16 Jul 11
I like the list of stuff that qualifies people for a cell phone courtesy of the taxpayers:
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as Food Stamps
Federal Public Housing Assistance (FPHA) or Section 8
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
Medicaid
National School Lunch Program's free lunch program
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF
Now if they'd toss in free cable TV there'd be no need for anyone to ever work for anything.
16 Jul 11
Originally posted by Zapp BranniganYeah, people are living high on the hog on those programs.
I like the list of stuff that qualifies people for a cell phone courtesy of the taxpayers:
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as Food Stamps
Federal Public Housing Assistance (FPHA) or Section 8
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
Medicaid
National School Lunch Program's free lunch program
Suppl ...[text shortened]... Now if they'd toss in free cable TV there'd be no need for anyone to ever work for anything.
The "taxpayers" in this case are the phone companies BTW.
16 Jul 11
Originally posted by no1marauderTut tut. The one oath every card-carrying conservative must swear to is to never consider externalities or shades of gray. Everything is Good vs. Evil, Black vs. White, and "Is it costing me money today?" -- without thought toward possible savings in the long run. Politics for the teabagger is the rhetorical equivalent of playing chess by thinking only one move ahead. "What will privatizing Medicare save me today?", and "What will cutting education budgets in half save me today?"
Personally I think it's a good program with possible externalities:
The only exception to the one-move-ahead rule is the Trickle Down Axiom of Voodoo Economics.
16 Jul 11
Originally posted by dryhumpSurely you don't seriously think I was serious. Like, seriously, do you seriously think I seriously think all conservatives are rednecks? Even the likes of William F. Buckley and Thomas Sowell, whose editorials I frequently read in the Orange County Register in my formative years? We all know a lot of conservatives are also white-collar professionals with pasty necks that have nary a tinge of erubescence in the epidermis. So no, I don't cleave to the "All conservatives are rednecks" stereotype.
For a person who complains about other posters bigotry, you sure like the stereotypes.
Maybe you are accusing me of believing in a "redneck stereotype," in which case I am guilty as charged since it is not a stereotype but a reality. I mean, after all, the term "redneck" is used to describe a class of people who have certain characteristics. It's not the same thing as a racial stereotype in which characteristics having nothing to do with a certain race are ascribed to all members of that race.
As for "bigotry," that I take to mean prejudice accompanied by some degree of animosity, and I harbor no genuine bigotry toward rednecks as a set of individuals. A rather significant number of my relatives are rooted in the Deep South and most of them have their charms. Some of 'em are hard-core Democrats, and not of the blue-dog variety.
Right. So let's not take ourselves too seriously here.
17 Jul 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe max subsidy for a phone is $30. Perhaps in the Dutch Ivory Towers that's "almost nothing" but for people who are reliant on the social programs in the US to survive (as niggardly as they are) it may well be a significant expense.
You can get a prepaid cellphone for almost nothing, why would the poor need government aid to get one?
17 Jul 11
Originally posted by no1marauderThen make sure everyone can spare $30 (a trivial task) and you don't need inefficient, fraud-prone and bureaucratic cellphone subsidy programs.
The max subsidy for a phone is $30. Perhaps in the Dutch Ivory Towers that's "almost nothing" but for people who are reliant on the social programs in the US to survive (as niggardly as they are) it may well be a significant expense.
17 Jul 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYes, all we have to do is click our wooden shoes together three times and repeat "there's no place like home" and magically everyone will have loads of money.
Then make sure everyone can spare $30 (a trivial task) and you don't need inefficient, fraud-prone and bureaucratic cellphone subsidy programs.
The program as far as landlines has existed since the Reagan administration. I don't see any evidence that it is "inefficient, fraud prone" and the bureaucracy involved seems to be minimal.
17 Jul 11
Originally posted by no1marauderJust introduce a minimum income. It's not hard, really.
Yes, all we have to do is click our wooden shoes together three times and repeat "there's no place like home" and magically everyone will have loads of money.
The program as far as landlines has existed since the Reagan administration. I don't see any evidence that it is "inefficient, fraud prone" and the bureaucracy involved seems to be minimal.
17 Jul 11
Originally posted by SoothfastWhereas the liberal mantra is: How can I spend money I don't have today? How can I bankrupt future generations today? Whose vote can I buy with useless social programs today? Both camps are in this only for themselves, if you think one or the other has any interest in anything but staying in office, you're naive. Liberals stay in office by handing out candy to the poor folks and Conservatives stay in office by handing candy to the rich.
Tut tut. The one oath every card-carrying conservative must swear to is to never consider externalities or shades of gray. Everything is Good vs. Evil, Black vs. White, and "Is it costing me money today?" -- without thought toward possible savings in the long run. Politics for the teabagger is the rhetorical equivalent of playing chess by thinkin ...[text shortened]... e only exception to the one-move-ahead rule is the Trickle Down Axiom of Voodoo Economics.
17 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by dryhumpYou seem to think I was talking about politicians. I'm talking about the citizenry at large. The motives of politicians are usually questionable.
Whereas the liberal mantra is: How can I spend money I don't have today? How can I bankrupt future generations today? Whose vote can I buy with useless social programs today? Both camps are in this only for themselves, if you think one or the other has any interest in anything but staying in office, you're naive. Liberals stay in office by handing out candy to the poor folks and Conservatives stay in office by handing candy to the rich.
EDIT: Although, I do think what I said applies to the political class as well. Democrats, I believe, are more often than Republicans trying to implement policies more in line with what professional economists recommend doing. Slashing education, for instance -- a favorite act of Republicans -- is not something economists generally think of as a good idea at any level of government (except the ones working in wingnut think tanks like the CATO institute).