Stealing cable from the poor

[Two Thumbs]

I'm asking again and again because none of you imbeciles has an answer. How do non-profit credit unions survive?

dude, don't get personal...last request, lets keep things adult.

as to your questioning, I am not into indulging your strawman/misdirection if you want to discuss the topic lets do that......cable - should not purse profit in your eyes..correct?

The topic is, why can't a cable provider operate on a non-profit basis if electric companies can, if banks (credit unions) can, and, while we're at it,
as many healthcare providers can.

And **** you and your phoney-ass adult shit. I don't see you telling the others in this thread to act like adults. Who the **** do you think you are?

That's the topic of your attempt to derail.

the topic was taxes on cable to give access to the poor that didn't get it b/c the money sat, then got spent on other things.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A better question is: why do you feel the need to impose your "non-profit" value system upon companies which you don't own?

That's retarded. No ones' saying the for-profit cable providers can't continue to exist. Banks co-exist with credit unions. Electric companies co-exist with electric co-ops.

Why are you attacking my right to get a better deal from my credit union than I will from any for-profit bank in my area?

 

[VaYank5150]

Because television is little more than a basic utility now. There's no need for a cable company to be making profits. I get great electric service from a non-profit co-op whose only mandate is to break even. When they have money left over they send it back to us. There's no reason cable/satellite tv couldn't be like that.

I see...like cell phones? are they a basic utility too?

you do realize that when you up the "basics" or that is when you level someone UP absent merit as a motivator, from point say Z to V, it costs money and short circuits the system. Thats the social aspect...

as for the free market aspect- Your apparent answer that; why do the providers of a service need to generate above operating cost revenue appears to me to so so intellectually vacuous, I can scarcely believe you made it. Do you want to re-phrase?

I'm asking again and again because none of you imbeciles has an answer. How do non-profit credit unions survive?

You DO understand how non-profits work, right? While the company itself is not allowed to show a profit, or at least have limitations on what holdings they may keep year over year, the people employed by the non-profit still get salaries and benefits, etc. The people behind non-profits are still making money and one can be QUITE "successful" owning and operating a non-profit. I don't see how this equates to nationalizing Cable TV for the betterment of America, but please continue.

 

[boedicca]

dude, don't get personal...last request, lets keep things adult.

as to your questioning, I am not into indulging your strawman/misdirection if you want to discuss the topic lets do that......cable - should not purse profit in your eyes..correct?

The topic is, why can't a cable provider operate on a non-profit basis if electric companies can, if banks (credit unions) can, and, while we're at it,
as many healthcare providers can.

And **** you and your phoney-ass adult shit. I don't see you telling the others in this thread to act like adults. Who the **** do you think you are?

That's the topic of your attempt to derail.

the topic was taxes on cable to give access to the poor that didn't get it b/c the money sat, then got spent on other things.

It's telling how NYC attempts to justify government fraud by insinuating that the cable companies have no right or need to earn a profit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

dude, don't get personal...last request, lets keep things adult.

as to your questioning, I am not into indulging your strawman/misdirection if you want to discuss the topic lets do that......cable - should not purse profit in your eyes..correct?

The topic is, why can't a cable provider operate on a non-profit basis if electric companies can, if banks (credit unions) can, and, while we're at it,
as many healthcare providers can.

And **** you and your phoney-ass adult shit. I don't see you telling the others in this thread to act like adults. Who the **** do you think you are?

That's the topic of your attempt to derail.

the topic was taxes on cable to give access to the poor that didn't get it b/c the money sat, then got spent on other things.

Then go talk about that and leave us alone.

 

[boedicca]

NYC loses. He's also a lying liar who lies.

Big time.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I see...like cell phones? are they a basic utility too?

you do realize that when you up the "basics" or that is when you level someone UP absent merit as a motivator, from point say Z to V, it costs money and short circuits the system. Thats the social aspect...

as for the free market aspect- Your apparent answer that; why do the providers of a service need to generate above operating cost revenue appears to me to so so intellectually vacuous, I can scarcely believe you made it. Do you want to re-phrase?

I'm asking again and again because none of you imbeciles has an answer. How do non-profit credit unions survive?

You DO understand how non-profits work, right? While the company itself is not allowed to show a profit, or at least have limitations on what holdings they may keep year over year, the people employed by the non-profit still get salaries and benefits, etc. The people behind non-profits are still making money and one can be QUITE "successful" owning and operating a non-profit. I don't see how this equates to nationalizing Cable TV for the betterment of America, but please continue.

I'm not talking about nationalizing cable tv, I'm talking about a non-profit 'public option' cable company competing with the for-profits. That would be comparable to the public option health insurance proposal THAT MOST AMERICANS WANTED. A company funded in its startup by government loans and then functioning just as you described above.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Five years ago, the state promised poor senior citizens and disabled people they could expect help paying their cable television bills under a tax imposed on the cable industry.

Since then, the state has collected a total of $9.2 million from the tax — but not a dime has gone to help low-income cable subscribers.

After Gov. Jon Corzine signed the law creating the fund in 2006, no one ever developed a plan to disburse the money. It sat untouched and accumulating until Gov. Chris Christie drained the fund to help plug a big state budget hole last year, state Treasury Department spokesman Andy Pratt confirmed.

Although the tax money was earmarked for the Cable Television Universal Access Fund, "the money is all gone now," Pratt said. "The money was never used for the intended purpose."

N.J. tax to help low-income people pay cable TV bills was instead used to plug budget hole | NJ.com

Personally, I don't think taxpayers should have to subsidize cable TV for anyone. But it's the law, and this kind of stuff boils my blood. This is why NJ is such a mess. Hundreds of taxes and fees going into politician's slush funds.

Then why are you complaining?

 

[NYcarbineer]

NYC loses. He's also a lying liar who lies.

Big time.

Tell everyone what I said that was not true. Or STFU, you cow.

 

[boedicca]

I'm asking again and again because none of you imbeciles has an answer. How do non-profit credit unions survive?

You DO understand how non-profits work, right? While the company itself is not allowed to show a profit, or at least have limitations on what holdings they may keep year over year, the people employed by the non-profit still get salaries and benefits, etc. The people behind non-profits are still making money and one can be QUITE "successful" owning and operating a non-profit. I don't see how this equates to nationalizing Cable TV for the betterment of America, but please continue.

I'm not talking about nationalizing cable tv, I'm talking about a non-profit 'public option' cable company competing with the for-profits. That would be comparable to the public option health insurance proposal THAT MOST AMERICANS WANTED. A company funded in its startup by government loans and then functioning just as you described above.

What a stupid idea. Why should the government compete against private companies?

 

[boedicca]

NYC loses. He's also a lying liar who lies.

Big time.

Tell everyone what I said that was not true. Or STFU, you cow.

You said nobody answered your question about how credit unions functioned. I did, you disingenuous lying creep.

It's quite clear that given your proclivity for insulting women with terms like "cow" that you are sadly overcompensating for a short-cumming.

 

[VaYank5150]

I'm asking again and again because none of you imbeciles has an answer. How do non-profit credit unions survive?

You DO understand how non-profits work, right? While the company itself is not allowed to show a profit, or at least have limitations on what holdings they may keep year over year, the people employed by the non-profit still get salaries and benefits, etc. The people behind non-profits are still making money and one can be QUITE "successful" owning and operating a non-profit. I don't see how this equates to nationalizing Cable TV for the betterment of America, but please continue.

I'm not talking about nationalizing cable tv, I'm talking about a non-profit 'public option' cable company competing with the for-profits. That would be comparable to the public option health insurance proposal THAT MOST AMERICANS WANTED. A company funded in its startup by government loans and then functioning just as you described above.

You ARE talking about nationalizing it. If it is funded by the government, then it is nationalized. WHY would our government want to fund such a venture for something that is a comodity and not essential for your health and/or well being. There are already federal laws on the books to prohibit monopolies for such comodities.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A search engine is your friend. You could research how credit unions function, if you really wanted to know. But you don't. You just wish to throw out red herrings to attack PROFIT as a legitimate objective.

Another one who can't answer the question. Anyone else?

I already answered the question, you moron.

Credit unions are funded by the deposits of their members (who own the credit union).

They are funded on the returns they make on these assets either via fees or interest charged to make loans.

And cable providers are funded by monthly premiums.

How can the credit union survive, if a company can't survive without making a profit?

 

[Two Thumbs]

Five years ago, the state promised poor senior citizens and disabled people they could expect help paying their cable television bills under a tax imposed on the cable industry.

Since then, the state has collected a total of $9.2 million from the tax — but not a dime has gone to help low-income cable subscribers.

After Gov. Jon Corzine signed the law creating the fund in 2006, no one ever developed a plan to disburse the money. It sat untouched and accumulating until Gov. Chris Christie drained the fund to help plug a big state budget hole last year, state Treasury Department spokesman Andy Pratt confirmed.

Although the tax money was earmarked for the Cable Television Universal Access Fund, "the money is all gone now," Pratt said. "The money was never used for the intended purpose."

N.J. tax to help low-income people pay cable TV bills was instead used to plug budget hole | NJ.com

Personally, I don't think taxpayers should have to subsidize cable TV for anyone. But it's the law, and this kind of stuff boils my blood. This is why NJ is such a mess. Hundreds of taxes and fees going into politician's slush funds.

Then why are you complaining?

If I take money from you to do something, even something you think is dumb. Don't you think I should do it?

 

[boedicca]

Another one who can't answer the question. Anyone else?

I already answered the question, you moron.

Credit unions are funded by the deposits of their members (who own the credit union).

They are funded on the returns they make on these assets either via fees or interest charged to make loans.

And cable providers are funded by monthly premiums.

How can the credit union survive, if a company can't survive without making a profit?

I didn't say a company can't survive without making a profit. I said that making a profit is necessary to fund growth via cash flow from operations or to attract invested capital. Companies can meander for years on a breakeven basis.

Cable providers are funded with more than monthly premiums - they have investors and debt holders. Read a balance sheet sometime, idiot.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The topic is, why can't a cable provider operate on a non-profit basis if electric companies can, if banks (credit unions) can, and, while we're at it,
as many healthcare providers can.

And **** you and your phoney-ass adult shit. I don't see you telling the others in this thread to act like adults. Who the **** do you think you are?

That's the topic of your attempt to derail.

the topic was taxes on cable to give access to the poor that didn't get it b/c the money sat, then got spent on other things.

It's telling how NYC attempts to justify government fraud by insinuating that the cable companies have no right or need to earn a profit.

I keep my conversations with him to a limit. His out and out hate for capitalism is annoying to no end. In his mind everything is a right and nothing should turn a profit. Everything profits or they couldn't pay thier bills.

I was just pointing out that he had derailed the thread by doing his typical wondering off. He's not capable of staying close the the topic of the thread.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You DO understand how non-profits work, right? While the company itself is not allowed to show a profit, or at least have limitations on what holdings they may keep year over year, the people employed by the non-profit still get salaries and benefits, etc. The people behind non-profits are still making money and one can be QUITE "successful" owning and operating a non-profit. I don't see how this equates to nationalizing Cable TV for the betterment of America, but please continue.

I'm not talking about nationalizing cable tv, I'm talking about a non-profit 'public option' cable company competing with the for-profits. That would be comparable to the public option health insurance proposal THAT MOST AMERICANS WANTED. A company funded in its startup by government loans and then functioning just as you described above.

You ARE talking about nationalizing it. If it is funded by the government, then it is nationalized. WHY would our government want to fund such a venture for something that is a comodity and not essential for your health and/or well being. There are already federal laws on the books to prohibit monopolies for such comodities.

It's startup is funded by the government. It has to pay back the loan and self-sustain thereafter.

 

[Avatar4321]

I see...like cell phones? are they a basic utility too?

you do realize that when you up the "basics" or that is when you level someone UP absent merit as a motivator, from point say Z to V, it costs money and short circuits the system. Thats the social aspect...

as for the free market aspect- Your apparent answer that; why do the providers of a service need to generate above operating cost revenue appears to me to so so intellectually vacuous, I can scarcely believe you made it. Do you want to re-phrase?

I'm asking again and again because none of you imbeciles has an answer. How do non-profit credit unions survive?

You DO understand how non-profits work, right? While the company itself is not allowed to show a profit, or at least have limitations on what holdings they may keep year over year, the people employed by the non-profit still get salaries and benefits, etc. The people behind non-profits are still making money and one can be QUITE "successful" owning and operating a non-profit. I don't see how this equates to nationalizing Cable TV for the betterment of America, but please continue.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's the topic of your attempt to derail.

the topic was taxes on cable to give access to the poor that didn't get it b/c the money sat, then got spent on other things.

It's telling how NYC attempts to justify government fraud by insinuating that the cable companies have no right or need to earn a profit.

I keep my conversations with him to a limit. His out and out hate for capitalism is annoying to no end. In his mind everything is a right and nothing should turn a profit. Everything profits or they couldn't pay thier bills.

I'm using my non-profit credit union as an example. They are non-profit, they pay their bills, their services are better and cheaper than a for-profit bank.

Now you tell me, in detail, why I must be making that up, since you say it can't happen.

 

[Avatar4321]

NYC loses. He's also a lying liar who lies.

Big time.

Tell everyone what I said that was not true. Or STFU, you cow.

Well, for one, you stated that most people wanted Obamacare. Which is total bullcrap.