Free Internet at Your Expense for Low Income Families

[hortysir]

How much is this program costing the individual taxpayer?

doesn't matter. Producers paying for their own AND for poor people to get HSI free of charge.
That's bullshit.
Next thing government will tax us extra so these people can have free cell phone usage.
I am sick and tired of busting my ass to buy the things I want and need only to see do-gooder liberal politicians take even more of my hard earned coin and hand it to those who refuse to produce for themsleves.
Why does a person who lives in taxpayer subsidized housing, lives off the public dole and more than likely CAN work but the system allows them to no work, need with high speed internet access?. Let them use dial-up.. They can get that free through Net Zero.
This is a terrible misuse of taxpayer resources.
Florida may be gaining population, but it is not gaining population of people who are looking to open new businesses and those looking for a prosperous economy. Those people are leaving Florida. The taxes keep rising and the governments keep demanding more from property owners. The real estate market is in a shambles. No one or almost no one can sell a home. The salary structure sucks.....And now this.
Florida.....Saw it off, let it float to Cuba and call it a day.

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/EnrollmentPublic/home.aspx

 

[thereisnospoon]

I dunno, Foxfyre. I'm less enthusiastic about the computers being sold at such a low cost than I am about the internet being provided...but it's possible they worked a deal and are just passing along the low price.

I'd be happier if the city wanted to embed computer labs in the projects that people could come and use, but I guess this dun set my hair on fire. Certainly does seem likely to lead to some new hope for the impoverished residents.

"New hope"....? how so. Are you implying that unfettered high speed internet access is somehow going to make the lives of taxpayer funded housing....better?..
Please explain.....
Here's the one little but very important detail your missing.......and I'll tip you off. Have you driven past one of your basic taxpayer funded housing projects lately?..Ever?
Just what do you think would happen to one of those "imbeded computer labs" in a project?
What low price for HSI?....Are you aware the cost of producing and maintaining a high speed internet system?
Each day you liberals never cease to maze. Your side just has so many ideas on how to extract even more of our money to spend on ridiculous pie in the sky ideas. Ideas that liberals dream up to make themselves feel better about themselves.
Look, if you want high speed internet access for those who live in taxpayer funded housing, write a check. Stay the hell out of my bank account.

 

[shintao]

Its already happening. We have been providing it for several years now to the "poor" to improve their lives. So far i see on results.

And you wonder why they stay bums sucking off the government teet!

San Francisco Public Housing Gets Free Wi-Fi CBS San Francisco- News, Sports, Weather, Traffic and the Best of SF




Do the math here folks. Thats more then 14k per unit they are spending on FREE wifi. Lets say that again 14 thousand dollars on each unit of public housing to provide FREE wifi.

Yep, a lot of cash because people in SF actually have to make a living to stay there. It also included broad band, and I suppose the wiring for all of this was was quite expensive.

Ain't it great what a socialist government can do, that private enterprise could never handle or consider doing. Tsk!.

At a loss, idiot.
They're providing these services AT A LOSS.

In what world is it okay to operate one's government at a loss?

Why are you excited to see our nation fail?

Gee, America operates at loss ever since Powell said we could fight two wars back to back, and Cheney stood up and said deficits didn't matter and Bush gave the uppercrust tax cuts. Not to worry Imbecile. Aren't you one of those people arguing to cut taxes as a means of paying the trillions of debt you owe? LMAO!! Imbecile............

We are too big to fall. Relax, don't worry, be happy! What did you have for dinner tonight? Three courses of meat, vegetables and bread, maybe desert. You are far from starving.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am guessing if you took a poll of the people on this particular issue, using honest unvarnished facts, it would look pretty much as the poll looks on this thread.

I think you vastly underestimate the distribution of income levels in our country vs those represented on the internet.

I guarantee you if you asked every american if they would like the government to provide free wireless services and basic desktops for 125.00 in every household, it would be a landslide. Maybe even better than a chicken in every pot.

But redistribution of wealth doesn't work like that does it? It requires most to have less so that the government can be generous to a few. The government can then depend on the support of that few and trust they can lie to or swindle enough of the others to keep themselves in power. And they trust they won't need their jobs for as long as it will take for the house of cards they constantly build to eventually fall down completely.

Legacy of Medicare and Medicaid - hundreds of percent more expensive than what was sold to the American people and are now unsustainable programs that cannot possibly sustain the 60 million new people about to access those programs without seriously damaging the economy over all.

Legacy of the Cash for Clunkers program - Shortterm windfall for dealerships. Long term serious increase in cost of used cars for the consumer now plus cars that once went as donations to important charities who help the poor were juniked and such cars are now in short supply. Recovery for the dealers? Not all that much, but the foreign dealers really enjoyed it.

Legacy of social secuirty and lucrative government pensions--both have cost far more than any costs originally sold to the public and both are now bringing the states to the brink of bankruptcy and will do the same to the federal government within the lifetime of most here on USMB unless drastic changes are made very soon.

Don't be so sure that most Americans approve of all this even though it might go against their personal interests to correct the problem. Free people value freedom more than you seem to give them credit for.

 

[Londoner]

A free society requires the broadest possible access to information. (A Democracy cannot function without informed voters)

The internet is a primary mechanism of information.

Providing access to information in a democracy is not charity -- it is an essential ingredient of a free society.

Making access to information class based, e.g., based on wealth as opposed to citizenship, is the opposite of the "American Way".

Tying information production to profit ensures that only powerful corporations will be able to afford and distribute information. This is the quickest way to create an aristocracy. (FYI: this is what wealth always does. First it buys politicians and media. Then it reduces participation to ensure its interests are protected. This is an old story)

During the Cold War America promoted its way of life around the globe. American never tired of mentioning that its citizens had essential freedoms that the Soviets lacked, i.e., the Soviet people did not have access to information. In America, on the other hand, it didn't matter if you were rich or poor -- everyone had freedom; everyone had access to information and political power.

In 1980 the concept of broad access to information and political power started to change. Reagan told us to trust the market. Let profit decide who has access to information and power. Let the market take care of democracy.

By strategically making a fetish of "free loaders", the Reagan Revolution narrowed political participation and created exactly the kind of anti-democratic universe seen in the old soviet union - a world where less people have access to information and power.

Reagan created a world where, increasingly, only the wealthy can afford to produce and access information.

Goodbye Democracy.

Humans are a funny lot. Once they taste money and power . . . they results are tragically predictable.

 

[hortysir]

Yep, a lot of cash because people in SF actually have to make a living to stay there. It also included broad band, and I suppose the wiring for all of this was was quite expensive.

Ain't it great what a socialist government can do, that private enterprise could never handle or consider doing. Tsk!.

At a loss, idiot.
They're providing these services AT A LOSS.

In what world is it okay to operate one's government at a loss?

Why are you excited to see our nation fail?

Gee, America operates at loss ever since Powell said we could fight two wars back to back, and Cheney stood up and said deficits didn't matter and Bush gave the uppercrust tax cuts. Not to worry Imbecile. Aren't you one of those people arguing to cut taxes as a means of paying the trillions of debt you owe? LMAO!! Imbecile............

We are too big to fall. Relax, don't worry, be happy! What did you have for dinner tonight? Three courses of meat, vegetables and bread, maybe desert. You are far from starving.

We weren't TRILLIONS of dollars in debt when the taxes got cut.
It's a dumb idea to raise taxes for ANYONE just because bankers and auto makers don't know how to balance a ledger.

psst....not raising taxes is not a tax cut.

What'd I have for dinner?
Why?
Do you care about my fiber?

Maple-glazed chicken breast with pecan crusted shrimp skewers on a bed of wild rice with broccoli and asparagus.

 

[hortysir]

A free society requires the broadest possible access to information. (A Democracy cannot function without informed voters)

The internet is a primary mechanism of information.

Providing access to information in a democracy is not charity -- it is an essential ingredient of a free society.

Making access to information class based, e.g., based on wealth as opposed to citizenship, is the opposite of the "American Way".

Tying information production to profit ensures that only powerful corporations will be able to afford and distribute information. This is the quickest way to create an aristocracy. (FYI: this is what wealth always does once it gets holds of politics and the media. It reduces participation to only those who serve its interests. This is an old story)

During the Cold War America promoted its way of life around the globe. American never tired of mentioning that its citizens had essential freedoms that the Soviets lacked, i.e., the Soviet people did not have access to information. In America, on the other hand, it didn't matter if you were rich or poor -- everyone had freedom; everyone had access to information and political power.

The Reagan Revolution, by strategically making a fetish of "free loaders", created exactly the kind of anti-democratic universe seen in the old soviet union - a world where less people have access to information and power.

Humans are a funny lot. Once they taste money and power . . . they results are tragically predictable.

Did we pass out free newspapers during WW1&2?
Korea?
Vietnam?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Internet access is neither a right nor a necessity. The government has no right using my money to provide it to anyone.

Democracy in Iraq is neither their right nor a necessity, the government has no right using my money to provide it to them. However, Internet access is going to cost you .13/year. How much will our invasion, occupation and nation building in Iraq ultimately cost you? Not to mention the loss of 4,000 American lives....

Non-sequitur.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

I think your math is a little off if you count only those who are actually working and paying into the national treasury without getting back most or more than they pay in. And again you are only counting one U.S. city. Add in ALL the U.S. cities and I think you'll be looking at paying a substantial amount every year to fund such a program.

Yeah..Just look at the litany of taxes and fees on cell phone and pay tv services. Most of those are government money grabs for transfer payments.

 

[thereisnospoon]

This used to be a nice building. It was built to house people at low or no cost to them.

Look what happened to it.

Who's the slum lord in charge of maintenance there?

The taxpayers of the city in which this relic lies. That's who....
Hey, I have an idea. If you want to pay for people who live in government housing to have HSI, write a check..

 

[shintao]

@Fitz, Government provides security. That is how it earns. It provides the means to enforce your contracts, the jails to house the perps, the law to produce order and organization, the courts to determine justice, the military to protect us from the predations of other nations and, so far, the infrastructure necessary for a free market.

Nobody is OWED it just because they ******* exist... and while I call for people to give VOLUNTARILY to charities to help causes that speak to their hearts, I do not call for any program that forcibly makes people support others

I assume the poster is not a pro-lifer then?

I'm fine with eliminating any social safety net as long as we remove all laws from the books that criminalize poverty. No more building codes, no vagrancy laws, no child negligence laws, etc. All those laws are unfunded mandates without poverty wealth transference programs. And if you want to see how long 40 yr olds have been living at home, read some Jane Austen or Dickens or see a Neil Simon play.

I think you may have missed the point a bit.

A social contract based on the Constitutional concept of 'general welfare' does anticipate social services that benefit the whole and that would include building codes, police and fire protection, shared medical facilities, etc. and anticipates that the federal government would PROMOTE that....not PROVIDE that.

The one guiding principle that would direct a true public servant is: Does it benefit all by people sharing services rather than each one having to provide such services for himself or herself? If it can, however, be done more effectively, efficiently, and economically by the private sector, that's where the responsibility for providing it should remain.

And however much I admire Austen or Dickens or Simon, there is nothing in any of their works that suggests that the federal government is good at providing charity to anybody. Nor should be.

The emphasis of the Federal Government in promoting the general welfare should be focused on policy, regulation, and laws that better and enable the people to form a better society. Anytime the government decides to do that for them, however, it will screw it up.

The Founders intended to create the first nation the world had ever known in which people would have unalienable rights recognized and protected and would enjoy the freedom and be left alone to form whatever kind of society they wished to have.

They would have been horrified to think that the government could take money away from you in order to buy votes, influence, and prestige by providing free internet to others.

The Constitution says “provide . . . for the general welfare,” not promote it, or anything else.

I see you prefer privatizing all social services and the military, so the government doesn't screw it up. Very Libertarian of you. You wouldn't last a day as a rugged individual, so might as well cancel yapping on what the founders wanted, or playing the Crystal ball reader about what they thought. You don't even know what the Constitution states, so you should be the last one offering an opinion on the founders.

 

[snjmom]

I am guessing if you took a poll of the people on this particular issue, using honest unvarnished facts, it would look pretty much as the poll looks on this thread.

I think you vastly underestimate the distribution of income levels in our country vs those represented on the internet.

I guarantee you if you asked every american if they would like the government to provide free wireless services and basic desktops for 125.00 in every household, it would be a landslide. Maybe even better than a chicken in every pot.

But redistribution of wealth doesn't work like that does it? It requires most to have less so that the government can be generous to a few. The government can then depend on the support of that few and trust they can lie to or swindle enough of the others to keep themselves in power. And they trust they won't need their jobs for as long as it will take for the house of cards they constantly build to eventually fall down completely.

Legacy of Medicare and Medicaid - hundreds of percent more expensive than what was sold to the American people and are now unsustainable programs that cannot possibly sustain the 60 million new people about to access those programs without seriously damaging the economy over all.

Legacy of the Cash for Clunkers program - Shortterm windfall for dealerships. Long term serious increase in cost of used cars for the consumer now plus cars that once went as donations to important charities who help the poor were juniked and such cars are now in short supply. Recovery for the dealers? Not all that much, but the foreign dealers really enjoyed it.

Legacy of social secuirty and lucrative government pensions--both have cost far more than any costs originally sold to the public and both are now bringing the states to the brink of bankruptcy and will do the same to the federal government within the lifetime of most here on USMB unless drastic changes are made very soon.

Don't be so sure that most Americans approve of all this even though it might go against their personal interests to correct the problem. Free people value freedom more than you seem to give them credit for.

When wealth is not redistributed, then "It requires most to have less so that the government can be generous to a few." in the opposite direction. It produces dissonances like media companies can fire journalists for not lying. Chemical companies can sue farmers for infiltration of their brands onto your lands.

Money is power.

Power concentrated in the hands of people I can't vote for seems dangerous to me.

When banks can kill nations, it behooves nations to shackle them, if they are to allow them to exist at all.

As for the Legacy issues, you can fix without killing. I wouldn't mind implementing the full spectrum of the Deficit Commission recommendations. I would alter a number of our priorities and I would unveil the shadow banking system. That should put us on budget.

But I stand by a yes vote for free internet. The only thing that could get possibly more votes is titties and beer.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Thanks, Daveman...from your link:

Indeed. Liberals can't do anything right, can they?

Sorry. I was just getting the impression that the point you were trying to make was that the deplorable condition of these housing units were the sole cause of the inhabitants.

This project's condition is not unique. When people who do have any self respect are given something for which they did not pay, they will not care for it. Period.
The city of Chicago did not tear out railings, shove all kinds of crap into the plumbing, steal the copper wiring and sell it for scrap. paint graffiti on every square inch of painted surface, steal everything that was not bolted down, break the locks off doors, etc.
Why offer internet service to people who for the most part do not own a computer. Or at least one they did not steal.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

I think your math is a little off if you count only those who are actually working and paying into the national treasury without getting back most or more than they pay in. And again you are only counting one U.S. city. Add in ALL the U.S. cities and I think you'll be looking at paying a substantial amount every year to fund such a program.

Yeah..Just look at the litany of taxes and fees on cell phone and pay tv services. Most of those are government money grabs for transfer payments.

I was speaking of taxes on earnings of course, but I am pretty darn sure that the taxes and fees on cell phones and pay TV services nowhere near pay for the enormous Federal bureaucracy that collects those taxes and fees.

This has been circulating in e-mail for the last several weeks and sort of illustrates what we get into when government decides we NEED something:

Let me get this straight . . . .

We're going to be "gifted" with a health care
plan we are forced to purchase and
fined if we don't,

Which purportedly covers at least
ten million more people,
without adding a single new doctor,
but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents,

written by a committee whose chairman
says he doesn't understand it,

passed by a Congress that didn't read it but
exempted themselves from it,

and signed by a President who smokes,

with funding administered by a treasury chief who
didn't pay his taxes,

for which we'll be taxed for four years before any
benefits take effect,

by a government which has
already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare,

all to be overseen by a surgeon general
who is obese,

and financed by a country that's broke!!!!!

'What the heck could
possibly go wrong?'

 

[thereisnospoon]

The Chicago Housing Authority. That's Cabrini-Green.

Was.


They are almost all gone now. There is maybe 2 buildings left and I believe they are scheduled to be removed as well. Good riddance.

Good riddance? were do you think these people that live there are going to do? some of them might end up being your new neighbors.

Don't think so. We have rules here. Rule number one, you have to be able to afford and maintain your property. That's what decent people do. They earn their way into a nice place to live and their primary goal is to maintain the value of the property because it is their home, their pride and their investment in their kid's future. Now if some consider that racist or politically incorrect, I stand convicted. Ask me if I care.

 

[MarcATL]

Why is internet so expensive anyway...its not like USA has the best service.

 

[shintao]

Indeed. Liberals can't do anything right, can they?

Sorry. I was just getting the impression that the point you were trying to make was that the deplorable condition of these housing units were the sole cause of the inhabitants.

This project's condition is not unique. When people who do have any self respect are given something for which they did not pay, they will not care for it. Period.
The city of Chicago did not tear out railings, shove all kinds of crap into the plumbing, steal the copper wiring and sell it for scrap. paint graffiti on every square inch of painted surface, steal everything that was not bolted down, break the locks off doors, etc.Why offer internet service to people who for the most part do not own a computer. Or at least one they did not steal.

I am not sure what this has to do with the free internet? I see the same thing in 50% of the top crust & middle class homes being foreclosed on. Somehow they want something to remember the old house by, like all the appliances, wiring, light fixtures, solar, heat & air & hot water, etc. Now I do image these people owed computers, so I see no connection to poverty.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I dunno, Foxfyre. I'm less enthusiastic about the computers being sold at such a low cost than I am about the internet being provided...but it's possible they worked a deal and are just passing along the low price.

I'd be happier if the city wanted to embed computer labs in the projects that people could come and use, but I guess this dun set my hair on fire. Certainly does seem likely to lead to some new hope for the impoverished residents.

Millions of us managed to get an education without free internet or computers being provided. Heck, there wasn't any such thing as personal computers during much of my formal education. If you wanted to be educated you had to get your butt out of bed, get to a school campus someplace, and attend classes.

EVERY school from first through twelfth grade, every junior college, every university, every community center, etc. etc. etc. has computers provided for use. Not as convenient as being able to stay home in your jammies with your beer and pretzels for sure, but perhaps creating a work ethic to have to get out and get it done.

Small rural communities without broadband access may just have to work together to bring it in like all rural communities have had to do with sewer systems, electricity, natural gas, and telephones. And availability of broadband access is not a problem in Tampa FL.

If we were going to spend the money, infrastructure for rural broadband access instead would be my choice.

It's not just about personal use, there are also lots of farms and businesses out here in the sticks that could and would benefit. You can't expand to internet sales or use many business applications on dialup service, and for many rural small businesses the cost of satellite service (assuming it's available) eats into the bottom line. As hard hit as some cities are, the rural economy in many areas got the bust without really benefiting much from the boom years before it. Any hand up to new opportunity would be helpful.

Although every phone bill has included a fee for rural broadband for years, makes me wonder what's been done with that money.

you would be shcoked at how far DSL service from via telcos has ventured out into rural areas.
When Digital Subscriber Line( DSL) service was first introduced, one had to live within roughly 3 linear miles of the nearest Telco central office. A central office is one of those small brick or concrete buildings you see with the Telco name or logo which houses switching equipment for a given area. Now DSL is available many miles out from Central offices.
Perhaps you are closer to getting HSI than you think. It would not be the highest of speeds, but much faster than dial-up. Forget cable internet in the sticks. Cable co's are not public utilities and as such are not required to string cables into outlying areas. Nor will they likely to be. Cable was deregulated 25 years ago in return for allowing cable certain freedoms. Cable companies will not likely surrender those conditions without a huge and very expensive fight.

 

[syrenn]

I selected "Other..." mostly because I believe that there are times when the government needs to be generous too the needy. However, in this case, I do not believe the internet is a necessity and I do not believe that the citizens of the U.S. should be forced to supply internet connections to the poor.

Immie

Its already happening. We have been providing it for several years now to the "poor" to improve their lives. So far i see on results.

And you wonder why they stay bums sucking off the government teet!

San Francisco Public Housing Gets Free Wi-Fi CBS San Francisco- News, Sports, Weather, Traffic and the Best of SF

Just scanning your link that is a little different. People still have to pay rent (albeit at very low rates) at public housing which means in effect they are paying for the service. That is not the same as bringing internet services to every Tom, Dick and Mary on the Welfare roles.

Immie

It is still 6500 public housing units that will be getting wifi installed for FREE...for the bargain rate of 95 million.

 

[shintao]

Millions of us managed to get an education without free internet or computers being provided. Heck, there wasn't any such thing as personal computers during much of my formal education. If you wanted to be educated you had to get your butt out of bed, get to a school campus someplace, and attend classes.

EVERY school from first through twelfth grade, every junior college, every university, every community center, etc. etc. etc. has computers provided for use. Not as convenient as being able to stay home in your jammies with your beer and pretzels for sure, but perhaps creating a work ethic to have to get out and get it done.

Small rural communities without broadband access may just have to work together to bring it in like all rural communities have had to do with sewer systems, electricity, natural gas, and telephones. And availability of broadband access is not a problem in Tampa FL.

If we were going to spend the money, infrastructure for rural broadband access instead would be my choice.

It's not just about personal use, there are also lots of farms and businesses out here in the sticks that could and would benefit. You can't expand to internet sales or use many business applications on dialup service, and for many rural small businesses the cost of satellite service (assuming it's available) eats into the bottom line. As hard hit as some cities are, the rural economy in many areas got the bust without really benefiting much from the boom years before it. Any hand up to new opportunity would be helpful.

Although every phone bill has included a fee for rural broadband for years, makes me wonder what's been done with that money.

you would be shcoked at how far DSL service from via telcos has ventured out into rural areas.
When Digital Subscriber Line( DSL) service was first introduced, one had to live within roughly 3 linear miles of the nearest Telco central office. A central office is one of those small brick or concrete buildings you see with the Telco name or logo which houses switching equipment for a given area. Now DSL is available many miles out from Central offices.
Perhaps you are closer to getting HSI than you think. It would not be the highest of speeds, but much faster than dial-up. Forget cable internet in the sticks. Cable co's are not public utilities and as such are not required to string cables into outlying areas. Nor will they likely to be. Cable was deregulated 25 years ago in return for allowing cable certain freedoms. Cable companies will not likely surrender those conditions without a huge and very expensive fight.

A good point about private cable companys, because it is that way with other services as well, like all utilities from water to gas. Only PG&E will put in energy to these backwoods people in the sticks. You want water, dig a well. Want gas, buy a tank & LP gas. Until government gets involved it will never get done.