when you include entitlements, there is a good chance that you won't get yours.
People should really read the Federalist papers and see where the Founders said power should go and why. They knew that a bloated Federal Government leads to what we have today. Massive corruption, massive cronyism, massive waste and fraud, and it's extremely difficult to remove at that high of a level.
That is not to say that States don't run a risk of corruption, but the corruption at a more local level has numerous benefits. The Federal Government can investigate and charge for corruption at the State level, where they won't touch their own for fear of harming their own budgets. People unhappy with the State Government have more direct control of the elected officials.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
If a poor person needs to use high speed broadband (they have computers, right?) then they can go straight to the public library and use it. For free.
Because public libraries are funded by money that poofs into existence?
Amen! In fact I have long mocked the founders for bothering to write the rest of the document.
When you say Government, why do you assume everything should be a Federal issue? You do realize that the United States is founded as a Federation of States where the States are supposed to handle the majority of powers. This includes Social Welfare.
Perhaps the moderation is overly done, because while we can agree that Social welfare programs I (and the foundering documents and history) would disagree that the onus should be on the Federal government to provide those programs.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Exactly!! The more poor people have to spend, the more rich people have to spend.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
The wealthy would never have signed on if they didn't have a way to increase the despiraty between those who have and those who have not.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
I believe our founders were smarter than you give them credit for. I'm, certain they foresaw the inevitable battle between those that have and those who do not.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
When did regulate ever mean "to make regular". The word "regulate" comes from the Latin "regula" which means "to rule", and even as early as Middle English, meant "to direct, to make rules". You're just inventing a fake etymology to further a false argument about what the framers of the Constitution intended.
"Regulate" meant the same in 18th century English as it does today.
"regulate (v.) Look up regulate at Dictionary.com
early 15c., "adjust by rule, control," from Late Latin regulatus, past participle of regulare "to control by rule, direct," from Latin regula "rule" (see regular). Meaning "to govern by restriction" is from 1620s. Related: Regulated; regulating."
http://www.etymonline.com/inde...
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It's only "unconstitutional" if you ignore 200 years of constitutional jurisprudence.
The biggest barrier to the spread of private broadband is the cost of acquiring right-of-way. But I can envision a government approach (not a "solution" but a major addition of network capacity) that costs ZERO for right-of-way.
Bury fat broadband along the Interstate Highway System, starting with segments that connect major markets. Let there be taps at exits, access to which would be leased to local ISPs willing to lay connecting fiber. Such a National Internet Backbone could pay for itself the way Hoover Dam did.
If you're going to spend public funds on Technology X, infrastructure always bets a subsidy.
EDIT: "...beats a subsidy."
Even as a child playing video games, I saw the stupidity in people belching oral feces like "If everyone thinks walking sucks, you all just need to get up to the gold arena tier, to unlock Fast Travel. Everyone should get up here." Now I'm looking at "Poor people need to stop being poor."
I have a comfortable, fulfilling job that supports my city. And I know damn fucking well what measure of it was "earned" and how much was the cosmic dice. Just being born in the Golden Billion was the first thing I "earned" from the ovarian lottery.
But maybe it takes a bit for the scales to fall - it was a while before I was aware that the people who hired me, my future direct superiors, were pretty much oblivious to all of my credentials, including my degree.
You don't have to be lucky to have a job, just willing.
There are about 6M job openings primarily in transportation, food and professional services, a number that has grown for a few years now and roughly the same number as people currently unemployed, a number greatly exceeding the number of people unemployed for over 6 months. Additionally the rate of people quitting their jobs across the US has increased.
You think with the availability of unemployment income, placement help, free schooling and tax funded on-the-job training, those numbers would have equalized by now. The problem I find, as I know many owners in these businesses starving for workers, is that they are competing with government benefits or their applicants can't even be bothered to show up to work not high or drunk.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
This comment should be framed and nailed to the walls of Congress.
I moved from a big city to a rural area with no broadband provider. Eventually, the mom and pop local cable company went digital, so there's kinda-sorta broadband. A few hundred down, less than a hundred up, $65/month, absurd amounts of downtime or sub-dialup-speeds.
I can manage; I replicate remote servers locally to keep working through outages. But for kids trying to do their homework and people job hunting etc., it's a huge disadvantage. Digital ghetto.
Uh, I'm not sure you actually got what is going on. FCC is going to cave on it's previously-ongoing legal defense of an extension to include broadband in the lifeline communications subsidy. FCC will stop approving broadband providers who wish to participate in the program and will instead allow states to make this decision. States don't actually have the constitutional responsibility to govern communications, that is given to the Federal government by Congress in the Communications Act of 1934. States are unlikely to have a program to approve broadband lifeline subsidies in place at present because it's a Federal responsibility, and even given the FCC Chairman's odd justification states aren't necessarily going to be eager to take this on.
Bruce Perens.
And were born in the... 60's? Maybe a bit earlier. Fact is, social mobility has gone down over time.
no, yes, yes, no
I think it's obvious that soda is a luxury, that a phone is required for 911/social connections/job hunting and that broadband is required for online education/social connections/job hunting.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
There is nothing that applies to the whole nation but doesn't apply to specific individuals.
Play Command HQ online
Hard to go broke when you run the mint. Tax cuts for the rich are next order of business, anyway.
Play Command HQ online
It seems that not everybody knows about the Communications Act of 1934. That is when Congress gave the regulation of communications to the FCC as a Federal responsibility. In the Constitution, we have Article I, Section 8, Clause 7, the "Postal Clause", empowering Congress to establish post offices and post roads for carriage of mail between post offices. Logically this extends to other forms of communications, and justifies the action of Congress in 1934.
Bruce Perens.
But poor people definitely get the same public education.
Not even remotely true. Income inequality resulting in public educational inequality is one of the biggest problems in the US today.
But I think your point was that Internet access should be a basic utility (more like electricity or water, which as long as you don't live in Flint, are much less variable than education) which I totally agree with.
Re 'If a poor person needs to use high speed broadband"
Think of it from the party political perspective. A party offers a low cost phone account, internet account. Thats some powerful political power to have in each and every poor community.
A low cost internet for poor people can then be used to out reach to voters and ensure they vote for the party that gave them "free" stuff.
This is not about jobs, education. Its about the politics of local communities and offer of more "free" stuff.
If a government wants poor areas to get internet, build a government internet. Just build it to every home in the USA and let every ISP offer services on it.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
I think you can go on to the article without arguing with me about the summary. The issue at hand is that 12 states challenged FCC because those states did not approve a set of companies to be lifeline broadband providers, and then FCC went ahead and approved them. Unlike Chairman Pal, I believe this is indeed a Federal responsibility due to the Postal Clause of the Constitution and the Communications Act of 1934.
I am at the moment lacking information regarding what other internet providers those states approved, whether they approved any at all, and what the grounds for not approving a company to provide lifeline service (which can't be a profit-maker) could be except to deny access to the potential customers. In other words, I'm really suspicious of the states in question.
Bruce Perens.
No it doesn't. The "general welfare clause" is widely understood to be limiting what precedes it. That is, it doesn't give government an additional power "to promote the general welfare". Instead it means that the enumerated powers in the Constitution may only be exercised for the purpose of promoting the general welfare (as opposed to the welfare of specific groups).
If it applies to the poor at all, the general welfare clause says that government may not redistribute from the wealthy to the poor, since that doesn't promote the general welfare, but helps one group of people at the expense of another, something that the authors of the Constitution clearly did not want.
Judging from the fact that AC has posted as AC, he knows that he is a piece of shit. People like you really grind my gears. You are so fucking stupid as to think that the poor people are the cause of all your trouble.
God for bid that you help anyone who needs help because there is a chance that someone else will take advantage of it.
Sure, fuckballs like you are fine on spending trillions killing brown people for no fucking reason at all, but spending a couple billion on the poor...oh the horror!!
Sir... Fuck you. Do us all a favor "an hero".
With a large percentage of the 6M jobs, does not supply sufficient salary to live within a commutable distance.
So while there's jobs available, they're unavailable to those who needs them the most.
Your point about education in practice not being uniform is well-taken. Ironically, you then brought up water. Sadly, Flint is less of an aberration than we would hope. More than 17 million Americans have unsafe lead in the water.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
You keep citing the 1934 law. It's been changed a few times in the last 80 years. Most recently in 1996. Here's a key part of the text of the statute currently governing these funds for the last twenty years:
--
telecommunications services shall contribute, on an equitable and nondiscriminatory basis, in a manner determined by the State to the preservation and advancement of universal service in that State.
--
That's the law and has been for 20 years - states direct the program based on their particular needs. New Jersey wants cheap high speed service in the hood, Montana wants usable service in the boonies.
Chairman Wheeler didn't really give a shit what the law said, he was pretty open about that. It's pretty silly to be citing what the law was in the 1930s as if it controls how funds are authorized to be spent today, though. Things have changed since 1934 and Wheeler's attempt to ignore the Congressional appropriation was and is unlawful.
Nowhere is government doing any less - it's subsidizing a service for the poor same as before. It's just made it MUCH harder for new providers to offer the subsidized service.
This is a flagrant attempt to use government bureaucracy to protect entrenched businesses by making it much harder for new companies to compete. This is, in fact, a republican government doing the EXACT thing it always accuses democrats of doing. Turns out you can do it just as easily by repealing regulations as by creating them - all you have to do is ensure you end up with a situation where the burdens involved in entering a market is massive, and you give a huge bonus to those already in there.
When a regulation ENSURES poor people also gets service, or makes sure your water is drinkable - then the trade-off is worthwhile. When it actually REDUCES the availability of services to the poor (like this does) then you have all the usual problems of deregulation (the reasons democrats and progressives tend to oppose it) but you don't EVEN get the supposed benefits of more competition in the market.
Basically - Pai has, once again, found a way to screw Americans with the worst of all worlds as an outcome. The problem with Ajit Pai is, he is just as evil as anybody else Trump has appointed - but unlike the rest of them, he is actually competent. He doesn't just have evil ideas, he is capable of executing them.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
It's about time someone finally stood up to the poor people. Thank God for Pai and his ISP cronies, once again making America safe from anything left of Ayn Rand.
Imagine the trouble the poor people could cause if they actually broke out of the debt-swamp?
The right wing hates the poor and anything that aids the poor they try to ruin. I suspect that the poor may have responses that nobody will like. There are numerous ways to create internal enemies. You see those nasty poor people simply refuse to crawl into a corner and suffer and die. The tend to act out. It may be one hell of a hot summer.
Why would right-of-way matter when talking about connectivity for poor people? Poor people need cell phone towers, not lines to their apartments.
The poor people where I am, once they get below a certain level of income where having a car is a big problem, all tend to use a cell phone for internet and nothing else. Likewise they move around more often than those with higher income... take that to the extreme of the homeless guy that has a phone in hopes of getting a job. Cable right of way in his neighborhood is completely irrelevant.
If there is a program to help those people on the internet, there would be help to pay for data plans or upgrade the phone.
Just when I think Trump couldn't sink any lower...
Except that changed in the 1990s with a modification which gave the states the power to decide.
The poverty line for a couple is $16000.
Where I live that wouldn't even cover rent for a modest dwelling in a suburban satellite town.
Your premise is that the government does "everything". Dumbass premise. The rest of your post therefore doesn't matter.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
WE do.
It's called, TAXES.
You're claiming credit for bombing civillians in Syria and Doctors without Borders hospitals in Afghanistan? That's awful - I don't use the /. foes list much, but that's a gimme.
Those people who realize they are extorted into funding an occupying, illegal government that uses the Constitution for toilet paper I can abide.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I know there will be a lot of back and forth as to denying access to the poor, etc. This is more about making it harder for ISPs to get the money than it is for poor people to get internet service. The system was being abused, severely. As an ISP myself, I have seen other ISPs abuse the lifeline system by putting wireless into nursing homes on the back of a single broadband connection (not even their broadband because they are an ISP in name only, they have no real gear) but collecting the $10/mo off every single patient in the nursing homes, including those not using the internet because they are in a coma. If that wasn't enough they also were profiting off lifeline by providing 'phone service' to every resident as well and collecting that money when they only pulled in a single T-1 to the facility and oversubscribed those ports 20:1. So $400/mo for the ATT voice T-1 with 24 DS0 channels, and $120/mo for a TWC broadband connection. ~300 residents for phone and internet.that they dont even maintain the equipment for. It is disgusting to know that all of our tax hikes are bankrolling his shit. His entire company is a fake company on paper with 4 employees and he's done this with over a dozen nursing homes. The nursing homes sign off on it because they share in the profits (by way of getting free internet/phone service for the business side of things as a byproduct).
A National Internet Backbone could reserve a certain fraction of tap points to give away to local volunteer organizations willing to lay their own connecting fiber. This would bring service in to small communities that the major cable providers don't care about and neglected poor areas.
Instead of subsidizing broadband to people's homes redirect that funding to libraries and schools. Give them as much broadband access as they want. That way it's available to everyone.
Why should we subsidize Netflix and pron for anyone?
Given originalism, we'd not have women's suffrage or racial equality, so much for originalism.
That statement is a load of crap put out by propagandists and ignores the Constitution. Article 5 was put in because the Founders understood that there were still adjustments that had to be made. As an easy example, which is also backed by the Federalist papers 3/5ths of a person was not the end goal. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." Was the sought conclusion. The majority of the founders did not want slavery but saw that specific concession as the only way to finance the revolution and have support from all 13 colonies.
We do NOT have a Constitutional amendment claiming Welfare should come from the Federal side. Nor would that pass the Supreme Court (unless the court was stacked with progressives who claim the Constitution has no meaning except what the progressives claim it has).
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
You're like a walking talking Onion article.
And that's why your views of social policy are completely out of touch with reality.
Besides, another $150/year in subsidies to "the poor" through a complicated, corrupt government program isn't going to make any difference then.
How many slashdot readers WANT to work in transportation or food service?
Is no one going to read my last paragraph?
"this" refers to eliminating the handout and nobody read my comment
And that's why your views of social policy are completely out of touch with reality.
Perhaps. I looked up the local figures for last year, apparently the poverty line is considered to be $12174 for a single person.
> I think the problem that chairman Wheeler was trying to solve was states that attempted to block all provision of broadband service under the universal service rules.
That's an interesting guess, I suppose, but no. For example here is information about California's implementation:
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/CASF/
Obviously you're capable of Googling the other 13 states yourself, but I think you'll find probably all of them, certainly most of them, have broadband programs - programs that make sense for their state. If you think for just a few moments about even one obvious difference between states, population density, I think you'll recognize that the needs in Montana and Wyoming are different than New Jersey and Maryland.
in the whitehouse would give a crap about anyone but himself and people he hopes to make money from? Do you think he became a billionaire by caring about other people, especially people of lower socioeconomic status than himself?
You have almost 4 years to mull it over. Hopefully, you'll learn from your mistake and do the right thing next time.
Your contention is (a) all communication with a potential employer is applicant driven, (b) there's never time sensitive response and/or libraries are open 24/7, (c) there is a public library a reasonable distance from every American, (d) there are in fact sufficient computers to meet demand at every library, and (e) somehow maintaining a building for said purpose, with hardware and connection, is cheaper than simply forcing companies to not make much/any money off some connections?
I'd question each of those assumptions in turn.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
You're claiming credit for bombing civillians in Syria and Doctors without Borders hospitals in Afghanistan?
Why not? After all governments exist to enforce policy as voted by the people using resources by the people for the people.
By the way I hope you don't drive a car, because every oil company ever has managed to kill workers and significantly damage the environment. Don't buy fuel. In fact if you don't want to resource {insert think you disagree with} then it's probably best to boycot absolutely everything.
What do you think a "voltage regulator" does? Words have multiple meanings.
JEsus, just how far do you want to take this argument. The fact is that "regulate" was used in governing parlance over a century and a half BEFORE the Constitution was written, and clearly the Founding Fathers, being reasonably well-versed in the English governing system were using "regulate" in exactly that sense. In fact, "voltage" as a word didn't exist until the very tale end of the 18th century or the early 19th century.
I love how the so-called "Constitutional purists" will in fact try to redefine the Framers' intentions with the most obviously moronic arguments.
Where the Constitution says "regulate", it means to control and govern, to create laws, to, well, REGULATE. Jesus Christ.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
That depends on specific local conditions. Newcomers can put up microwave links in many places. Existing telcos can string fiber on existing poles.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
And further to that, that isn't the only place "regulate" even appears in the Constitution, with the clear intent that the enumerated powers were meant to be *governing* powers. In fact, the word appears FIFTEEN times in the Constitution, and each and every instance indicates that "regulate" is being used exactly in the definition I gave.
Even your example is absurd, since it's pretty clear a "voltage regulator" is meant to "control" voltage, in other words govern it. It is exactly the same usage.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
One way of getting cash used by extreme EBT abusers is to buy milk in high-deposit glass bottles, dump out the milk in the parking lot, and return the bottle for cash.
Another, used by small food store owners, is to have a dozen or more EBT cards, and stock their store with food acquired on EBT at a supermarket.
Government charity programs are an ecological niche for crooks and layabouts. Sometimes, they even help the deserving poor, but not often.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
To the extent that you live off taxpayer-provided benefits, you are acting as a slave owner.
You do not have a right to my labor, my property, my time, my mind, or my life.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
How about providers have to offer a 1 or 2 mb solution to anyone who wants it for 10$ a month
love is just extroverted narcissism
Actually, no. One of the favorite foods of EBT abusers is lobster. Once you're making enough to support yourself, lobster is an unjustifiable extravagance.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Could we have the FCC stop all subsidies? If politicians can't take money from one group of people and give them to another group of people, I think much of the trouble in the country would go away. Much of a politician's power and usefulness goes away if they can't redistribute (by force). Sadly we've given them that power and then we get upset when they don't redistribute in the ways we want.
Phone and cell phone are not the same thing.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
For high-density backbones, fiber always beats microwave. This requires right-of-way, even if strung on poles.
People buy expensive items like baby formula at a supermarket with EBT then sell it to the local quickie mart for cash. There's a whole hidden economy involved in this type of scam.
Your definition and misleading etimology does not cover all cases. A regulated clock has a specific mechanism, a regulator (usually a pendulum and associated parts) that can be adjusted to make timekeeping accurate. A "well regulated militia" has weapons kept in good working order that accurately shoot what they're pointed at.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Not in the Second Amendment.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
We won the game daddy!
The score was 2-1!
Yeah, but we had more possession, more completed passes, brighter coloured shirts and bigger shoes than the opposition. So really we are the ones who won!
The Oxford Universal Dictionary (1955, abridged version of The Oxford English Dictionary)
Regulator, definition 4:
Something which regulates; a regulating principle or power 1766
Emphasis added.
Regulate, definition 2:
To adjust, in respect to time, quantity, etc. with reference to some standard or purpose....1662
Emphasis added.
--------
Your point stands, but it's not as strong as you seem to think it is.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
So specific individuals are allowed to raise armies and lay taxes?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Wrong, they are the frequently underemployed who are angry and irrational and really really thought tRumpF gave a rat's fuck about them. Now, as he kills them with a thousand cuts and stokes their anger against immigrants instead of their real enemy (the rich), they will continue to follow his bullshit lies. Because thinking critically is not their strong suit.
Only I can judge you.
probably because your chums want to pay $6/hour rather than a livable wage. Fuck you and your "employer" friends. Pay well, give good benefits, treat employees well and you will not have a problem finding good employees. Can't afford that? Get out of business and make room for someone that can start a viable business. Capitalism! Bitch.
Only I can judge you.
There is no word "despiraty", and if there were it would mean "the condition of having had the spirit removed," or perhaps "the condition of having pirates removed."
Nor is there "desperaty", which would mean "the condition of desperation".
Perhaps you mean "disparity", "the quality of being unlike or different".
Spelling matters. It helps give the impression that you know what you're writing about, that you care what you're writing about, that you want people to understand your meaning.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
The general welfare clause occurs in the preamble to the Constitution, and as such only a few phrases precede it.
James Madison, more than any other person the author of the US Constitution, wrote substantially the same thing you did.
The preamble should be understood as a statement of purpose, giving context and adding meaning to the law that follows; the preamble should not be understood as a law in and of itself.
The phrase "general welfare" also occurs in the first paragraph of Article 1, Section 8, Powers of Congress:
Note that this ends with a semicolon. It serves as an introduction to the next several lines, which lines specify the only powers of Congress, and thus the powers which Congress may use to promote the general welfare. Note also that the full phrase is "general Welfare of the United States", meaning the welfare of the country as a whole, although perhaps it could be stretched to mean the welfare of each and every state. It clearly does not apply to units smaller than states, not counties nor cities nor individuals.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
More nearly a century than 15 years.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Did you know that SNAP could be funded almost 100% if the federal government got rid of the home mortgage interest deduction? So who's to say that the "chunk" (which is about $20 per month per person) of your paycheck isn't actually going into the pockets of rich schmucks like me who own a nice house? It amounts to the same thing. The funniest part of it is that my in-laws are my lenders, so the interest is just money that I'm going to get back when they kick the bucket. Thank you for supporting this ludicrous deduction! :)
The problem with your math is that 99.6% of the people being served are not all of the people who need to be served, only the ones that states have gotten to.
Bruce Perens.
Unless your definition of the "the people" really means "Californian people" - the election results disagree with you:
Seems to me that you're trying to exclude Caifornia from the count, but I don't know why you're upset that the state with over 10% of the country's population is major driver in the outcome of the people's vote.
What do you expect? Try doing your analysis for any election by taking out the highest population state. Heck, look at this:
Popular vote total outside Texas:
Trump: 58,273,164
Clinton: 61,940,450
Clinton +3.7 million.
Why not bring that up? Oh wait, you're trying to make Trump out to be more than he is.
Trump won more counties than any candidate since Ronald Reagan:
Counties, like zip codes, have no role in the electoral process.
The "the people" did vote for Trump.
Not really, no. That's the point of him having such a low number of voters. 63 million. That's only one million over Bush in 2004.
You can even see how he had a LOWER number of voters in some states.
Our country is a Union of independent states. To win the presidency, you must not simply win the popular vote - you must win a preponderance of states.
Nope. You could win with a mere 11 states.
Disenfranchising low population states is how you start a civil war.
Not demonstrated in any facts, instead, the only example we have of a Civil War is a bunch of fanatical partisans deciding to reject an entirely legal vote, conducted properly by the rules, without even any instigation of an offense against them, when they lost due to differing population development, and their own fractured divisional tendencies. And then they lost.
You can present your theory, to be sure, but let's consider that disenfranchising high population states would also be an instigating factor in a Civil War.
You can say that the citizens of Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota, do not like to be taken advantage of, but the same applies to California, New York, and Hawaii.
But seriously, your command of the facts is poor, and your reasoning is tortuous and false. No matter how much you try, you will never make a convincing argument that Trump was the landslide winner, or the choice of "the people" because the facts do not support such a contention. Nixon and Reagan can argue that, not Trump.
Well, the amount the government pays to subsidize either of them is the same (exactly the same, not approximately.) So why not let them choose which to use.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Not to eat though; they resell if for 50% the retail price so they have cash for drugs/whatever.
Hey, a snopes.com article.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
AT&T developed Unix and early network protocols for phone services (along with IBM, Xerox, and numerous other companies). The Government piggy backed on that work and used tax dollars to create ARPAnet. Much of that work (meaning both projects) was done by Universities, but the heavy lifting especially for networking and Unix was private research. (Xerox, AT&T, Texas Instruments, IBM, etc...)
The Internet would have come about regardless of tax payer dollars. You may be able to argue that the process was expedited because of tax dollars, but there is no reason to conclude that the Internet would not exist. In fact, given the amount of proprietary (closed) network protocols of the 80s and 90s, we can say with relative certainty that the Internet would have happened anyway.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
And what about a "well regulated Militia" goes against the definition of "regulation" that I quoted above?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Look, this isn't up for debate; this is settled Constitutional law. If you think that the General Welfare clause gives the US government the power to "provide for the general welfare" in general, you're simply a fool.
So? Tax free, that's a lot of money. My own basic living expenses are less than that, including broadband.
I don't give a simple flying fuck about a goddam foe list, so shove that one in the trash bin with the, "You must be gay," manipulative bullshit.
You are dismissed.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Like I said, you have almost 4 more years to think about your error in judgement. Unless he declares martial law and suspends elections...
Minimum wage around here is over $11 and going up to $15 next year. Even McD is offering $15 for an entry level employee already, $20-25/h for a full time manager with the only prerequisite to be able to pee in a cup once in a while. You can purchase houses here for $40-65k, "high" rent is ~$800/month.
If you can't survive on minimum wage in the US, where you will still be eligible for food, health and housing assistance until your family makes 150% of that, you've screwed up.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
So, progress. And your friends and their businesses can't make competitive offers? Their problem, like I said: Capitalism!
Maybe we'll end up in a situation where only mom and pop shops which get free labor from their kids and family that can help can be viable. That wouldn't be so bad, less of an accumulation of wealth by the few exploiting the many.
Only I can judge you.
Sounds like what people in communism or war time might do. People usually call that ingeniosity, inventiveness or clever free-spirited trade then.
When Europeans hear about US food stamps, they say "what, like during the war?"
True, and lead isn't the only problem. I have family in a small midwestern town that occasionally still has "boil orders". Coming from the 'burbs it was somewhat shocking to realize, no, the US does NOT in fact have consistent universal potable water supplies to all of its citizens after all...
The problem is that chains like McD or Wal-Mart have no problem fronting up huge amounts of labor cost, their profit margins are high enough to absorb those costs. Mom and pop stores are the hardest hits because their margins are already small, any fluctuation in energy, supply or labor cost hits them harder and faster. So they still have business, just have to have less employees where possible to do it with.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
McD is run and owned by franchisee's so they are mom and pop with corporate support, marketing, ordering, training (how to abuse workers and such).
Wal-Mart is a whole 'nother beast which externalizes things like health care costs onto local governments (per their infamous employee training videos on applying for food stamps).
About the rest of what you said: Capitalism! Once the minimum wage is set, all the players now compete for employees on things like fairness, flexibility, humaneness, kindness, etc. Not treating employees like disposable towelettes can go a long way when competing against soul-sucking companies like wal-mart and McDs. Can't do it? Get out of the business. Capitalism! It's funny how some avowed capitalists only like capitalism when it translates into easy abuse of employees and destruction of the environment and local economy.
Only I can judge you.
The entire McD burger cost less than a dollar to produce and are sold for $8-15. A quarter pound of real beef from a local butcher costs about $1.50, $2-4 for organic and is usually still sold for $8-15. If Wal-Mart and McD is allowed to externalize it's costs, why aren't local business owners? What's more, McD and Wal-Mart, even their franchises, operate from PO boxes in lower tax states. The complaint is not about competing with chains, they have the scale and low quality going for them, local businesses need and will do better to work against their competition.
It's the fact that business owners are competing against the government (unemployment and benefits) to attract workers, few people are willing to work if they get better benefits which is given to them through higher taxes to the business owners. And whenever business owners set the wages high enough, the government moves the level up further. Again, I have no problem with giving people unemployment for a period of time but to me, earning $35k/y in benefits is doing "pretty well".
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Yes. Specific individuals are also allowed to be raised into armies and to be taxed.
Play Command HQ online