FCC Proposes To Extend So-Called "Obamaphone" Program To Broadband 413
jfruh writes: The FCC's Lifeline program subsidizes phone service for very poor Americans; it gained notoriety under the label "Obamaphone," even though the program started under Reagan and was extended to cell phones under Clinton. Now the FCC is proposing that the program, which is funded by a fee on telecom providers, be extended to broadband, on the logic that high-speed internet is as necessary today as telephone service was a generation ago.
other people's money (Score:2, Insightful)
It hasn't run out quite yet.
Re:other people's money (Score:5, Insightful)
Like it or not, either way, you're going to spend the money.
Here's the thing about those phones. They prevent trouble. They give people opportunity.
You don't do that? The cheapest thing that can happen is somebody dies in a way that isn't even suspicious enough to keep a cop from drinking his coffee.
Then you're out a burial plot at most.
More expensive? Yeah, people end up being in prison where we pay even more to keep them there than if we just supplied them with weed and beer and cheap food.
Or worse yet. Revolution and riot. You know why the Roman leaders needed the bread and circuses? Because otherwise the out of work population of Rome would be pissed. Why did they lose work? Because the land-owners wanted slave-worked plantations, not citizen-owned farms.
You give a man something to do? Where they can be appreciated and respected? You'll get results. You piss people off and convince them they're hated, well, at a certain point, even the lowest worm will realize you're not better than they are.
And you won't always be the cat with the sharpest claws.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Like it or not, either way, you're going to spend the money.
Here's the thing about those phones. They prevent trouble. They give people opportunity.
You don't do that? The cheapest thing that can happen is somebody dies in a way that isn't even suspicious enough to keep a cop from drinking his coffee.
Then you're out a burial plot at most.
More expensive? Yeah, people end up being in prison where we pay even more to keep them there than if we just supplied them with weed and beer and cheap food.
Or worse yet. Revolution and riot. You know why the Roman leaders needed the bread and circuses? Because otherwise the out of work population of Rome would be pissed. Why did they lose work? Because the land-owners wanted slave-worked plantations, not citizen-owned farms.
You give a man something to do? Where they can be appreciated and respected? You'll get results. You piss people off and convince them they're hated, well, at a certain point, even the lowest worm will realize you're not better than they are.
And you won't always be the cat with the sharpest claws.
Yes yes! A thousand times YES! Workers of the world: UNITE! From each according to their means, to each according to the need. It will be perfect!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We keep on giving away money to people without the understanding that what we are giving has a price attached to it. Do we even worry about the effect that it's having on the very people that are receiving it?
Should we, (being givers), not teach those that receive our generosity what it means to be a recipient? Why do we have 6 generations of welfare recipients with each generation that's added not caring in the least where the money is coming from?
I walked from Potomac Avenue to the Navy Yard yesterday and
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I walked from Potomac Avenue to the Navy Yard yesterday and came upon an entire community that relies upon government funded housing. They just hang out all day in a small park chatting with one another. They don't look like they're incapable of any sort of work.
Did you offer them a well-paying job? Chances are, neither has anybody else.
The days when you could tell whether somebody was capable of getting a job ended with the development of automation.
Think of the average kid you went to high school with (assuming you went to an average public school as I did). Do you REALLY think they're capable of holding down a job in the modern world?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Should I go and join them for awhile and see what it's like to have all my troubles taken care of by the government?
Yes. Because you'll quickly realize how much it sucks and how much better working is than having a small allowance with strings attached.
And "those people", you know, the ones that conservatives think make up the entire welfare consumer base, are a tiny percent. The vast majority of people who receive safety net assistance are in the system for a little while and then get out when they find a real job.
Look up the numbers instead of making up stories about "an entire community".
Re:other people's money (Score:4, Insightful)
To support your point, note that the unemployment rate goes up and down quite dramatically over time based on the economy, i.e. job availability. That pretty much proves that when people are unemployed it's because they can't find work, not that they're not willing to work.
Re: (Score:3)
I should probably ignore an AC post, but in case someone reads you...
There's no data to support your theory. The data says that the number of people leaving the workforce has been going up for 10+ years because the workforce is aging, and the baby boomers are starting to retire. People being able to retire isn't unemployment (i.e. people who want jobs not finding them), it's exactly the opposite (people who don't want to work being able to stop working)!
The big about 'free phones' is weird. That was a progr
Re: (Score:3)
Poe's law in action.
I honestly can't tell if you're paranoid or sarcastic...
Re: (Score:2)
And what's your solution ? Hell even if you replace the prison system with mandatory death sentences executed the same day you will STILL need to pay for a justice system, and the cost of actually doing the executions...
Re: (Score:3)
How about summary trials and executions by unpaid citizen volunteers? It'll be a libertarian paradise.
Aside from the inconvenient fact that most libertarians oppose the death penalty. Nice try though.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no reason to suspect it ever will run out. And if broadband allows one in a thousand to take online classes and go from unemployed and on assistance to being a productive member of society?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
... then that one in a thousand will help subsidize the 999 until the money runs out
Re: other people's money (Score:2)
If I follow your logic, and assume a perfectly reasonable per month/subscriber cost of $25, you'd have the government consider a success a program that spends $25,000/month (1,000 recipients @ $25 per recipient) for two years (24 months @ $25,000/month) for a cost of $600,000 do that one person can lift themself off of public assistance with an associates degree..
Re: (Score:3)
~~
Re: other people's money (Score:4, Interesting)
$9.25, as per the article
Diverts the already being spent monies from being spent on a landline to a broadband connection
Well, by classes I intended more professional or at your own speed... so I didn't think it would take two years, But associates degrees take 18 months if you go straight through.
So, by your logic, that's 9.25 * 18 * 1000 = 166500. But, over a 20 year career ( short) if that person makes back 700/mo (not unreasonable, with $300 for foodstamps, $350 for section 8, $50 for medicaid) it pays for itself.
Seems good to me. I mean, not perfect, but self-substaining.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it were $25, the much greater ease for people to find new work or pick up new skills and network and discover new opportunities when they have internet is very likely to pay for itself. Getting a degree is not the primary expected positive outcome.
Democrat math: one section 8 guy makes $1million (Score:2)
> And if broadband allows one in a thousand to take online classes
Let's takea look at your "if". As you recall, the FCC also just redefined the word "broadband" to mean service which costs $85-$105 per month. So about $1,000 per year, per person. You say "if one in a thousand" recipients, so 1,000 recipients at $1,000 per year each is $1 million per year. You think it's a good deal if you spend $1 million per year to encourage one guy to do online classes. Note that doesn't actually pay for the c
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it defined broadband as a specific speed. That speed costs different amounts at different locations. And based on the number of connections purchased. Some major cities you can get it for $20. It costs $9.25 by the article.
Well, leaving aside the 10x factor, yeah, I do. I mean, 100k
Re: (Score:2)
As you recall, the FCC also just redefined the word "broadband" to mean service which costs $85-$105 per month.
Nonsense. In places with competition, it costs much less.
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly it didn't occur to you that the million bucks you want to spend is coming from my family, whre I AM struggling to pay for my own college while supporting the family, while my wife waits for her turn to go to school when we can afford it. Then we hope to save up for our daughter to go to school.
(Violins playing)
Schmuck. You don't realize that 35 years ago, public colleges were free* or almost free around the country. City College in New York City was free, the University of California system was almost free, and state colleges around the country were almost free.
They turned out Nobel laureates and the innovators who created Silicon Valley. They paid back the cost of their education thousands of times over.
Your anti-tax politicians took that all away.
When I went to college, they paid me to attend.
Cost benefit analysis (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... no answers are a priori correct.
I like your post, but aren't all answers correct only a posteriori?
Re: (Score:3)
... no answers are a priori correct.
I like your post, but aren't all answers correct only a posteriori?
Not all answers. Some are pulled out of a posterior.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure about the math, but I'd rather pay people (at the really small level of welfare currently) to party than have them be desperate such that they steal from me, or mug me or worse.
The people I know of on Welfare are in a situation where there's no better choice for them. I guess that's obvious. For the fraction of taxes it costs, do we really want people starving in the streets more than we already have?
Re: (Score:2)
There is no way the government should be paying full retail to the telcos for this. Most of the cost of an Internet connection is paying for infrastructure, which is a sunk cost. The marginal cost of delivering Internet in urban areas to people who would not otherwise subscribe, is very low.
Re:other people's money (Score:5, Informative)
~~
Re:other people's money (Score:4, Interesting)
For now. In a few years I fully expect additional funds to be appropriated so that people can have both services subsidized.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:other people's money (Score:5, Insightful)
Medicare - before the new drug benefit that was explicitly barred from seeking good deals. Seems socialism's better than its reputation - except when crafted by Republicans who want it to look bad...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for doing the right thing and helping people that need help. I'm also all for people trying to help themselves. So if phones help people help themselves, such as getting work or education to enable them to get work, then it's to the good, and it's a responsible thing for the rest of us to do.
Someone just please tell me that's what's really happening with these programs. You know, giving people a boost so they can become productive? As opposed, say, to making money for the ruling elite, or allowing p
Re:other people's money (Score:4, Insightful)
Please send me more of your "society" dollars - I'll make sure they're well-spent.
Between 2008 and 2014 the Fed used Quantitative Easing [wikipedia.org] to create $4 trillion dollars out of thin air. If you want your share, go re-finance your house for 3.5%. You're welcome.
Re:other people's money (Score:5, Insightful)
>What they need is to gain skils and obtain a steady job or make one.
Have you TRIED to get a job without a phone number ? What century do you think this is ?
Re: other people's money (Score:5, Informative)
You realise this won't cost you a cent right ? This is the exact same subsidy Reagan instituted with no increase. Just permission to allocate it to a different service.
Eliminate all tax withholding (Score:5, Insightful)
If people making $30,000 a year knew they paid over $1000 a month in taxes, the US government wouldn't have the resources to be so overweening.
Make people actually have to hand their money over to the government instead of never seeing it and could have an honest discussion over how much government the US REALLY wants.
If you don't like that, you really have to ask yourself how much you actually support the rule of "we the people".
Re: (Score:2)
Running the math for a single person, living in California on 30K (chosen for relatively high tax rates):
Gross per Month: $2500
Net Pay after tax: $2043
That's less than $500 tax, even if all net pay were then spent on items carrying sales tax, that's less than $200 more. Realistically tax paid per month on 30K would be well under $600.
Re: (Score:2)
In the end, all taxes, no matter how they are levied, are paid by the consumer. I've done the math before on all the taxes one pays, and it easily comes out to well over 50% for the average lower or middle-class consumer.
I think a better system would be to just tax corporations, they generate the wealth.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it would be a better idea for excess spending to follow around those responsible -- eg whoever was of voting age when a deficit spending bill was passed, gets to pay the debt and its interest. And it could be a separate item on their tax, this is how much above other people in your tax bracket you have to pay to pay off that deficit spending you wanted.
Re: Eliminate all tax withholding (Score:2)
How much in taxes does a person making $30K/year really pay? You really think it's $12,000 worth? I think, after deductions, subsidies, and credits they pay much, much less. Remember, 47% of tax filers pay no net taxes, they get back more than they had withheld from their paychecks.
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly if this individual has a bunch of kids they get enough credits, otherwise no. If you include social security taxes, then individuals making as little as a few thousand a year pay taxes -- if you exclude that, then you have to make about $12,000 before you start paying federal income tax. California state income tax kicks in around $18,000 if I recall. And sales taxes affect everybody.
Re: (Score:2)
While most people will have no idea what you are talking about, the issue here is that there are "employment taxes" that are paid on a hidden side of your paycheck that covers social security and medicare that an employer needs to cover. These are the employer side of of the "payroll taxes". I agree that these should all be displayed on paychecks--100% of the cost that an employer is covering should be on the paycheck, taxable or not, simply so that an employee can understand what their benefits are and h
Re: (Score:2)
If people making $30,000 a year knew they paid over $1000 a month in taxes
They don't. A single person making $30,000 with no deductions beyond the standard deduction would pay $2,520 for 2014. That's $210 a month, not $1,000.
But hey... don't let facts get in the way of your ideology, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The point of tax isn't to punish people for being rich. It's to fund needed state operations as defined by its charter. In the case of the US, the state has greatly exceeded that charter. The last thing we need is yet another tax that reenforces this behavior. It's time washington works within a budget like everyone else. Once those ivy league lawyer brats learn to do that, then we can talk about what is needed and what isn't.
Re:How about import duties? (Score:5, Informative)
It's time Washington works within a budget like everyone else.
Yet we vote out every politician who offers to balance the budget by raising taxes, vote in every politician who promises to expand services without a word on balancing the budget, and borrow trillions of dollars to maintain the status quo. If you want to change Washington, look in the mirror.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Its called living within your means, and you have zero understanding of what that means.
When I was out of work for eight months last year, I got a new job but it wouldn't start for another month and the rent was due. I went to the credit union, filled out a loan application and showed them my employment contract. Three days later I got a loan for $2,500 @ 9% interest. I paid my rent, started my job. Almost a year later, I'm about half-way through paying off my loan, saving 21% of my monthly paycheck and getting a raise with my next contract renewal. So I think I know to live with my means.
Just because the government can alter its means to support its lifestyle does not mean that its a good idea.
If w
Re: (Score:2)
When you spend more than you make, do you force your employer to give you a raise to cover the difference? No, you spend less. Its called living within your means, and you have zero understanding of what that means. Just because the government can alter its means to support its lifestyle does not mean that its a good idea.
So when you want to buy a house, you don't take out a loan and go into debt. You save up the money in the bank until you can buy it in cash, because you're living within your means.
If everybody was like you, they wouldn't be selling many houses.
Re:How about import duties? (Score:4, Informative)
Please. the government isn't even close to living outside its means. Extreme deficits only came about because politicians started to insist on cutting taxes. This country had no trouble paying for everything the government did, even while providing almost precisely the same services and social programs we currently do. and the economy and the average citizen not only was doing fine, but was more prosperous than he is today, even with the higher tax burden.
Re:How about import duties? (Score:4, Insightful)
You cannot regularly exceed your budget and expect to remain operational. Governments are no exception. The problem here is that the politicians running things are borrowing on the backs of the taxpayer, not on their own.
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot regularly exceed your budget and expect to remain operational. Governments are no exception.
The United State has historically been in debt [wikipedia.org] since the 1790's. If you look at the graph [wikipedia.org], we spent far more money in World War II than we did to turn around the Great Recession. The graph also shows that the debt will be going up as the baby boomers retire and the tax base (workers) shrinks over the next 20 years, where mandatory spending (social security) will consume 2/3 of the federal budget. The Republicans are talking about balancing the budget in 10 years, but their balanced budget plan doesn't fix t
Re: (Score:2)
Debts and budgets are not contradictory. You can have debt AND have a balanced budget.
Organizations, businesses, individuals, even governments do it. They take on debt, get loans or bonds or other money, and have a budget to pay the principle and interest in a certain period of time. Many states even have balanced budget provisions in their state constitutions and routinely get some debt for capital funds to build new schools, zoos, parks, and more; then they make payments and after a few years fulfill t
Re: (Score:2)
Can't the US just print some dollars to pay the debt payments? I would think we'd only hit a wall when people stop buying new debt offerings. I mean, all the debt we already have is stipulated to be paid in dollars only, so we could just create, what, several "Trillion Dollar Coins" and pay it all off tomorrow. That would be a horrible idea because inflation and a likely immediate junk rating for all US bonds, but it could be done.
The US isn't going to be unable to pay the installment... Stop thinking of th
Re: (Score:2)
You don't punish abuse of the credit card by upping the credit limit. You take it away and make the debtor work it off. In this case, I'd like to see this done to the institutional debtors, public or private, who've not paid back what was given to them by corrupt politicians who had no problem bilking taxpayers. Having those politicians serve some jail time wouldn't hurt either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The point of tax isn't to punish people for being rich.
No, it's to punish people for being middle class and striving to do better. I was never rich and never will be, but every time I made a little more money I paid a lot more tax. Work overtime for extra money when incremental taxes are 40%+? (It's easy to get there with Social Security and Medicare tax, state tax, and federal tax; you don't have to be a high earner). You reach a "why bother" point where being productive is counterproductive.
Re: (Score:2)
If you stress yourself into a bunch of medical problems working 60 hour weeks, you end up costing more money. Perhaps it's good to encourage people to work smarter not harder. In general, when they're the same number of hours, higher paying jobs are actually less stressful than entry level jobs -- so people have non-financial incentive to move up.
Re: (Score:2)
I was never rich and never will be, but every time I made a little more money I paid a lot more tax. Work overtime for extra money when incremental taxes are 40%+?
That is because we're taxing the wrong things. Earned income is not the lion's share of income in the US, and it tends to be the main source of income for people who have limited means.
But, the folks who pay income tax can't afford armies of lobbyists so that is where the taxes fall.
Just make the tax rate something like 0% below $50k/yr, 10% from $50-100k, 20% from $100k-500k, and then have it go up exponentially from there. Somebody making $1M/yr might have a 40% tax, somebody making $10M/yr might have a
Re: (Score:2)
The US made its revenue for centuries from taxing goods coming from abroad.
That, and selling off land that the indigenous people were forcibly removed from.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize there's all sorts of levels of "government" right?
I work for a local (county) government myself. My salary is mostly funded by the county's main source of income: property taxes (with a bit extra from sales taxes).
Income tax goes to the federal and state government. Why would I not pay taxes to those entities when my salary isn't being funded by it?
Or if you go to state employees - why withhold the federal government's taxes when their salary is funded mostly by state income taxes (and vic
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I pay taxes. My salary doesn't come from THOSE taxes though (income taxes). It comes from different taxes - namely, property taxes.
So I guess you could say I shouldn't be billed property taxes. Ok - what about someone who works where I do but lives in a different jurisdiction (very common)? That jurisdiction isn't going to give up THEIR revenue because he works for a different one, and it wouldn't be fair to the other employee that they still have to pay property taxes while I don't because I live
Re: (Score:2)
By making it not taxable, they could be causing an employee to drop into a lower tax bracket overall.
"Lower tax brackets" (or rather, their effect on taxes) are a persistent myth.
There are tax brackets, but you're only taxed at the higher rate for overage from the previous tax bracket.
http://blog.taxact.com/how-tax... [taxact.com]
DO it (Score:5)
Re:DO it (Score:4, Funny)
Where can I get my government-issued iPhone?! (Score:3)
Ronnie Phone (Score:5, Informative)
Just for the record, the "Obamaphone" program has a name. It's called the "Lifeline Assistance Program" and was started in the 1980s by...Ronald Reagan. It has nothing to do with Obama.
https://www.fcc.gov/guides/lif... [fcc.gov]
http://www.snopes.com/politics... [snopes.com]
http://gawker.com/5947133/the-... [gawker.com]
Re:Ronnie Phone (Score:5, Funny)
Just for the record, the "Obamaphone" program has a name. It's called the "Lifeline Assistance Program" and was started in the 1980s by...Ronald Reagan. It has nothing to do with Obama.
Stop reminding people what a big tax spender Little-Government-Ronnie was ...
Re:Ronnie Phone (Score:5, Insightful)
It's odd how it seems to politically matter who does something more than what is being done. Examples:
"GOOD" (or neutral) WHEN BUSH DID IT:
Corporate welfare
NSA
TSA
DHS
deficits
stimulus
bombing
medicare part D
golfing
hugging Saudi oilers
saluting with things in hand
feet on desk
subsidized cell-phones
"BAD" WHEN OBAMA DID IT:
Corporate welfare
NSA
TSA
DHS
deficits
stimulus
bombing
medicare part D
golfing
hugging Saudi oilers
saluting with things in hand
feet on desk
subsidized cell-phones
Re: (Score:2)
Rather than finger-pointing, let's just stop doing those things. The finger-pointing and division and all the rest of the bullshit that goes with it is what enables these things to continue.
Yeah I never heard it called "Obamaphone"... (Score:2)
Yeah I never heard it called "Obamaphone" before this article.
It sounds like someone trying to associate themselves with something positive as part of their "legacy"...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I never heard it called "Obamaphone" before this article.
Watch a little Fox "News" ...
Sorry. No, I won't. (Score:2)
Yeah I never heard it called "Obamaphone" before this article.
Watch a little Fox "News" ...
Sorry. No, I won't. I don't watch "infotainment", and that includes both "news" programs from Fox and MSNBC, which both just try to confirm the existing biases of the people who are already in their target demographic. Well, that, and they manufacture "sound bites".
Unless you want to bring back real news programs, I'm entirely uninterested in current television "news".
Guess that explains how I missed that little "gem".
Obama Phone (Score:2)
Fixed it for you (Score:2)
Every tax and fee government imposes on businesses are passed on to the customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Every tax and fee government imposes on customers is passed on to business.
Both are equally true, business passes costs onto customers and customers with high costs don't have anything left for business.
There are exceptions such as costs that can be written off by business which are used to stop new not yet profitable businesses from entering the market. Taxes on employees is a good example, employee pay is a write-off for a business as long as they are profitable, if not profitable then they are a pure cos
911 (Score:3)
And what's the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
I say guarantee basic services (phone, basic cable, broadband), basic accommodations (place to live, food), and basic health (medical insurance) for those who need it. Provide life and job skills classes open to anyone who wants to attend. Make state university free of charge for those who qualify (via academic track record and testing), vocational training (plumbing, culinary, whatever) free for those who don't qualify for university.
Spread the housing across a given community, rather than concentrating it in one place, to prevent things like a project mentality and generational poverty mindset.
It would be vastly less expensive than the costs we pay for police, prison and emergency services, safer for everyone else, and overall reduce human suffering.
Most people would be happy to work an actual job and pay taxes in order to have "better than the bare minimum" for all of the above and the ability to do things like have food that isn't just staples, go on vacation, have more living space, etc.
For people who don't want more, or who can't work for more, at least this would keep them off of the streets to some extent, and keep them from getting so desperate they resort to crime just to survive.
I have zero problem with my taxes going to pay for such things because, not being an idiot, I'm aware that the alternative (what we have right now) is VASTLY more expensive by pretty much every metric.
Re: (Score:2)
All of downtown Seattle is wired for Broadband. If your building isn't wired, it's isn't because the cable companies. Be really hard for all the business there to just use dial up. And seeing as I've known people who has lived in the various parts of downtown Seattle, and they all have broadband, even the crappy places.
I'm not a fan of the cable companies or the monopolies, but I don't understand this need to lie.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Informative)
I find it amazing that not only is cable TV a "right", deserved by all, now broadband is also a "right".
/ Yo dude, check out my guv'mint subsidised Facebook post! // Yo dude, you should look into some guv'mint subsidised belts /// Yo dude, check out the brusin' I layed on my baby mama for telling me I should buy a belt!!
Overreact much?
Cable TV isn't considered a right and the Government does not give it away to poor people. Poor, can't afford Cable TV? Life sucks, you get over the air.
Nice try though.
Have You Looked for a Job Recently? (Score:5, Interesting)
I find it amazing that not only is cable TV a "right", deserved by all, now broadband is also a "right".
In a way, it is. Your first comment is actually a little more correct than you realized.
I hunted for a job last year for quite some time before I got my new gig. Let me share some thoughts on the current job climate:
So, to get a job, it's quickly becoming a requirement to have internet access. If we ever expect to help people improve their lives, we have to be willing to give them a leg up to get started. Getting a decent job is a start to better things, so if jobs require internet access, I am all for making it a "right".
Furthermore, I think there is an even greater reason why to do this. While it is possible to call one's congressmen, you'd have to know what to call about. I never receive snail mail copies from my legislators, but I receive email newsletters and follow them on Twitter. Without internet, you would probably have much less of a chance of being informed as well as being able to interact with your representatives. Arguably, since democracy is one of the most important aspects of our society, I would say that allowing access to representatives is a fundamental right, and if those representatives now do a lot of their business and work online, we must require online connections for all.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'll not argue with those points, but we have libraries with Internet access for just such purposes.
I'm not heartless, but government programs FORCIBLY take money from the people who are working to give it to those who are not. Some assistance is necessary, but it needs to be run on an absolutely lean budget because it's not SUPPOSED to be comfortable when you're out of work. It should be a situation that you want to get out of immediately.
Public internet access can be provided at the library.
Food stamps
Re:Have You Looked for a Job Recently? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not sure when the last time you went to a library was, but they're a relic of a bygone age, I've seen at least 3 of them shut down, and another 2 lose their accreditation because they couldn't afford to be open more than 3 days a week. Sure, you could let people go to the library, but then you have to fund the library. Whether that would be cheaper budget wise than paying for a 5gb per month broadband connection, I don't know, but the public library system as it is now is not sufficient to really support someone looking for work.
I imagine the biggest reason that the government doesn't run soup kitchens / have a bunch of work programs is that the overhead to oversee / manage those sorts of programs just ultimately ends up costing more than just giving people food.
Re: (Score:3)
except the conservatives are trying to kill libraries too, because "taxes" and "socialism" and again, that same resistance to government doing ANYTHING for the public. the same resistance that hass them opposing the existence public schools.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice. Still great to find some good 'ol casual racism on Slashdot. I'm sorry that you're afraid of black people using your pristine, blond-haired blue eyed protestant internet.
So you are saying that all poor people are black? Racist.
Seriously Extending universal service, lifeline, and the like to internet access is brain dead obvious. There are many local and state government related functions that are now, or will be in the very near future internet /only/.
In my area this June there will be a subsided housing wait list who's status can /only/ be checked on the internet. The local library is already getting ready to handle the influx of low income residents that need to check their status.
And yes, this probably means smart phones. Self contained, portable, wireless internet access. Mobile internet browsing is already an accepted standard that all modern sites accommodate.
I sure would hate to have to do any kind of applying for jobs or checking status on government programs on a smart phone. Smart phones suck at stuff like that. Not to mention many Government sites (like the Unemployment site in my state) require that you use IE 9. If you don't it puts you in an endless loop. This is a pain when your IE updates automatically or you are using a phone, for which IE 9 is not available.
Re: (Score:2)
having clean water or emergency care not a right?
I think you need to get more people online so they'll get civilized enough to recognize emergency care being a right even if you're not in the ER because you were shot by a cop.
Re:More ambiguous fees (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Trust me it's really popular to call new sources of revenue (or old ones renamed and raised) as "fees" rather than taxes. That way politicians get to proclaim in their campaigns that they've never voted to raise "taxes". Sure your bill is higher, but it's the "fees", not more taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a benefit to society if government handouts are the best way to distribute a good. See justice, fire protection and military defense for undisputed options.
In addition, we recognize that universal access is important for some goods, even if we allow private alternates or supplements. Such as primary education.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you can, when they are done with it and you now need it more than they do. Same with police service, fire service, ambulance, etc. Or are those handouts in your opinion since you can't use them when they are actively serving someone else?
Re: Lemme guess (Score:2)
Who builds toll roads? Private ventures licensed by the government.
Who can use a toll road? Anyone willing to pay for the roads.
Why do you think only government can build roads? The PA, NJ, and hundreds and hundreds of other toll roads were built by toll road authorities that receive ZERO tax dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
People don't need dependence on free toys like cellphones. They need jobs so they can buy their own if they choose. Having the opportunity to earn wealth of one's own and then choosing how to spend it is true empowerment.
An indentured underclass requires implicit and explicit enforcement from the state in order to exist. I don't think you'll find a single libertarian who wants that.
Re: (Score:2)
...and basics like the ability to receive a phone call with a job offer while also being out on the town distributing resumes is necessary to empower people to get the job that lets them earn that wealth. The idea that the best way to empower someone is to make them sit at home waiting for a phone call on their land line, while being unable to go out due to lack of cell, and unable to apply to any job at home thanks to lack of internet service, is frankly absurd. Government investing in people to empower
Re: (Score:2)
The best way to get a job is to show up in person, hand someone a resume, and talk with them. While I don't have a problem with having a system that helps people when they're down, the current system just encourages dependence. It does not empower anyone. Ending your diatribe with arguments from popularity and authority doesn't lend much credence to your argument either.
Re: (Score:2)
Obamacars [greyhound.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't have the transportation to get to the library (or time off work for the few hours a week your library is actually open), then the internet is your library.
Re: (Score:2)
But this is just incrementalism at play. To go with the subsidised net service, these poor folks will need a computer
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Why should I pay an additional amount so that other people can get broadband, cable TV and phones for free?
So they'll keep voting Democrat.