Coming soon for Low Income Folks. . . .Free Internet access and Other Perks
So what do you think? Is it a good use...Or will the payoff of better skilled and trained people be worth it?
Please discuss.
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.
You ever been in one of those "nice" buildings?
I was a mover..I know them inside out. They ain't "nice".
He said "used to". Again, you missed the whole ******* point and go off on some brainless diatribe about how much "you know"
Spare us.
Coming soon for Low Income Folks. . . .Free Internet access and Other Perks
So what do you think? Is it a good use...Or will the payoff of better skilled and trained people be worth it?
Please discuss.
I'm all for keeping the great masses ignorant.
seriously, why train a population to do better when we can loutsource everything?
Coming soon for Low Income Folks. . . .Free Internet access and Other Perks
So what do you think? Is it a good use of your hard earned tax dollar to provide free internet access, computer instruction, and low cost computers to folks while you are busting your butt to keep a roof over your head, food on the table, and you pay for your internet access and full price for your computer as well as whatever you need to use 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?
Please discuss.
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.
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. 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.
We have also seen on this thread a do gooder that has no problem volunteering himself, and all other tax payers for that matter, to pay for this. I believe the figure stated was 13 cents per taxpayer (.13/taxpayer). If only. First, this is just one state. Further, as I stated in my first paragraph, this is a past mindset that must be revised considerably. Adding up all such programs along with the present level of the just approved budget extension (to only just March!) their estimated cost has been noted as about 10,292 USD for each man, women, and child in the U.S. (Granted the budget has legitimate government spending included but even much of this is contentious.) Obviously not all these people pay taxes, so that individual dollar figure must rise when only those that pay are considered, but sadly, there is more. As of now, almost half of those working, do not pay any taxes some of these actually receive money from the government. So for those who would actually have a tax liability the dollar figure rises again.
Looking at your 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 that would be the good scenario. We currently see Obamas FCC trying to take over the internet in the name of regulation. Why couldnt the FCC just outlaw (by regulation) those things so that none of us get them? After all, wouldnt that satisfy the lefts goal of equality?
Simply though, all of this comes under the heading voiced by your polls third choice.
Supplying dedicated centers for this would be a repeat of the mistake we know as the projects in urban areas. This would also necessitate the hiring of more government employees to safeguard both the computers and facility from theft and vandals. The better solution would be to put the computers in local libraries where identification is required (those so deserving get free library cards.) After all this, it is still not clear how effective government job training programs are in actually training and helping participants find gainful employment. Perhaps, some contributors here can enlighten all of us so regarding. Employer feedback RE these programs' efficacy would be invaluable also. But this Florida effort with Brighthouse doesn't even address this question.
JM
Coming soon for Low Income Folks. . . .Free Internet access and Other Perks
So what do you think? Is it a good use of your hard earned tax dollar to provide free internet access, computer instruction, and low cost computers to folks while you are busting your butt to keep a roof over your head, food on the table, and you pay for your internet access and full price for your computer as well as whatever you need to use 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?
Please discuss.
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.
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. 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.
We have also seen on this thread a do gooder that has no problem volunteering himself, and all other tax payers for that matter, to pay for this. I believe the figure stated was 13 cents per taxpayer (.13/taxpayer). If only. First, this is just one state. Further, as I stated in my first paragraph, this is a past mindset that must be revised considerably. Adding up all such programs along with the present level of the just approved budget extension (to only just March!) their estimated cost has been noted as about 10,292 USD for each man, women, and child in the U.S. (Granted the budget has legitimate government spending included but even much of this is contentious.) Obviously not all these people pay taxes, so that individual dollar figure must rise when only those that pay are considered, but sadly, there is more. As of now, almost half of those working, do not pay any taxes some of these actually receive money from the government. So for those who would actually have a tax liability the dollar figure rises again.
Looking at your 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 that would be the good scenario. We currently see Obamas FCC trying to take over the internet in the name of regulation. Why couldnt the FCC just outlaw (by regulation) those things so that none of us get them? After all, wouldnt that satisfy the lefts goal of equality?
Simply though, all of this comes under the heading voiced by your polls third choice.
Supplying dedicated centers for this would be a repeat of the mistake we know as the projects in urban areas. This would also necessitate the hiring of more government employees to safeguard both the computers and facility from theft and vandals. The better solution would be to put the computers in local libraries where identification is required (those so deserving get free library cards.) After all this, it is still not clear how effective government job training programs are in actually training and helping participants find gainful employment. Perhaps, some contributors here can enlighten all of us so regarding. Employer feedback RE these programs' efficacy would be invaluable also. But this Florida effort with Brighthouse doesn't even address this question.
JM
Superb observations as usual James, and as usual probably most won't bother to read it.
One observation of mine: you stated the 13 cents cited by one member was just in one state. Actually, if his math was correct, which I've already noted it is most likely not, it applies to one housing project in one city in one state. If the precedent is used to expand the program it could be multiplied by many thousands across the land and involved a substantial outlay for every taxpayer even if the 13 cents is correct.
Then add in all the other issues also already raised, and it becomes quite difficult to justify it by any standard.
I propose that people be instructed to go to their local school, community center, library, or other places where public access to computers is common, and use the computers there. That would provide a double benefit of work ethic with people being required to take responsibility for themselves AND ensure that those utilizing public property are those who seriously want to improve themselves.
Coming soon for Low Income Folks. . . .Free Internet access and Other Perks
So what do you think? Is it a good use of your hard earned tax dollar to provide free internet access, computer instruction, and low cost computers to folks while you are busting your butt to keep a roof over your head, food on the table, and you pay for your internet access and full price for your computer as well as whatever you need to use 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?
Please discuss.
Coming soon for Low Income Folks. . . .Free Internet access and Other Perks
So what do you think? Is it a good use of your hard earned tax dollar to provide free internet access, computer instruction, and low cost computers to folks while you are busting your butt to keep a roof over your head, food on the table, and you pay for your internet access and full price for your computer as well as whatever you need to use 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?
Please discuss.
What does this have to do with politics?
Coming soon for Low Income Folks. . . .Free Internet access and Other Perks
So what do you think? Is it a good use of your hard earned tax dollar to provide free internet access, computer instruction, and low cost computers to folks while you are busting your butt to keep a roof over your head, food on the table, and you pay for your internet access and full price for your computer as well as whatever you need to use 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?
Please discuss.
Coming soon for Low Income Folks. . . .Free Internet access and Other Perks
So what do you think? Is it a good use of your hard earned tax dollar to provide free internet access, computer instruction, and low cost computers to folks while you are busting your butt to keep a roof over your head, food on the table, and you pay for your internet access and full price for your computer as well as whatever you need to use 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?
Please discuss.
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.
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. 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.
We have also seen on this thread a do gooder that has no problem volunteering himself, and all other tax payers for that matter, to pay for this. I believe the figure stated was 13 cents per taxpayer (.13/taxpayer). If only. First, this is just one state. Further, as I stated in my first paragraph, this is a past mindset that must be revised considerably. Adding up all such programs along with the present level of the just approved budget extension (to only just March!) their estimated cost has been noted as about 10,292 USD for each man, women, and child in the U.S. (Granted the budget has legitimate government spending included but even much of this is contentious.) Obviously not all these people pay taxes, so that individual dollar figure must rise when only those that pay are considered, but sadly, there is more. As of now, almost half of those working, do not pay any taxes some of these actually receive money from the government. So for those who would actually have a tax liability the dollar figure rises again.
Looking at your 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 that would be the good scenario. We currently see Obamas FCC trying to take over the internet in the name of regulation. Why couldnt the FCC just outlaw (by regulation) those things so that none of us get them? After all, wouldnt that satisfy the lefts goal of equality?
Simply though, all of this comes under the heading voiced by your polls third choice.
Supplying dedicated centers for this would be a repeat of the mistake we know as the projects in urban areas. This would also necessitate the hiring of more government employees to safeguard both the computers and facility from theft and vandals. The better solution would be to put the computers in local libraries where identification is required (those so deserving get free library cards.) After all this, it is still not clear how effective government job training programs are in actually training and helping participants find gainful employment. Perhaps, some contributors here can enlighten all of us so regarding. Employer feedback RE these programs' efficacy would be invaluable also. But this Florida effort with Brighthouse doesn't even address this question.
JM
Superb observations as usual James, and as usual probably most won't bother to read it.
One observation of mine: you stated the 13 cents cited by one member was just in one state. Actually, if his math was correct, which I've already noted it is most likely not, it applies to one housing project in one city in one state. If the precedent is used to expand the program it could be multiplied by many thousands across the land and involved a substantial outlay for every taxpayer even if the 13 cents is correct.
Then add in all the other issues also already raised, and it becomes quite difficult to justify it by any standard.
I propose that people be instructed to go to their local school, community center, library, or other places where public access to computers is common, and use the computers there. That would provide a double benefit of work ethic with people being required to take responsibility for themselves AND ensure that those utilizing public property are those who seriously want to improve themselves.
