Free Internet at Your Expense for Low Income Families

[Big Fitz]

And furthermore... it isn't charity when it's confiscated from one and given to another.

Soggycuntmouth is wrong again, as usual.

Definition of CHARITY
1: benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity
2a : generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering; also : aid given to those in need
b : an institution engaged in relief of the poor
c : public provision for the relief of the needy

Hey dumb ****, you using Rushkies dictionary again???

What dictionary was this again? Funk and Stalin?

 

[shintao]

And furthermore... it isn't charity when it's confiscated from one and given to another.

Soggycuntmouth is wrong again, as usual.

Definition of CHARITY
1: benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity
2a : generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering; also : aid given to those in need
b : an institution engaged in relief of the poor
c : public provision for the relief of the needy

Hey dumb ****, you using Rushkies dictionary again???

What dictionary was this again? Funk and Stalin?

Actually, Merriam-Webster, but ask Bush, he called his gov. plan Faith Based Charities that he ran out for the Oval Office. Soggybrains just can't keep up with that mental deficiency he has to use a crutch with. Check the college dictionary, same-o same-o.

 

[Big Fitz]

Personally, i believe then you owe the Salvation Army 30,000 dollars. If you don't we will need to put you in jail, seize your property and auction it off for the money.

There's your government charity for you.

 

[Foxfyre]

Personally, i believe then you owe the Salvation Army 30,000 dollars. If you don't we will need to put you in jail, seize your property and auction it off for the money.

There's your government charity for you.

I have long been opposed to ANY form of federal government charity, but if they were going to do it anyway, Bush's faith based initiatives were the ONLY way to go. Why not help those agencies who are already helping people and who have the staff and infrastructure already in place ready to use the funds? It would definitely get more money to those who would actually benefit than does the government inventing and building everything from scratch and thereby swallowing most of the money up in the bureaucracy.

 

[Big Fitz]

Personally, i believe then you owe the Salvation Army 30,000 dollars. If you don't we will need to put you in jail, seize your property and auction it off for the money.

There's your government charity for you.

I have long been opposed to ANY form of federal government charity, but if they were going to do it anyway, Bush's faith based initiatives were the ONLY way to go. Why not help those agencies who are already helping people and who have the staff and infrastructure already in place ready to use the funds? It would definitely get more money to those who would actually benefit than does the government inventing and building everything from scratch and thereby swallowing most of the money up in the bureaucracy.

As you should be opposed. Charity does not come from the barrel of a gun. Theft does.

 

[Foxfyre]

Personally, i believe then you owe the Salvation Army 30,000 dollars. If you don't we will need to put you in jail, seize your property and auction it off for the money.

There's your government charity for you.

I have long been opposed to ANY form of federal government charity, but if they were going to do it anyway, Bush's faith based initiatives were the ONLY way to go. Why not help those agencies who are already helping people and who have the staff and infrastructure already in place ready to use the funds? It would definitely get more money to those who would actually benefit than does the government inventing and building everything from scratch and thereby swallowing most of the money up in the bureaucracy.

As you should be opposed. Charity does not come from the barrel of a gun. Theft does.

Exactly. But there are degrees of harm and all bad policy is not equal. To be extorted from your money is bad but not as bad as the robber committing assault and battery or murder to get it. And some bad government policy is less extensive and far reaching in its effect than some other bad government policy. The guy who takes your wallet can cause you great loss and inconvenience. But the guy who expects you to hand over your wallet week after week after week or else is even worse.

The problem is in escalation, precedence being set, and expansion of bad or harmful policy because it favors a privileged few. For instance that (fictitious) "13 cents", if equally distributed, would be felt by nobody. But if it then began escalating, as all government entitlements do, until it mushroomed into another multi billion dollar mishmash that is almost politically impossible to extricate ourselves from.

If the federal government would be forever prohibited from dispersing any form of charity from the public treasury to anybody and operate under a mandate to begin unwinding all the existing programs and slowly and carefully returning them to the states where they belong, we might avoid finishing the job of destroying the American economy.

We could start by deep sixing this ridiculous 'give them free internet' scheme.

 

[shintao]

Personally, i believe then you owe the Salvation Army 30,000 dollars. If you don't we will need to put you in jail, seize your property and auction it off for the money.

There's your government charity for you.

Yes, lets be generous to the extent we each can, and learn what is your duty as the child learns to suckle.

There is ample historical evidence of the value placed on charitable giving by many, if not all, cultures. The word ‘charity’ itself comes from the Greek caritas, meaning brotherly love. Trattner (1974), in his review of the ancient and Judeo-Christian background of the American social welfare system, traces the origins of charity to its sources in antiquity. The Code of Hammurabi (1750 BC) in ancient Babylonia discussed the importance of protecting the weak from the strong. In India, the Buddah taught that “all other forms of righteousness are not worth a sixteenth part of the emancipation of the heart through love and charity.” The Old Testament shifts the concept of helping the poor from one of charity to one of justice: it is an obligation to provide for the poor and infirm. Further, the poor have a right to receive and are obligated to take what is provided for them. Early Christianity, in a manner derived from its background in the Old Testament, identified a duty to give to the poor and the right of the needy to receive help.

Steven E. Zemmelman, M.S.W., Ph.D. | Publications

 

[Big Fitz]

Personally, i believe then you owe the Salvation Army 30,000 dollars. If you don't we will need to put you in jail, seize your property and auction it off for the money.

There's your government charity for you.

Yes, lets be generous to the extent we each can, and learn what is your duty as the child learns to suckle.

There is ample historical evidence of the value placed on charitable giving by many, if not all, cultures. The word ‘charity’ itself comes from the Greek caritas, meaning brotherly love. Trattner (1974), in his review of the ancient and Judeo-Christian background of the American social welfare system, traces the origins of charity to its sources in antiquity. The Code of Hammurabi (1750 BC) in ancient Babylonia discussed the importance of protecting the weak from the strong. In India, the Buddah taught that “all other forms of righteousness are not worth a sixteenth part of the emancipation of the heart through love and charity.” The Old Testament shifts the concept of helping the poor from one of charity to one of justice: it is an obligation to provide for the poor and infirm. Further, the poor have a right to receive and are obligated to take what is provided for them. Early Christianity, in a manner derived from its background in the Old Testament, identified a duty to give to the poor and the right of the needy to receive help.

Steven E. Zemmelman, M.S.W., Ph.D. | Publications

Begone knave. Something with the intellectual capacity of a squashed apricot can be no further amusement to us here.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Since the slippery slope argument seems to be accepted as fact, let's examine "let the states decide".
Consider, if you will, New Orleans after the flood. The home to many poor people was destroyed and many moved to the great state of Texas.
If "let the states decide" and the federal government was 'hand off' do we let the people of New Orleans die? Is that the conservative view?

 

[DiamondDave]

Charity is benevolent giving... something shit-tao just does not get.... A charity is usually a set up organization funded by the donations of others.... Government 'charity' is done by the forced confiscation from contributors to non-contributors... but government 'charity' has a better term which is often and frequently see, and that is ENTITLEMENT or ASSISTANCE

Benevolence is not forced... benevolence is a disposition... something that a being with conscience has... government is not a 'being' with such an ability.... and confiscation is definitely not something within the disposition of benevolence

 

[shintao]

Personally, i believe then you owe the Salvation Army 30,000 dollars. If you don't we will need to put you in jail, seize your property and auction it off for the money.

There's your government charity for you.

Yes, lets be generous to the extent we each can, and learn what is your duty as the child learns to suckle.

There is ample historical evidence of the value placed on charitable giving by many, if not all, cultures. The word ‘charity’ itself comes from the Greek caritas, meaning brotherly love. Trattner (1974), in his review of the ancient and Judeo-Christian background of the American social welfare system, traces the origins of charity to its sources in antiquity. The Code of Hammurabi (1750 BC) in ancient Babylonia discussed the importance of protecting the weak from the strong. In India, the Buddah taught that “all other forms of righteousness are not worth a sixteenth part of the emancipation of the heart through love and charity.” The Old Testament shifts the concept of helping the poor from one of charity to one of justice: it is an obligation to provide for the poor and infirm. Further, the poor have a right to receive and are obligated to take what is provided for them. Early Christianity, in a manner derived from its background in the Old Testament, identified a duty to give to the poor and the right of the needy to receive help.

Steven E. Zemmelman, M.S.W., Ph.D. | Publications

Begone knave. Something with the intellectual capacity of a squashed apricot can be no further amusement to us here.

I knew you would cave in like a 100 year old rusted can of shit.

 

[shintao]

Charity is benevolent giving... something shit-tao just does not get.... A charity is usually a set up organization funded by the donations of others.... Government 'charity' is done by the forced confiscation from contributors to non-contributors... but government 'charity' has a better term which is often and frequently see, and that is ENTITLEMENT or ASSISTANCE

Benevolence is not forced... benevolence is a disposition... something that a being with conscience has... government is not a 'being' with such an ability.... and confiscation is definitely not something within the disposition of benevolence

Scratch mah balls Dirty Dave. We understand the repeated BS from the right, and frankly I wouldn't force you to donate. They should have a check box on the IRS forms where you could donate X amount if you chose to. And then when that idea falls short, go ahead and put a gun to your head. Then again, maybe it wouldn't fall short of the need.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Has it occurred to anybody that financial reasons are not the only reason to oppose 'free internet' to residents in government subsidized housing?

I have long argued that it is a bad deal for the federal government to fund any of PBS and NPR as that gives government way too much influence over information provided to the people. There is a reason that protection of the Press was included in the First Amendment along with protection of free speech and religion. No people can remain free if the means of communication and ability to communicate are not unfettered in any way.

That is why those seizing the government of any nation first seize control of the media along with restrictions on religion and permissable content of speech.

When the government becomes an important funder of any part of the media or means of communication, there is far too much temptation, even likelihood, that those in power in government will utilize bribes, threats, or directives to influence what is communicated.

And wen it is in the interest of government to ensure that a dependent class of people remain dependent (and therefore faithful and dependable supporters of a specific ideology or party), how could it not be tempting for those in power to decide what information will and will not be allowed via that 'free internet'.

I think it wise that government not be involved in any content of any public communications or media other than that affecting the national security of everybody.

Interesting comment. Have you ever considered that the Government is people elected or appointed by the people to do their business? As evidenced during the past two national elections the people retain the power to fire the government.
Now, commercial television is controlled by the advertisers, and the people have no ability to 'fire' CEO's, company presidents or boards of directors.
Suggesting the government is or has a plan to take over commerical broadcasts because it funds (partially) PBS and NPR is ... (be nice Wry!) ... um, unlikely.

Here's the rub. Taxpayer funded PBS and NPR are biased in their reporting of the news as well as documentaries shown.
Plus, PBS programming is funded by the "Corporation for Public Broadcasting". This is an arm of the federal government which subjects programming to political forces..Additionally, most programs shown on PBS are funded by grants from major private industries.
Both investments leave PBS and NPR wide open to political and other influences. So to infer that PBS and NPR are pure in their editorial conduct is disingenuous.
What bothers me about both NPR and PBS is these entities are paid for by taxpayer dollars yet they have the nerve to beg for even more money.
Both PBS and NPR should be defunded and allowed to sink or swim on their own.

 

[syrenn]

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.

And government should NOT get involved. Because while some think this is just and fair, others, the ones who pay for their and then have to pay the government to fund someone else's so those people do not pay, the ones doing the paying become frustrated.
Do not forget, paying customers can easily become non- customers. Drive up the costs with taxes fees and crummy content while adding the ingredient of "you're paying this much so someone can have what you pay for free of charge" and people will cut the cord.
If the ones paying leave, then who pays for those who are getting the freebie?
See how this works?.....
There are two things wire line pay for services companies hate...Churn and sever....Churn is when customers leave one provider for another looking for a better deal. Sever is obvious. The pay tv industry is in a battle against sever......Internet providers are not far behind.

Cord-cutting may be cause of cable TV's woes Knoxville News Sentinel
Verizon CEO: Cord-Cutting Will Threaten Cable TV - 2010-09-23 2052 | Multichannel News

So you think if Americans knew they were subsidizing the poor's TV, that they would change providers. That seems fair to me, free competition and all, no skin off the provider. It's like their is no great rush to abandon grocery stores because they take food stamps you paid for. And did they close down the public pool or library because the poor were using them for free, and you were paying for them? If you read your own material you would see they have no idea why people are changing here or there, but thinking it is because of the poor getting a freebie? LOL! That is a real far reach.

Free public housing comes with free electricity. I is a necessity. However if you want to watch TV, they need to buy one. If the want cable or dish..they have to pay for that themselves too. (even if it from a welfare check)

Though you do have a point. If they cant afford food they should not be allowed to have cable or dish.

Public pools are an equal access thing. For the "rich" and "poor" Sorry to burst your bubble but not all "rich" or "middle class" can afford a pool in their back yards.

Same for libraries. they are there for everyone. Everyone has access to it.

Piping in wifi only to public housing is not equal access to all.

 

[Ozmar]

And furthermore... it isn't charity when it's confiscated from one and given to another.

Soggycuntmouth is wrong again, as usual.

Definition of CHARITY
1: benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity
2a : generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering; also : aid given to those in need
b : an institution engaged in relief of the poor
c : public provision for the relief of the needy

Hey dumb ****, you using Rushkies dictionary again???

So people will die because they need WiFi to live?
What's next, government issued cars?

 

[Ozmar]

Since the slippery slope argument seems to be accepted as fact, let's examine "let the states decide".
Consider, if you will, New Orleans after the flood. The home to many poor people was destroyed and many moved to the great state of Texas.
If "let the states decide" and the federal government was 'hand off' do we let the people of New Orleans die? Is that the conservative view?

I'm gonna go with C for common sense.

 

[QUENTIN]

Awesome.

I hate paying so much toward killing innocent children in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Afghnistan, etc. with expensive flying killer robots.

Providing a beneficial service to American citizens who otherwise can't afford it? That's exactly what I want my tax dollars going toward. This is great.

 

[Immanuel]

And furthermore... it isn't charity when it's confiscated from one and given to another.

Soggycuntmouth is wrong again, as usual.

Definition of CHARITY
1: benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity
2a : generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering; also : aid given to those in need
b : an institution engaged in relief of the poor
c : public provision for the relief of the needy

Hey dumb ****, you using Rushkies dictionary again???

So people will die because they need WiFi to live?
What's next, government issued cars?

I am hereby placing my order for a 2011 Corvette. I prefer red with all the latest gizmos added too!

Immie

 

[Foxfyre]

I do not discount the hardships endured by the truly poor and that keeps me working with charitable organizations who deal with these people everyday.

BUT. . . .

Walk into most low income/welfare family residences and you will see a working television set, usually some sort of game console for the kids, telephones including cell phones, usable furniture, and all the 'necessary' appliances. Also, as often as not, there will be an empty beer bottle or pack of cigs on the end table. Many have computers and/or a working automobile. And sometimes this stuff is really nice stuff. Sometimes it is given to them. Sometimes they are acquiring supplemental income under the table from some source. There is little risk of getting caught hiding income if you're smart about it.

Low income (TANF i.e. welfare) recipients generally are entitled to the following:

A cash allowance to buy groceries and other necessities.

Free health insurance that covers all healthcare cost.

Small one time allowance to outfit the new baby.

Reimbursement for child care expenses.

Free vocational training and education for all expenses except tuition--grants are available to pay tuition

Reimbursement of employment-related expense such as personal items necessary to accept a job offer, or to retain employment.

Funeral and burial expenses

Reimbursement of transportation expenses if enrolled in a training or education program or to get to and from work.

A modest clothing allowance for all members of household under age 19 in August (to outfit the kids for school.)

Supplimentaly Nutitional Assistance Program (SNAP): TANF recipients usually qualify for SNAP (formally known as food stamps).

Eligibility for reimbursement for housing or free or very low cost housing in government housing projects which usually involves free or help with utilities, etc.

Free cheese and other commodities.

Various other assistance programs.

******************************

Now admittedly there is a time limit--say five years--on some of this stuff UNLESS:

The person is temporarily or completely disabled
Ther person is the sole provider of home care to an ill or disabled family member
The person cannot work because of domestic violence
The person has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty
The person is age 60 or older
The person has dependent children living with them.
The person's application for SSI is pending or in the appeals process

(Most folks who don't want to get off welfare can figure out how to fit into one or two of those categories.)

********************************************

Those of us who couldn't afford highspeed internet or Wifi at some point, or who live in areas where it is not available, made do with dial up services. There are a number of those that are free.

Given how few folks in those housing projects would use internet service for much of anything other than recreational purposes, I think the federal government can find much more profitable uses for the people's money. Better yet let the people keep their money and use it to buy things, build things, invent things, develop things, invest in things that will create jobs so the poor folks can get one and be able to afford their own Wifi.

 

[Foxfyre]

BY THE WAY. . . .

To those of you expecting that new thread which will deal with Federal government welfare, I haven't forgotten about it and I'm past my target date to post it. I'm waiting until I can have an hour or two to be near the computer. So don't despair. . . it IS coming.