• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obamaphones Being Sold For Drugs, Shoes Ect. (Video)[W:33]

Redress said:
Depends on the situation what I read. I prefer in most cases to read the actual law, but that is not always practical. I also tend to read court rulings, sources within sources, and expert commentary(see: SCOTUSblog for example). I try to avoid blogs, editorials and things of that nature.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't understand the legalese employed in much legislation. Let me get to the point, here though. Many posting here are upset with the rapid increase in federal spending - primarily on social welfare programs that are blossoming at an alarming rate. I my experience there hasn't been a program of that nature started which hasn't evolved into something far, far more extensive and costly than originally intended. That a "user fee" is attached to each cell phone bill really boils down to a tax - even though it technically isn't, the effect is the same. I think you'll find that at the bottom of it all, most believe everybody should try to pay a little for such a service, and that's the gripe with all such programs of this nature you're hearing from many of us. It doesn't matter exactly who started the program. It matters what that program has become and how we intend to pay for these things. Borrowing ever more money isn't going to cut it.
 
Hey liberals. How come every time Obama "reforms" something, we end up paying through the nose, while more folks are added to the parasite list ?

Maybe I need a definition update. Just WTF does "reform" mean in liberal-speak ?
 
humbolt said:
I honestly don't understand the legalese employed in much legislation. Let me get to the point, here though. Many posting here are upset with the rapid increase in federal spending - primarily on social welfare programs that are blossoming at an alarming rate. I my experience there hasn't been a program of that nature started which hasn't evolved into something far, far more extensive and costly than originally intended. That a "user fee" is attached to each cell phone bill really boils down to a tax - even though it technically isn't, the effect is the same. I think you'll find that at the bottom of it all, most believe everybody should try to pay a little for such a service, and that's the gripe with all such programs of this nature you're hearing from many of us. It doesn't matter exactly who started the program. It matters what that program has become and how we intend to pay for these things. Borrowing ever more money isn't going to cut it.
Click to expand...

Yes, legalize is a pain at best, and part of why I said "where practical".

There are some important distinctions between a fee and a tax. Most importantly, what is paid for by the fee is not added to the deficit, and by extension the debt.

Also, good news: deficit as a percent of GDP(which is the most meaningful measure of deficit) is coming down.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Hey liberals. How come every time Obama "reforms" something, we end up paying through the nose, while more folks are added to the parasite list ?

Maybe I need a definition update. Just WTF does "reform" mean in liberal-speak ?
Click to expand...

In this case, reform is cutting the cost and fewer people are able to get on the program.

Oh wait, that just proved your nonsense wrong...
 
Redress said:
In this case, reform is cutting the cost and fewer people are able to get on the program.

Oh wait, that just proved your nonsense wrong...
Click to expand...

But the program already went way out of control under Obama. And "fewer people able to get on" means that folks are still "getting on". And abusing the system in horrendous ways. As proven.

Your nonsense was just proved wrong Redress. Wasn't hard to do either.
 
Re: Obamaphones Being Sold For Drugs, Shoes Ect. (Video)

Redress said:
So you agree I was right. Well done. Since his point was about money supply and debt, the fact it is not government money is important in relation to his point.
Click to expand...

And Obamacare wasn't a tax before it was a tax. Working Americans are going to be forced to buy Health Insurance, (whether they want to or not much like they are being forced to fund this scam if they pay for a cellphone) but don't worry everyone. Redress says it isn't a tax, so nothing to see here. :lol:

It must be exhausting for you jumping through all these hoops trying to play these laughably petty semantic games. How embarrassing.

The fact is hard working Americans are funding this nonsense by added costs on their cellphone bills. They are getting robbed and you could care less. You want to pretend to be Bill Clinton and play word games. It's a joke.

Millions Improperly Claimed U.S. Phone Subsidies - WSJ.com

A review of five top recipients of Lifeline support conducted by the FCC for the Journal showed that 41% of their more than six million subscribers either couldn't demonstrate their eligibility or didn't respond to requests for certification.
Click to expand...

What if...? said:
Shush.

O'Keefe said it, they believe it, that settles it.
Click to expand...

What did O'Keefe say? Who has claimed O'Keefe said anything?

From the article. We can go by what people who are pushing these phones have said.

Once you guys give me this phone, it's my phone?' he asked an employee inside a Philadelphia brick-and-mortal Stand Up Wireless location. 'I can, like, sell it and stuff?'

'Whatever you want to do with it,' the worker replied.

'So I'm [going to] get some money for heroin,' he offered.

The employee coolly responded, 'Hey, I don't judge.'
Click to expand...

And my personal favorite

It's kind of like, the first thing that I do is this here,' the TerraCom rep responded, referring to the required paperwork. 'And unfortunately there are people on drugs. They get this phone, and they go get $40. ... You basically do whatever you want to do with it. That's what I'm trying to tell you.
Click to expand...
 
Redress said:
Yes, legalize is a pain at best, and part of why I said "where practical".

There are some important distinctions between a fee and a tax. Most importantly, what is paid for by the fee is not added to the deficit, and by extension the debt.

Also, good news: deficit as a percent of GDP(which is the most meaningful measure of deficit) is coming down.
Click to expand...
True about the deficit - however money out of the pocket of working people to fund such a program is money out of the pocket of those working for it to supply a commodity for those who can't or don't. There's no animosity directed at those who can't work, but there could be some directed at those who don't work. I think that's understandable. That the deficit has come down as a percentage of GDP is good news. I note that GDP is an anemic 2.4%, and the sequester has contributed to that drop, as well.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
But the program already went way out of control under Obama. And "fewer people able to get on" means that folks are still "getting on". And abusing the system in horrendous ways. As proven.

Your nonsense was just proved wrong Redress. Wasn't hard to do either.
Click to expand...

You have not read the thread, have you? The program was greatly expanded in 2008. Nothing Obama did expanded nor caused it to go out of control. When the program cost skyrocketed due to the expansion in 2008, the FCC reformed the program to cut costs.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Hey liberals. How come every time Obama "reforms" something, we end up paying through the nose, while more folks are added to the parasite list ?

Maybe I need a definition update. Just WTF does "reform" mean in liberal-speak ?
Click to expand...
It specifically refers to your numerated wealth, and how it may be reduced. Okay, I made that up, but we're making all kinds of stuff up these days anyway. I read the other day that Arianna Huffington explained to a group of college graduates recently that we're going to have to re-define success into something more realistically achievable.
 
Re: Obamaphones Being Sold For Drugs, Shoes Ect. (Video)

Bronson said:
And Obamacare wasn't a tax before it was a tax. Working Americans are going to be forced to buy Health Insurance, (whether they want to or not much like they are being forced to fund this scam if they pay for a cellphone) but don't worry everyone. Redress says it isn't a tax, so nothing to see here. :lol:

It must be exhausting for you jumping through all these hoops trying to play these laughably petty semantic games. How embarrassing.

The fact is hard working Americans are funding this nonsense by added costs on their cellphone bills. They are getting robbed and you could care less. You want to pretend to be Bill Clinton and play word games. It's a joke.

Millions Improperly Claimed U.S. Phone Subsidies - WSJ.com





What did O'Keefe say? Who has claimed O'Keefe said anything?

From the article. We can go by what people who are pushing these phones have said.



And my personal favorite
Click to expand...

And how many people told O'Keefes shills to go **** themselves?

How many called the cops?

Eventually it will be known, but you'll only remember what he presented in his video.

Just like ACORN and Planned Parenthood.
 
Redress said:
You have not read the thread, have you? The program was greatly expanded in 2008. Nothing Obama did expanded nor caused it to go out of control. When the program cost skyrocketed due to the expansion in 2008, the FCC reformed the program to cut costs.
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah ........ Oh really ? But the program is still FUBAR !!

"Obama did this. Obama did that". Yet it is still ****ed up beyond all recognition !!

Did you get your "Obamaphone" ? Or did you get your "Bushphone" ?
 
Re: Obamaphones Being Sold For Drugs, Shoes Ect. (Video)

What if...? said:
And how many people told O'Keefes shills to go **** themselves?

How many called the cops?

Eventually it will be known, but you'll only remember what he presented in his video.

Just like ACORN and Planned Parenthood.
Click to expand...

How much corruption does it take to end a program?
 
Re: Obamaphones Being Sold For Drugs, Shoes Ect. (Video)

What if...? said:
More than fake videos.

Some proveable, measurable amount.
Click to expand...

When has that ever been an accepted standard ?

The track record says the exact opposite. If it secures folks to the gubmit teat, it ain't going away so long as the liberal have political clout to keep it.
 
Re: Obamaphones Being Sold For Drugs, Shoes Ect. (Video)

What if...? said:
And how many people told O'Keefes shills to go **** themselves?

How many called the cops?

Eventually it will be known, but you'll only remember what he presented in his video.

Just like ACORN and Planned Parenthood.
Click to expand...

So you can't refute facts and have been reduced to speculation and lies

Got it

When you have a response with some actual facts and substance, instead of assumptions and dishonesty, let me know
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Blah blah blah ........ Oh really ? But the program is still FUBAR !!

"Obama did this. Obama did that". Yet it is still ****ed up beyond all recognition !!

Did you get your "Obamaphone" ? Or did you get your "Bushphone" ?
Click to expand...

Don't worry it's a "fee" and not a "tax" so if you're a hardworking American and are paying this "Universal Fee", according to Redress you need to bend over and bite the pillow. Stop complaining.

But don't worry. President Reformer is on the case! Redress said so
 
Bronson said:
Don't worry it's a "fee" and not a "tax" so if you're a hardworking American and are paying this "Universal Fee", according to Redress you need to bend over and bite the pillow. Stop complaining.

But don't worry. President Reformer is on the case! Redress said so
Click to expand...

Ain't it the truth ! These liberals would eat a mile of Obama's **** just to see where it is coming from.

This program is just more out-of-control free-stuff. There is no "reform" here. Just smoke and mirrors.
 
Re: Obamaphones Being Sold For Drugs, Shoes Ect. (Video)

AlabamaPaul said:
I don't do Media Matters nor O'Reilly. Let me know what news comes out of this...
Click to expand...

Gee, I thought you wanted to know, the information is just a click away.
 
Re: Obamaphones Being Sold For Drugs, Shoes Ect. (Video)

pbrauer said:
Gee, I thought you wanted to know, the information is just a click away.
Click to expand...

I'll await your report on the O'Reilly discussion...
 
humbolt said:
It specifically refers to your numerated wealth, and how it may be reduced. Okay, I made that up, but we're making all kinds of stuff up these days anyway. I read the other day that Arianna Huffington explained to a group of college graduates recently that we're going to have to re-define success into something more realistically achievable.
Click to expand...

Greetings, humbolt. :2wave:

I would be interested in reading what Arianna considers "success." I really would! Since most of us have our own ideals of what success is, and since there are dozens of examples of "success," including monetary, physical, spiritual, and everything in between, I wonder which she would choose to redefine? :shock:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom