Free Internet at Your Expense for Low Income Families

[Mr Natural]

How much is this program costing the individual taxpayer?

You tell me. $2.1 million to provide free internet service plus some other perks for one low income housing project in Tampa Fl. How much would that be if all low income housing projects in Florida are included. In all of the southeast? In all of the south? In all of the country?

The point isn't so much the amount allocated for this project but the precedent being set and the implications of that.

That works out to just over .13/taxpayer based on filings from 2009. Yes, I think I can handle paying an additional .13/year for this program.

A lousy 13 cents a year?

Is that what they're whining about now?

 

[shintao]

My first point is proven by the fact that one can walk into any Starbucks or thousands of other establishments and get free wifi or wifi for the price of a cup of coffee.

free wi-fi Companies multiple locations

LMAO! Star Bucks?? How about TWA flights to paris?? HAHAHAHA!! That's IF they have $60 a month for coffee and their own PC!!!! LMAO!!! You dreamer you.

The obvious solution is government-subsidized Starbucks for the poor.

Your communism is showing. Next you will be wanting to give them free lap dances with their lattes.

 

[Foxfyre]

You tell me. $2.1 million to provide free internet service plus some other perks for one low income housing project in Tampa Fl. How much would that be if all low income housing projects in Florida are included. In all of the southeast? In all of the south? In all of the country?

The point isn't so much the amount allocated for this project but the precedent being set and the implications of that.

That works out to just over .13/taxpayer based on filings from 2009. Yes, I think I can handle paying an additional .13/year for this program.

A lousy 13 cents a year?

Is that what they're whining about now?

Nope. It's usually best to at least scan a thread on a complicated subject before posting. That 13 cents has legitimately morphed into well over a $1000 per year per taxpayer.

 

[shintao]

I am a huge proponent of the public library system. My children have had cards since they were toddlers. Over the years, I have tutored dozens of suspended students at the local library. In order to use the computers, one must have a library card. Not ONE student I have worked with had one. So I offer to pay the 5 bucks myself. All they need is ID. Not ONE kid has taken up my offer. Why? Because they know once the tutoring is over, they will never visit the library again. Its heartbreaking to me. But as someone said, you can lead a horse to water..

Most teachers in my school do not require papers to be typed because many students claim they have no access to computers. The truth is they reject the access.

It costs nothing to get a library card here in Bernalillo County, NM. All you need is a name and a local mailing address. But alas, the results are much the same for the poor kids. You know who uses the public libraries? Mostly people over 40 or 50 and the homeschooled kids. The homeschooled kids are becoming a larger and larger force to be reckoned with though and they may be what saves our local library branches from the inevitable budget cuts.

Do you think "Under the Mid-Town Bridge on G St." is an address?

 

[Mr Natural]

That works out to just over .13/taxpayer based on filings from 2009. Yes, I think I can handle paying an additional .13/year for this program.

A lousy 13 cents a year?

Is that what they're whining about now?

Nope. It's usually best to at least scan a thread on a complicated subject before posting. That 13 cents has legitimately morphed into well over a $1000 per year per taxpayer.

How do you figure?

The population of Tampa is roughly 300,000. Divide $2.1 million by 300,000 and you get somewhere in the neighborhood of 14 cents per person.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

A lousy 13 cents a year?

Is that what they're whining about now?

Nope. It's usually best to at least scan a thread on a complicated subject before posting. That 13 cents has legitimately morphed into well over a $1000 per year per taxpayer.

How do you figure?

The population of Tampa is roughly 300,000. Divide $2.1 million by 300,000 and you get somewhere in the neighborhood of 14 cents per person.

You need to invest in a caluclator. Or... Start > Programs > Accessories > Calculator

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Gotta love when liberals cipher... take a number, divide it by a smaller number, they end up with a fraction.

No wonder we're broke. They do the calculations backwards.

 

[Foxfyre]

A lousy 13 cents a year?

Is that what they're whining about now?

Nope. It's usually best to at least scan a thread on a complicated subject before posting. That 13 cents has legitimately morphed into well over a $1000 per year per taxpayer.

How do you figure?

The population of Tampa is roughly 300,000. Divide $2.1 million by 300,000 and you get somewhere in the neighborhood of 14 cents per person.

The population of Tampa has nothing to do with a federal grant. Like I said, read the thread and all the arguments associated with that 13 cents.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

1 trillion doillar program, 350,000,000 people.. hmm... that's only $.000175 per person. YAY!!!

 

[chanel]

I questioned that math as well. And considering only half of "tax filers" are "tax payers" I guess wecan double that. And since the "rich" pay a higher percentage we cab double thaty for them. And if we see this program go national... Figure in 20 percent corruption tax and well you get my drift...

 

[Foxfyre]

1 trillion doillar program, 350,000,000 people.. hmm... that's only $.000175 per person. YAY!!!

Since most of us who are working are paying several thousand in taxes every year, the math doesn't quite add up does it.

 

[daveman]

LMAO! Star Bucks?? How about TWA flights to paris?? HAHAHAHA!! That's IF they have $60 a month for coffee and their own PC!!!! LMAO!!! You dreamer you.

The obvious solution is government-subsidized Starbucks for the poor.

Your communism is showing. Next you will be wanting to give them free lap dances with their lattes.

Well, why not? Think of all the exotic dancers that would employ!

 

[Foxfyre]

I questioned that math as well. And considering only half of "tax filers" are "tax payers" I guess wecan double that. And since the "rich" pay a higher percentage we cab double thaty for them. And if we see this program go national... Figure in 20 percent corruption tax and well you get my drift...

Of course those in that bottom 50% who aren't subject to much, if any, federal taxes don't care how much the government gives away or how generous it is with the money the other 50% give up to the government. It's really REALLY easy and tempting to be generous with other people's money, especially when you've been convinced there will be no consequences for yourself. And whatever consequences there might be for the beneficiaries of that money aren't of any concern because after all, it is the good intentions that count. Right?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You tell me. $2.1 million to provide free internet service plus some other perks for one low income housing project in Tampa Fl. How much would that be if all low income housing projects in Florida are included. In all of the southeast? In all of the south? In all of the country?

The point isn't so much the amount allocated for this project but the precedent being set and the implications of that.

That works out to just over .13/taxpayer based on filings from 2009. Yes, I think I can handle paying an additional .13/year for this program.

A lousy 13 cents a year?

Is that what they're whining about now?

How typical. Why don't you claim the deficit is not a problem either?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A lousy 13 cents a year?

Is that what they're whining about now?

Nope. It's usually best to at least scan a thread on a complicated subject before posting. That 13 cents has legitimately morphed into well over a $1000 per year per taxpayer.

How do you figure?

The population of Tampa is roughly 300,000. Divide $2.1 million by 300,000 and you get somewhere in the neighborhood of 14 cents per person.

Because, unlike you, we can do math.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Your first point, you will have to show a reference to cover up your bullshit.

Your second point is a good one, and why I think this is a bad idea. There are ways to pay for PCs, like end foreign aid to Israel and other countrys. Cut off corporate aid., or let corporations pay for them. You shouldn't be asked to contribute here, but you will told you will. And couldn't those on social programs be taxed to pay for it, including Corporate aid or other government benefits going out the door.

I would prefer 400 public tv channels of educational programs running 24/7 would be the best way to go, because few Americans do not have a tv. But we will never see that happen either.

My first point is proven by the fact that one can walk into any Starbucks or thousands of other establishments and get free wifi or wifi for the price of a cup of coffee.

free wi-fi Companies multiple locations

LMAO! Star Bucks?? How about TWA flights to paris?? HAHAHAHA!! That's IF they have $60 a month for coffee and their own PC!!!! LMAO!!! You dreamer you.

Where do you get the figure of $60 a month?

If you sit in the parking lot you can tap into the wireless of a Starbucks. And the link I posted had many other establishments where free internet is available.

Think about it. How much time do you actually do useful stuff on your computer like banking or paying bills or even shopping and how much time do you spend surfing porn and posting on forums? The frivolous far outweighs the useful.

For some reason I don't think poor people will be downloading the great books of the western world as much as they will porn.

 

[JamesMorrison]

This is part and parcel of the government as "benefactor in all things" mindset of both politicians and citizens that we all must reject in the future. We have also seen the founders original intent that both Senators' and the Representatives' (to the lower house) purpose was to attend to that business which would benefit the nation as a whole now devolve into a Lisa Murkowski/Charlie Rangel like "bring home the bacon" effort. This is simply a perversion of federal government's legitimate roll of protector of its citizens' individual liberties and the security of the nation as a whole.

Are you attempting to say that the nation as a whole will not benefit from everybody knowing how to use a computer and access internet information or classes, etc.? Surey you jest.

No, I am not. Your strawman aside, the intent of the founder’s bicameral legislature had a number of intents. One was the representation of individual citizens in the decision process RE the interest of the nation as a whole (i.e. House of Representatives). Another was a Senate composed of representatives that would represent the single entity referred to in the constitution as a 'State' such as NJ or CA. The overarching intent of the federal government was to look after those constitutionally enumerated (and therefore limited) responsibilities of the national government which, boiled down, is to protect the rights, property, and lives of individual citizens. In order to accomplish this, the founders rejected the idealistic Articles of Confederation (which was even more hostile to a central authority) in favor of the U.S. Constitution that delegated the people's power (to Congress) and allowed it to raise sufficient funds to carry out its enumerated responsibilities.

Many, especially on the left, seem confused, by the founders use of the term 'General Welfare' even to the extent that they seem to think it expands Congress' mandate to do just about anything. In reality it is clear (via personal correspondence and Federalist Papers) that the founder’s use of the term 'General Welfare' is a further restriction placed on the federal governments powers of taxation and spending and not the opposite. Put simply, the revenues from taxation and their subsequent disposition must be confined to that which benefits the nation as a whole. The Federal grant of taxpayer monies to the Florida/Brighthouse local effort fails miserably on this test. The purpose of my little paragraph was to point out how far we have come from the founders intent to a mindset that allows Congress and politicians to continually pass obviously unconstitutional legislation that has led us to the current deficit/spending problem that will be the subject of the 112th Congress

If we were to take your strawman and put something that might be viewed as having some constitutional flesh on it by arguing for a national effort to supply computers and related education it would still fail. First, although the founders recognized the importance of an informed electorate, they saw no need to create a constitutional demand of the central government towards such responsibility. Further, the practicality of such an effort is dubious. Computers, for the majority, are merely tools used to accomplish sundry goals. Are we to expect the federal government to supply hammers and training in their use to budding carpenters?

In the spirit of Boehner et al's "cut go" rule (any new spending must find its funding by cannibalizing existing governmental programs) the best way to fund this boondoggle would be for the U.S. Congress to deny funds for this program (along with that for the newly approved high speed rail line in FL, etc). If FL still wished to have this program they can exercise states' rights and do it themselves.

We could cut foreign aid.

Well, many have suggested this and it is certainly an area Congress should look into. However, I think that, specifically, we should approach this as a two pronged effort. First, an across the board budget cut (also a suggestion RE the entire future U.S. budget). Thereafter, those monies should be targeted on a strict basis informed only by U.S. strategic and economic interest with a significant (but not overwhelming) bias towards encouraging formation of classical liberal democratic societies based in individual liberties and the rule of law. Although that sounds good, realistic execution of such a policy is more difficult than it sounds.

An excellent example of good Aid might be the excellent program that the Obama Administration has conducted with a number of the former Soviet States like Ukraine to collect and secure spent and enriched uranium from theft and misuse by mischief makers. Kudos to the administration!

But this need not involve the hard earned money from those in, say, Boulder CO. Indeed, Florida could encourage Brighthouse to offer this service free by giving them tax credits if they so chose. “Cut GO” would then enter (notably restricted at the state level) by cutting back on other programs, say aid to FL counties to fight fires, trash pick up, free cell phones, or Medicaid funds. However, with the upcoming financial disaster RE many state and municipal employee benefit and pension funding and the resultant threats of bankruptcies, programs like this should be a distant memory in the mists of time.

Your way won't educate Americans. No, we need a federal program to run in all states to retrain our working force to compete in the global market place. Let corporations foot the bill, afterall they will benefit the most from this program. And cutting foreign aid for this service is a great idea!

In my original post I had hoped that one or more posters here might have some insight as to the efficacy of federal vocational training programs. I far as I know they might be as efficacious as President Johnson's Great Society was in helping lift those targeted out of poverty. Since we see ever increasing numbers of the poor I have little faith in throwing even more money at this problem. It is not the federal government's responsibility to educate or retrain. The states may decide to offer such and if private companies wish to train for jobs more power to them. The history of private companies doing such and, even, starting their own academic institutions has been one of success but has been constantly assailed by the left through the courts which has forced the private companies to require higher and higher formal education for jobs that do not really require such levels of education. The left’s efforts to extract funds and punish corporations and business in general all fail in the end. Regulation and tax costs are passed on to consumers and fair wage efforts like the minimum wage tend to increase product/service costs and even suppress job creation itself.

Yes, everyone should pay taxes and the same amount of taxes with no deductions or loop holes.

Good. Then would you be for abolishing the 16th Amendment, scrapping a progressive income tax and establishing a flat tax on income? I think you are right that, even if symbolic, taxing welfare benefits (your: “everyone should pay taxes”) would give these people some skin in the game. Why not? The government taxes unemployment benefits doesn’t it?

” Or will the payoff of better skilled and trained people be worth it?

Would you approve of all porn sites, shopping sites, gaming sites, Facebook, Twitter, etc. being blocked by the internet provider to ensure that the computers will be used only for research and educational purposes? “

That is the most illogical post made all day long. In a free society why would anyone be stupid enough to do that?? Are you too stupid to understand that everytime you deny some else's freedoms, you have just limited your own??

Well Foxfyre is more than capable of responding to this judgment of yours, but you seem to imply that a federal government taking the wealth from those that have legally earned it and transferring it, in the form of free computer access, to those who have not is, somehow, not a denial of freedom to the party of the first part. I would disagree.

Looking at your [Foxfrye’s here] proposed and reasonable caveats to free access to internet content we see the seeds of continued liberal government expansion. Sure free access for the poor seems good, even without porn or games, but it would be only a matter of time before the lefties started their class and race wars and demanded, via supposed 'constitutional rights', that “the poor” should get all that content also.

But you are already starting the class war, dufus!! You are so ******* greedy you cannot see the good the internet can provide all Americans. I best you fought against giving schoolers access as well. You act like grown adults lack will power and morals & ethics. Get a ******* grip.

Of course if the proper owners of the wealth were not forced to give up what they had legally earned, we would not be in the denigrating morally depraved process of name calling here, would we? How can you cast such moral judgment against someone who was literally forced to give up the legally earned fruits of their labor? At best you must, at least, give them the choice to begin with before labeling them ‘greedy’. Your position here is obvious. You feel that government sponsored covetousness is a good if not moral position and anyone feeling different deserves moral degradation. This is simply an elitist conceit. This is not at all at odds with the progressive school that feels all American’s wealth is the federal government’s to begin with, thus the cry that the government cannot “afford” tax cuts. This presupposes the money that present American’s have not even earned yet is the property of the federal government. Perhaps you yourself might “get a grip” and ponder the ramifications of that logic.

Why not put put a computer in the home, just like we put Beamers in the garages of wallstreet CEOs? No, Florida is a waste of time. The federal government has to do this.

Who is the “WE” that “has to” both “put computers in the home” and “put Beamers in the garages of wallstreet CEOs” ?

JM

 

[shintao]

The obvious solution is government-subsidized Starbucks for the poor.

Your communism is showing. Next you will be wanting to give them free lap dances with their lattes.

Well, why not? Think of all the exotic dancers that would employ!

Yes, I have considered that welfare moms who claim they can't work, should be picking up their skirts to pay their own way in society. Then the moralists chew my ass out for making the suggestion, and go back to kicking the dog again. No wonder welfare mammas live in poverty.

 

[shintao]

This is part and parcel of the government as "benefactor in all things" mindset of both politicians and citizens that we all must reject in the future. We have also seen the founders original intent that both Senators' and the Representatives' (to the lower house) purpose was to attend to that business which would benefit the nation as a whole now devolve into a Lisa Murkowski/Charlie Rangel like "bring home the bacon" effort. This is simply a perversion of federal government's legitimate roll of protector of its citizens' individual liberties and the security of the nation as a whole.

Are you attempting to say that the nation as a whole will not benefit from everybody knowing how to use a computer and access internet information or classes, etc.? Surey you jest.

No, I am not. Your strawman aside, the intent of the founder’s bicameral legislature had a number of intents. One was the representation of individual citizens in the decision process RE the interest of the nation as a whole (i.e. House of Representatives). Another was a Senate composed of representatives that would represent the single entity referred to in the constitution as a 'State' such as NJ or CA. The overarching intent of the federal government was to look after those constitutionally enumerated (and therefore limited) responsibilities of the national government which, boiled down, is to protect the rights, property, and lives of individual citizens. In order to accomplish this, the founders rejected the idealistic Articles of Confederation (which was even more hostile to a central authority) in favor of the U.S. Constitution that delegated the people's power (to Congress) and allowed it to raise sufficient funds to carry out its enumerated responsibilities.

Many, especially on the left, seem confused, by the founders use of the term 'General Welfare' even to the extent that they seem to think it expands Congress' mandate to do just about anything. In reality it is clear (via personal correspondence and Federalist Papers) that the founder’s use of the term 'General Welfare' is a further restriction placed on the federal governments powers of taxation and spending and not the opposite. Put simply, the revenues from taxation and their subsequent disposition must be confined to that which benefits the nation as a whole. The Federal grant of taxpayer monies to the Florida/Brighthouse local effort fails miserably on this test. The purpose of my little paragraph was to point out how far we have come from the founders intent to a mindset that allows Congress and politicians to continually pass obviously unconstitutional legislation that has led us to the current deficit/spending problem that will be the subject of the 112th Congress

If we were to take your strawman and put something that might be viewed as having some constitutional flesh on it by arguing for a national effort to supply computers and related education it would still fail. First, although the founders recognized the importance of an informed electorate, they saw no need to create a constitutional demand of the central government towards such responsibility. Further, the practicality of such an effort is dubious. Computers, for the majority, are merely tools used to accomplish sundry goals. Are we to expect the federal government to supply hammers and training in their use to budding carpenters?




Well, many have suggested this and it is certainly an area Congress should look into. However, I think that, specifically, we should approach this as a two pronged effort. First, an across the board budget cut (also a suggestion RE the entire future U.S. budget). Thereafter, those monies should be targeted on a strict basis informed only by U.S. strategic and economic interest with a significant (but not overwhelming) bias towards encouraging formation of classical liberal democratic societies based in individual liberties and the rule of law. Although that sounds good, realistic execution of such a policy is more difficult than it sounds.

An excellent example of good Aid might be the excellent program that the Obama Administration has conducted with a number of the former Soviet States like Ukraine to collect and secure spent and enriched uranium from theft and misuse by mischief makers. Kudos to the administration!





In my original post I had hoped that one or more posters here might have some insight as to the efficacy of federal vocational training programs. I far as I know they might be as efficacious as President Johnson's Great Society was in helping lift those targeted out of poverty. Since we see ever increasing numbers of the poor I have little faith in throwing even more money at this problem. It is not the federal government's responsibility to educate or retrain. The states may decide to offer such and if private companies wish to train for jobs more power to them. The history of private companies doing such and, even, starting their own academic institutions has been one of success but has been constantly assailed by the left through the courts which has forced the private companies to require higher and higher formal education for jobs that do not really require such levels of education. The left’s efforts to extract funds and punish corporations and business in general all fail in the end. Regulation and tax costs are passed on to consumers and fair wage efforts like the minimum wage tend to increase product/service costs and even suppress job creation itself.



Good. Then would you be for abolishing the 16th Amendment, scrapping a progressive income tax and establishing a flat tax on income? I think you are right that, even if symbolic, taxing welfare benefits (your: “everyone should pay taxes&#8221 would give these people some skin in the game. Why not? The government taxes unemployment benefits doesn’t it?





Well Foxfyre is more than capable of responding to this judgment of yours, but you seem to imply that a federal government taking the wealth from those that have legally earned it and transferring it, in the form of free computer access, to those who have not is, somehow, not a denial of freedom to the party of the first part. I would disagree.

But you are already starting the class war, dufus!! You are so ******* greedy you cannot see the good the internet can provide all Americans. I best you fought against giving schoolers access as well. You act like grown adults lack will power and morals & ethics. Get a ******* grip.

Of course if the proper owners of the wealth were not forced to give up what they had legally earned, we would not be in the denigrating morally depraved process of name calling here, would we? How can you cast such moral judgment against someone who was literally forced to give up the legally earned fruits of their labor? At best you must, at least, give them the choice to begin with before labeling them ‘greedy’. Your position here is obvious. You feel that government sponsored covetousness is a good if not moral position and anyone feeling different deserves moral degradation. This is simply an elitist conceit. This is not at all at odds with the progressive school that feels all American’s wealth is the federal government’s to begin with, thus the cry that the government cannot “afford” tax cuts. This presupposes the money that present American’s have not even earned yet is the property of the federal government. Perhaps you yourself might “get a grip” and ponder the ramifications of that logic.

One look at Trump or Limbaugh tells me all I need to know about rich greedy American bastards in America. Don't go extreme on me here, some are not greedy, I am not greedy, but huge percentage are, they just want to gobble up money and take it out of circulation, without a clue of where they came from or how they got there.

Why not put put a computer in the home, just like we put Beamers in the garages of wallstreet CEOs? No, Florida is a waste of time. The federal government has to do this.

Who is the “WE” that “has to” both “put computers in the home” and “put Beamers in the garages of wallstreet CEOs” ?

JM

I will say that America will remain stagnant and stupid due to the efforts of intelligent people like yourself. The founders did indeed consider education a goal for America. I think Franklin espoused that view. You world here is crumbling around you, an part of that reason, perhaps a big part is a lack of character and education of Americans. We can't even put a man on Mars because we have no trained intelligent engineers to do the job for NASA. Once again, we can always count of foreigners to do our jobs for us - because of intelligent people like yourself.

Here are some of the people you are helping, by using your way of thinking.

Starve the dog & he won't bark.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is part and parcel of the government as "benefactor in all things" mindset of both politicians and citizens that we all must reject in the future. We have also seen the founders original intent that both Senators' and the Representatives' (to the lower house) purpose was to attend to that business which would benefit the nation as a whole now devolve into a Lisa Murkowski/Charlie Rangel like "bring home the bacon" effort. This is simply a perversion of federal government's legitimate roll of protector of its citizens' individual liberties and the security of the nation as a whole.

No, I am not. Your strawman aside, the intent of the founder’s bicameral legislature had a number of intents. One was the representation of individual citizens in the decision process RE the interest of the nation as a whole (i.e. House of Representatives). Another was a Senate composed of representatives that would represent the single entity referred to in the constitution as a 'State' such as NJ or CA. The overarching intent of the federal government was to look after those constitutionally enumerated (and therefore limited) responsibilities of the national government which, boiled down, is to protect the rights, property, and lives of individual citizens. In order to accomplish this, the founders rejected the idealistic Articles of Confederation (which was even more hostile to a central authority) in favor of the U.S. Constitution that delegated the people's power (to Congress) and allowed it to raise sufficient funds to carry out its enumerated responsibilities.

Many, especially on the left, seem confused, by the founders use of the term 'General Welfare' even to the extent that they seem to think it expands Congress' mandate to do just about anything. In reality it is clear (via personal correspondence and Federalist Papers) that the founder’s use of the term 'General Welfare' is a further restriction placed on the federal governments powers of taxation and spending and not the opposite. Put simply, the revenues from taxation and their subsequent disposition must be confined to that which benefits the nation as a whole. The Federal grant of taxpayer monies to the Florida/Brighthouse local effort fails miserably on this test. The purpose of my little paragraph was to point out how far we have come from the founders intent to a mindset that allows Congress and politicians to continually pass obviously unconstitutional legislation that has led us to the current deficit/spending problem that will be the subject of the 112th Congress

If we were to take your strawman and put something that might be viewed as having some constitutional flesh on it by arguing for a national effort to supply computers and related education it would still fail. First, although the founders recognized the importance of an informed electorate, they saw no need to create a constitutional demand of the central government towards such responsibility. Further, the practicality of such an effort is dubious. Computers, for the majority, are merely tools used to accomplish sundry goals. Are we to expect the federal government to supply hammers and training in their use to budding carpenters?




Well, many have suggested this and it is certainly an area Congress should look into. However, I think that, specifically, we should approach this as a two pronged effort. First, an across the board budget cut (also a suggestion RE the entire future U.S. budget). Thereafter, those monies should be targeted on a strict basis informed only by U.S. strategic and economic interest with a significant (but not overwhelming) bias towards encouraging formation of classical liberal democratic societies based in individual liberties and the rule of law. Although that sounds good, realistic execution of such a policy is more difficult than it sounds.

An excellent example of good Aid might be the excellent program that the Obama Administration has conducted with a number of the former Soviet States like Ukraine to collect and secure spent and enriched uranium from theft and misuse by mischief makers. Kudos to the administration!





In my original post I had hoped that one or more posters here might have some insight as to the efficacy of federal vocational training programs. I far as I know they might be as efficacious as President Johnson's Great Society was in helping lift those targeted out of poverty. Since we see ever increasing numbers of the poor I have little faith in throwing even more money at this problem. It is not the federal government's responsibility to educate or retrain. The states may decide to offer such and if private companies wish to train for jobs more power to them. The history of private companies doing such and, even, starting their own academic institutions has been one of success but has been constantly assailed by the left through the courts which has forced the private companies to require higher and higher formal education for jobs that do not really require such levels of education. The left’s efforts to extract funds and punish corporations and business in general all fail in the end. Regulation and tax costs are passed on to consumers and fair wage efforts like the minimum wage tend to increase product/service costs and even suppress job creation itself.



Good. Then would you be for abolishing the 16th Amendment, scrapping a progressive income tax and establishing a flat tax on income? I think you are right that, even if symbolic, taxing welfare benefits (your: “everyone should pay taxes&#8221 would give these people some skin in the game. Why not? The government taxes unemployment benefits doesn’t it?





Well Foxfyre is more than capable of responding to this judgment of yours, but you seem to imply that a federal government taking the wealth from those that have legally earned it and transferring it, in the form of free computer access, to those who have not is, somehow, not a denial of freedom to the party of the first part. I would disagree.






Of course if the proper owners of the wealth were not forced to give up what they had legally earned, we would not be in the denigrating morally depraved process of name calling here, would we? How can you cast such moral judgment against someone who was literally forced to give up the legally earned fruits of their labor? At best you must, at least, give them the choice to begin with before labeling them ‘greedy’. Your position here is obvious. You feel that government sponsored covetousness is a good if not moral position and anyone feeling different deserves moral degradation. This is simply an elitist conceit. This is not at all at odds with the progressive school that feels all American’s wealth is the federal government’s to begin with, thus the cry that the government cannot “afford” tax cuts. This presupposes the money that present American’s have not even earned yet is the property of the federal government. Perhaps you yourself might “get a grip” and ponder the ramifications of that logic.

Why not put put a computer in the home, just like we put Beamers in the garages of wallstreet CEOs? No, Florida is a waste of time. The federal government has to do this.

Who is the “WE” that “has to” both “put computers in the home” and “put Beamers in the garages of wallstreet CEOs” ?

JM

What does JM stand for, Jasco Mexico? WE=American taxpayers.

Are you honestly asking a member who goes by the name of James Morrison what his signatory initials JM stand for?

Oh, and you still don't seem to understand the term 'strawman'. I suggest you look it up from a reliable source before you further embarrass yourself.