Stealing cable from the poor

Great article on Texas vs. CA today Brian, if you want to check it out.

Texas booms while California busts | Mark Hemingway | Special Reports | Washington Examiner

Yeah, and can you beleive my sister is moving from Texas to California this year???! I told her it was crazy but you know how women are...lol I also just read that article...good one. And I agree, we have farred WAY better than most states during this recession. I've seen a few things and seen a few people lose their jobs, but for the most part, we've done really well.
 
Last edited:
Texas has large counties with very little overlapping of services. Local control and little interference.
The way it ought to be. A great state.
 
Yesterday I was a bit embarrassed by my "stupid" word choice. Today I am laughing. Christie used the word "dumb". Sometimes I get the feeling this message board is being monitored.

"It was a dumb idea in my opinion," Christie said. "To have the taxpayers of New Jersey pay for cable TV, I mean seriously, has cable TV become a constitutional right now we are going to pay for, in this time of budget constraints?

"I’m not going to tell you what I am going to do with the budget," Christie added, "but I suspect that will be on the endangered list for Feb 22," when he proposes his budget.

What remains unclear is whether Christie will seek to repeal the tax. Failing to use earmarked money is not illegal unless it is dedicated by a constitutional amendment.

Gov. Christie calls law designed to help low-income senior citizens, disabled pay cable TV bills 'dumb' | NJ.com

Well I think a lot of us think it was a dumb idea, but if we are a people of laws, overturning dumb but legally ordained ideas should be done lawfully and legally.

The GOP in the House are currently having the same problems with Obamacare. The Tea Partiers are wanting them to defund it to put it in limbo until they have enough power to rescind it in the Senate too. But some of the Repubicans are struggling with the ethics of defunding a lawfully passed program.

Different situation but sort of the same principle.

We'll see how it goes.
 
Well I think a lot of us think it was a dumb idea, but if we are a people of laws, overturning dumb but legally ordained ideas should be done lawfully and legally.

The GOP in the House are currently having the same problems with Obamacare. The Tea Partiers are wanting them to defund it to put it in limbo until they have enough power to rescind it in the Senate too. But some of the Repubicans are struggling with the ethics of defunding a lawfully passed program.

Different situation but sort of the same principle.

We'll see how it goes.

That's just it. There are many of us that don't think Obamacare was lawfully passed.

For one it's unconstitutional.

And there is also the controversial use of the "Deem and pass" rule used.

Is it really unethical if you believe the law was not lawfully passed?
 
Well I think a lot of us think it was a dumb idea, but if we are a people of laws, overturning dumb but legally ordained ideas should be done lawfully and legally.

The GOP in the House are currently having the same problems with Obamacare. The Tea Partiers are wanting them to defund it to put it in limbo until they have enough power to rescind it in the Senate too. But some of the Repubicans are struggling with the ethics of defunding a lawfully passed program.

Different situation but sort of the same principle.

We'll see how it goes.

That's just it. There are many of us that don't think Obamacare was lawfully passed.

For one it's unconstitutional.

And there is also the controversial use of the "Deem and pass" rule used.

Is it really unethical if you believe the law was not lawfully passed?

I would be really uncomfortable if those in power decided to disobey the law because in their opinion they believe it to be unlawful or unconstitutional. I think if we started thinking that was okay, the whole system and rule of law would quickly break down and we would then have anarchy in which nobody's rights are respected or guaranteed.

The one exception would be when it is obvious that implementing the law tramples on the unalienable, civil, legal, or constitutional rights of others. Sort of like a soldier refusing to fire when ordered to do so because he knows he would be unlawfully killing somebody.

Far better for us to keep pounding on the message boards, calling in to the radio stations, writing letters to the editors, sending emails, telegrams, and making telephone calls to our electd representatives to express our displeasure at bad legislation and demanding that it be overturned. And let them know that our votes will be felt at the polls.

And I think when it is the President that thumbs his/her nose at the law, we do have a process of impeachment and it should be used.

And when it is our elected representatives who do that, we should have the courage and will to recall them.

But first we should give the legal process, including the courts, every chance to get it right.
 
Christie had no rights to the money. It was not "taxpayers" money, it was cable TV subscribers money.
The money should have either been used for poor/disabled cable service or returned to the Cable subscribers.

It was a dumb law anyway but Christie made it a State grab bag
 
What all do the taxpayers provide for the poor...............

Housing, healthcare, welfare cash, education, transportation, cell phones, internet, food stamps......................I mean, WTF? Why work anymore?


You got that right.

The poor make out pretty well. What with our wealth being spread to take care of their responsibilities.

Why work?? You don't have to pay taxes. If you have kids you get thousands back, even though you pay nothing in.

Such a deal.

Mayby we should all go on Welfare??

Oh wait. That won't work. If we all sat on our asses at home where would they get the money to pay us to sit on our asses??

Never mind.

Lemme know just as soon as you'd like to reserve an apartment in one of Cleveland's housing projects and send your kids to a Cleveland public school.

That was an insensitive, stupid post, Claudette.

The problem is that most of these people who are receiving all of these benefits don't know of life in any other form. This is how they grew up. They went to poor schools, they lived in the ghetto, and this is all they know, so accepting this as a suitable life is okay with them. They have no incentive to work. If, on the other hand, they were forced to work, then they would have a better appreciation of what it takes to get ahead, and as they did, they would become more ambitious, and this would lead to their children being more ambitious.

I am not against helping the poor and trying to give them a fair shake, but we should not be subsidizing every aspect of their lives and placing them in a situation where it is advantageous not to work.
 

Forum List

Back
Top