FCC to Propose $1.7B Subsidized Internet Access for the Poor

[Retronym]

Therefore we not only need to redistribute wealth, we also know how better to spend it than the people we have decided are in need of it.

It is an insult to the tax payer and the recipient at the same time.

 

[tetris42]

In most cases they can afford the water. They can't afford to catch up all at once on the bill they racked up from prolonged non-payment that they got away with for too long.

Well assuming that's even true (I mean according to the article it's 17,000 households that have had water cut off), for something as basic as WATER, "most" isn't good enough. EVERYONE should have access to clean water in a developed society. That's the part where I just don't see how the private sector solves that. Private companies aren't interested in making sure EVERYONE gets a minimum standard of living, they're interested in making profit. People who can't afford their services are irrelevant to them.

 

[Jagger100]

Well assuming that's even true (I mean according to the article it's 17,000 households that have had water cut off), for something as basic as WATER, "most" isn't good enough. EVERYONE should have access to clean water in a developed society. That's the part where I just don't see how the private sector solves that. Private companies aren't interested in making sure EVERYONE gets a minimum standard of living, they're interested in making profit. People who can't afford their services are irrelevant to them.

Its ok to live above my means and expect others to pick up for me. Great. I'll quit tomorrow.

What happens when the last guy earning his way through life quits?

 

[nilepez]

No, I don't. The statists have to show that some things are so special they can only be done by government.

Then show us a company that will do these things even though they aren't money making ventures.

Give us 1 company that will do that. If you can't then quit embarrassing yourself.

 

[nilepez]

Its ok to live above my means and expect others to pick up for me. Great. I'll quit tomorrow.

What happens when the last guy earning his way through life quits?

If that was the case, then everyone would quit. Most people want more. Some of the people who receive these benefits (at least 1/2, as I recall) work. Some work multiple jobs. If you live in a big city, you'll have to work multiple jobs just to pay the rent. God help you if you live in a place that with decent public transportation.

 

[tetris42]

Its ok to live above my means and expect others to pick up for me. Great. I'll quit tomorrow.

What happens when the last guy earning his way through life quits?

Spoken like someone who truly has no idea what being poor is like. I mean there so many things you seem to be missing with that post:

1. I was talking about clean water for survival, not a big screen TV. You're talking like this is a luxury. It's not. Without it, you die.

2. I would LOVE to see you quit your job and try to live the high life on $194 per month on food stamps and your free water and shit-tier housing. You may actually find that despite all those "luxuries", your standard living is complete shit and you still want to work so you can improve it and get out of bare-bottom minimum living accommodations (that's assuming you can even get the shit-tier housing).

3. You're assuming everyone who is in this situation is acting irresponsibly, expecting a free ride. Again, most of the poor are WORKING. You have no idea how many of them were spending their money responsibly, but simply couldn't find work or were paid so little they couldn't afford their most basic needs (or that of their dependents). You're talking it's an impossibility someone did everything right to the best of their ability in life, but still got completely screwed. This HAPPENS, a LOT, especially in places like Detroit and the whole rust belt. People are entitled to WATER whether they have earned it or not.

Unless of course, you would be willing to lay down and die if you were too poor to pay your water bill and had no financial means of escaping your situation. If you would do that, then fine, you're not talking like a total hypocrite.

 

[Ur_Mom]

Protip. It was Reagan who pushed for telecom deregulation and George HW Bush who signed the "Obamaphone" bill into law.

And it's an entirely self funded program. No taxes are used for the Lifeline Service. Less than 2 Billion is spent on this program yearly. As opposed to 6 Trillion (and counting) funneled to war profiteers like Haliburton and wasted on the mid east.

But hey, any excuse to froth at the mouth and be angry, facts be damned...

Nah, it's that charge on everyone's phone bill that pays for it. Came in under the first Bush, like you said.

Yes, some people abuse it. Other people really use it and make good use of it. What is it? $10 subsidy for most people for internet? That's not a lot of internet. Even on a $20 plan, that's half. But, it helps.

I know [H] is generally "fuck the poor! They can work and get their own shit! I got mine!", but social programs aren't going anywhere. Might as well keep up with the times and help people with internet (which IMO is a better resource than a phone).

I'm a damn socialist commie, though. So, what do I know?

 

[TwistedAegis]

This is so much a perception issue. The most shocking stat I saw was from the Economist recently: 6 out of 7 of those who self-identify as conservative believe that those who are poor "have it easy". Until that perception changes, all of the bottom 99.9% fighting over the scraps while that top 0.1%, who own as much wealth as the first 90%, keep pitting us against the other.

That needs to sink in more. 319,000 people in this country have as much wealth as 287,100,000 of us. All this squabbling over the pittances of "obamaphones" and a measly $1.7B for subsidized internet is nothing and is simply a distraction over the real issue.

 

[Synful Serenity]

Me: "I don't have any change." Homeless Guy: "It's ok....I take PayPal."

 

[tetris42]

This is so much a perception issue. The most shocking stat I saw was from the Economist recently: 6 out of 7 of those who self-identify as conservative believe that those who are poor "have it easy". Until that perception changes, all of the bottom 99.9% fighting over the scraps while that top 0.1%, who own as much wealth as the first 90%, keep pitting us against the other.

Yeah that could be true. I want to say I've known anywhere from 50 - 100 poor people in my life (varying degrees of knowing), and you definitely get a mix. Most of them have been hard working like hell (2-3 jobs) and visibly stressed. The ones support families or relatives usually have their shit together, but don't have the education, time, or money to get out of the rut their in. Some of them aren't very good at money management and act emotionally more than anything or have gambling or substance abuse problems. Most of the homeless I've known have had mental disorders. There have been a few that have matched sort of a low-level hustler or criminal stereotype, but they're anything but lazy.

In fact, out of the poor I've known, the ONLY group I can think of that are "content" to just sit back and collect benefits have been those that are old or have serious health problems. Except for some of the mentally ill ones, just about none of them have a look of contentment or relaxed look that comes from "living easy", it's just the total exact opposite of what their reality is. On the contrary, most of their lives look like hell. This is why I find this stereotype of the lazy poor / easy living so insane, it completely contradicts all my life experience. I don't know where the hell it comes from that people can actually believe it.

The laziest people I've known have all been born into middle class families, living off of or with their parents, not the poor.

 

[Retronym]

Yeah that could be true. I want to say I've known anywhere from 50 - 100 poor people in my life (varying degrees of knowing), and you definitely get a mix. Most of them have been hard working like hell (2-3 jobs) and visibly stressed. The ones support families or relatives usually have their shit together, but don't have the education, time, or money to get out of the rut their in. Some of them aren't very good at money management and act emotionally more than anything or have gambling or substance abuse problems. Most of the homeless I've known have had mental disorders. There have been a few that have matched sort of a low-level hustler or criminal stereotype, but they're anything but lazy.

In fact, out of the poor I've known, the ONLY group I can think of that are "content" to just sit back and collect benefits have been those that are old or have serious health problems. Except for some of the mentally ill ones, just about none of them have a look of contentment or relaxed look that comes from "living easy", it's just the total exact opposite of what their reality is. On the contrary, most of their lives look like hell. This is why I find this stereotype of the lazy poor / easy living so insane, it completely contradicts all my life experience. I don't know where the hell it comes from that people can actually believe it.

The laziest people I've known have all been born into middle class families, living off of or with their parents, not the poor.

That's a good thing; they are not living off the tax payers and are out of the job pool, freeing it up for others.

That's the difference that people like me give a shit about.

When I work a 90 hour week it's to get money, not give several thousand more dollars to the government. It has nothing to do with the poor being lazy or hard working. They are not deserving of the money either way. That doesn't mean their life is not a sad story, but I did not make them that way.

 

[Gavv]

This is so much a perception issue. The most shocking stat I saw was from the Economist recently: 6 out of 7 of those who self-identify as conservative believe that those who are poor "have it easy". Until that perception changes, all of the bottom 99.9% fighting over the scraps while that top 0.1%, who own as much wealth as the first 90%, keep pitting us against the other.

That needs to sink in more. 319,000 people in this country have as much wealth as 287,100,000 of us. All this squabbling over the pittances of "obamaphones" and a measly $1.7B for subsidized internet is nothing and is simply a distraction over the real issue.

I always hate the it's only a measly1.7B...

What a load of crap

Someone still has to pay for it and shockingly it's only another 1.7B on top of 100's of other measly expenditures :roll eyes

If they want it..... Try working for it

 

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

Because every society in the history of humanity has had some people too poor to afford basic needs?

Without government, how would they be so poor as to not be able to afford it? Think about it: they wouldn't get priced out of the labor market via minimum wage laws. They wouldn't have to deal with being nickel-and-dimed by being taxed on everything. So they'd have more money-in-real-terms than they have now.

Because the people in Detroit are too poor RIGHT NOW to pay for it?

So let me get this straight, you're implying that under a system where the private sector is controlling everything, you simply don't account for the scenario where someone is too poor to afford basic needs AND private charity isn't enough?

Why wouldn't it be? You assume that you can just transplant now into then. Doesn't work. That's insane.

 

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

Well assuming that's even true (I mean according to the article it's 17,000 households that have had water cut off), for something as basic as WATER, "most" isn't good enough. EVERYONE should have access to clean water in a developed society. That's the part where I just don't see how the private sector solves that. Private companies aren't interested in making sure EVERYONE gets a minimum standard of living, they're interested in making profit. People who can't afford their services are irrelevant to them.

Protecting most people is irrelevant to the government-run police.

For every one of your whines about the private sector, I can show government failure. In other words: it's not going to get you anywhere.

Private companies are all about making as much money as they can, but if they price things too high most people won't be able to afford them. And I still have no idea the reason that something like water service would be priced such that there would be people who couldn't afford it.

 

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

Then show us a company that will do these things even though they aren't money making ventures.

I don't have to. It is up to the statist to show that only a government can do it. If they can't show it, they should stop making fools of themselves by both believing and proclaiming it via a begged question.

 

[Deleted member 108676]

I did 9 years service to this country, yet more and more every day I want to say "Fuck this shit, I'm moving to Germany."

 

[Deleted member 108676]

That sounds like an incredibly privileged point of view. Being greedy and having more than you need should be uncomfortable and shameful, but in this twisted world we see the majority of people (or maybe it's just all of the loud mouths?) demonizing the poor instead.

If you don't donate every spare penny you have at the end of the month you're a hypocrite.

And why are you against someone having more than someone else? They worked for it, they should be rewarded.

 

[tetris42]

They are not deserving of the money either way.

I have to ask, say you were in an accident or some other situation that prevented you from being able to work and didn't have a social support network of friends or family. Would you want a taxpayer-funded organization to help you out to try and get back on your feet, or simply keep you alive in unfavorable economic conditions, even though you were "undeserving" of it? Or would you want to lay down and die with "dignity" because you don't have enough money for food, water, or shelter?

Without government, how would they be so poor as to not be able to afford it? Think about it: they wouldn't get priced out of the labor market via minimum wage laws. They wouldn't have to deal with being nickel-and-dimed by being taxed on everything. So they'd have more money-in-real-terms than they have now.

This is a separate issue than I was driving at, but you already established that you have NO plan in the "impossible" scenario that someone would still be too poor to pay for basic services. That's unacceptable and unrealistic. You're literally describing what you perceive to a be a utopian state, because you think NO ONE will be too poor to afford basic services in it. Fantasy.

How would they be so poor? Because a pure captalist market tends to gravitate towards monopolies or oligopolies. Private-owned water would be a perfect example, since they could use property rights to have a regional hold over an an area and drive up prices. A new competitor literally wouldn't have room to operate in a small area. There are PLENTY of ways to shut down competition and abuse monopoly status without the use of government. Also you say government nickles and dimes and though corporations DON'T? And how exactly does eliminating minimum wage so that American workers have to compete with sweatshop labor in Asia give them ENOUGH money to get by?

Protecting most people is irrelevant to the government-run police.

Government is a multi-headed beast. Law enforcement cares about different things than welfare, than the forestry service. Some of them absolutely care about helping people, that's the whole reason their department was founded. Private companies, by definition, are not interested in supporting people too poor to afford their services.

For every one of your whines about the private sector, I can show government failure. In other words: it's not going to get you anywhere.

And logic 101 would tell you that if I was arguing the government should handle EVERYTHING (which I'm not), you would have a point. This is the whole concept of a MIXED ECONOMY. Government is better at some things, the private sector is better at others. I thought you were the one arguing the private sector should handle everything.

Private companies are all about making as much money as they can, but if they price things too high most people won't be able to afford them.

There's that word again, MOST. Again, for clean drinking water, I find that anything less than EVERYONE for a developed society as being a failure of the society. You keep saying over and over again asking people to prove that only government can do something. I'm saying only government can provide essential services to people too poor to afford them on a scale that's needed, since there's zero profit incentive to do so. You're saying with everything under the private sector, people too poor to afford services wouldn't exist. I find this incredibly naive, as it ignores all of human history and relies on "market magic" to make happen.

And I still have no idea the reason that something like water service would be priced such that there would be people who couldn't afford it.

Because EVERYONE would have money, right? Again, fantasy. Hell, what if somebody is a hard worker, but has a gambling problem, so he's irresponsible with it and can't afford to pay his bills. Do you think he should be allowed to still DRINK WATER and LIVE?

 

[Deleted whining member 223597]

I don't have to. It is up to the statist to show that only a government can do it. If they can't show it, they should stop making fools of themselves by both believing and proclaiming it via a begged question.

You are the one who wants change, so YOU have to give an alternative. The whole "NO U" argument just makes you look lazy and like you don't actually have any real alternatives. Anyone can cry "screw the government, away with it!" but it's as useful as yelling at a wall.

 

[Retronym]

I have to ask, say you were in an accident or some other situation that prevented you from being able to work and didn't have a social support network of friends or family. Would you want a taxpayer-funded organization to help you out to try and get back on your feet, or simply keep you alive in unfavorable economic conditions, even though you were "undeserving" of it? Or would you want to lay down and die with "dignity" because you don't have enough money for food, water, or shelter?

No.

I will not be a burden on others.

 

[TwistedAegis]

Median income, since the 1970s, has grown at less than 0.1% per year when adjusted for inflation. So basically, hasn't grown at all.

So the premise is either that, in the '70s, something got put into the water and the majority of Americans became lazy leeches, or that perhaps systemic changes such as legislation, tax policy, globalisation, etc, has severely undermined the ability of the average American to get ahead. Personally, I find the former very hard to believe.

Further, this is proven again and again, that in America economic mobility is lower than almost all other OECD countries, and continues to decline year after year. But, the myth of the American dream and exceptionalism is upheld and nothing is done, despite concrete data to the contrary.

 

[tetris42]

So the premise is either that, in the '70s, something got put into the water and the majority of Americans became lazy leeches, or that perhaps systemic changes such as legislation, tax policy, globalisation, etc, has severely undermined the ability of the average American to get ahead. Personally, I find the former very hard to believe.

That same substance in the water apparently managed to increase worker productivity during this whole time too.

 

[TwistedAegis]

Yeah, great point - worker productivity increased at the same rate it has historically, but in the '70s income and productivity were completely decoupled - income stayed flat since.

 

[Retronym]

There is no such thing as American exceptionalism.

If you understand this to be true, you should not be surprised to see stagnant wages.
It's an odd pair of thoughts to hold at the same time, because globalization should be fairly obvious.

With that in mind, it seems odd to have an expectation of fairness. It's like trying to wish away competition.

 

[rat]

There is no such thing as American exceptionalism.

If you understand this to be true, you should not be surprised to see stagnant wages.
It's an odd pair of thoughts to hold at the same time, because globalization should be fairly obvious.

With that in mind, it seems odd to have an expectation of fairness. It's like trying to wish away competition.

The delusion of American Exceptionalism, however, does still exist. We haven't been the greatest country in the world for quite some time.

 

[TwistedAegis]

That's what I'm saying; the myth of the American dream and American exceptionalism handcuffs us from having objective discussions on how to solve income stagnation in this country.

 

[Retronym]

If you know the threat of outsourcing is ever-present, what exactly can be done at a legislative level, that simultaneously increases local wages while not hampering exports and local industry?

It's a fairy tale that won't work.

It can't be adequately addressed at a national level at all.

 

[TwistedAegis]

I don't know about that. I'd like to see more favourable tax policy around wages vs capital, to start. The Fed keeping interest rates so low pretty much 24/7/365 I also think creates unhealthy economic incentives to simply gamble with capital rather than create truly productive endeavors.

In general, I think we have created a system of perverse incentives that rewards gambling in the markets allowing for ridiculous profit margins, which discourages capital-heavy, longer-term projects and businesses from even being started.

 

[Retronym]

Partially agree.

The FED has, in some ways, has encouraged the reduction in lending.
To put it another way, it is encouraging reduced market behavior.

 

[MrCrispy]

I'm guessing most people here have no idea what actual poverty is like. Here's a hint - if you've lived all your life in the West, you don't have a clue (and yes, I'm excluding the very very small %age of truly poor people here but even they are much much better off than most of the poor in the world).

 

[TwistedAegis]

Lowered rates are supposed to be passed down to the consumers, to accelerate debt repayment, to have a more economically healthy populace.

But with no increase in income and an already debt-to-income maxed populace, decreased interest rates don't help that population at all, and thus simply increase the rents the banks extract from the system and/or benefit those already well off.

 

[Retronym]

It is basically a complete market distortion.

The free market advocates have been saying that for ages. And I agree.

It does serve to punish savers, and tends to push people into the stock market who have no business being there. Anything that discourages savings, to me, will not help with the debt-to-income problem in our culture.

 

[Retronym]

I'm guessing most people here have no idea what actual poverty is like. Here's a hint - if you've lived all your life in the West, you don't have a clue (and yes, I'm excluding the very very small %age of truly poor people here but even they are much much better off than most of the poor in the world).

Kind of related, I am drifting towards a more thrifty lifestyle recently, in an effort to increase my savings. So I don't consider myself completely clueless on the matter.

I'm trying to save 73% of my salary, and still pay the mortgage and car payments.
It is a fun little game.

 

[MrCrispy]

Median income, since the 1970s, has grown at less than 0.1% per year when adjusted for inflation. So basically, hasn't grown at all.

So the premise is either that, in the '70s, something got put into the water and the majority of Americans became lazy leeches, or that perhaps systemic changes such as legislation, tax policy, globalisation, etc, has severely undermined the ability of the average American to get ahead. Personally, I find the former very hard to believe.

Further, this is proven again and again, that in America economic mobility is lower than almost all other OECD countries, and continues to decline year after year. But, the myth of the American dream and exceptionalism is upheld and nothing is done, despite concrete data to the contrary.

• Work harder, because if you're poor its your own fault.
  
• Pay your taxes, but you don't deserve any benefits from the taxes you pay because any form of helping the people is socialism which is Anti-American and thus evil.
  
• Agree to give up your retirement benefits and privatize them because the rich have your best interests in mind.
  
• Approve tax cuts because the rich create jobs, with of course no data to back it up.
  
• Forget the fancy notion of a middle class.

Honestly, people in this country are delusional, even when the majority of us live paycheck to paycheck we still demand nothing of our elected representatives and elect them on the basis of reality tv. Anyone who still believes the 'American dream' is a naive idiot.

The standard of living here is still very high compared to the rest of the world, but it won't last and its already too late to do anything about it, not that the people have any interest in doing so, when the majority of people in this country still believe that wasting trillions of dollars on illegal wars, and deciding national issues based on fictional books is more important than say healthcare, education, science or a hundred other things.

 

[TwistedAegis]

It is basically a complete market distortion.

The free market advocates have been saying that for ages. And I agree.

It does serve to punish savers, and tends to push people into the stock market who have no business being there. Anything that discourages savings, to me, will not help with the debt-to-income problem in our culture.

Right, for anyone to be able to even HOPE to retire, you've got to put pretty much all of it in equities.

So basically you have a massive guaranteed income stream hitting the markets from people's paychecks, constantly. And you have Wall Street traders with their buckets directly underneath this tap, siphoning off most of it for themselves and calling themselves geniuses doing god's work.

 

[chockomonkey]

Right, for anyone to be able to even HOPE to retire, you've got to put pretty much all of it in equities.

So basically you have a massive guaranteed income stream hitting the markets from people's paychecks, constantly. And you have Wall Street traders with their buckets directly underneath this tap, siphoning off most of it for themselves and calling themselves geniuses doing god's work.

i hadn't thought of that, but you're right. Traditional savings is dead, and all retirement is in equities. Those fuckers! Rigged the system pretty good didn't they?

 

[MrCrispy]

Kind of related, I am drifting towards a more thrifty lifestyle recently, in an effort to increase my savings. So I don't consider myself completely clueless on the matter.

I'm trying to save 73% of my salary, and still pay the mortgage and car payments.
It is a fun little game.

The sad truth most of us have to accept is things won't get any better, as there is no upward mobility left and the only real option is to find happiness in things other than material goods (as long as you have a roof and food) which is of course the opposite of what we are taught life should be like.

Used to be you could work hard, save and reap the rewards and build a future for yourself and your family, now that's just a dream.

 

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

This is a separate issue than I was driving at, but you already established that you have NO plan in the "impossible" scenario that someone would still be too poor to pay for basic services.

1. Why presume that?
2. Why presume that?
3. Why presume that?

It just needed to be repeated, since you clearly think your fictional world should be treated to any consideration.

How would they be so poor? Because a pure captalist market tends to gravitate towards monopolies or oligopolies.

No, that's the Marxist myth. The reality is that monopolies and oligopolies only happen with government fiat.

Private-owned water would be a perfect example, since they could use property rights to have a regional hold over an an area and drive up prices.

Because that's happened without government fiat so many times, right? Oh wait.....

A new competitor literally wouldn't have room to operate in a small area. There are PLENTY of ways to shut down competition and abuse monopoly status without the use of government.

No, there aren't.

Also you say government nickles and dimes and though corporations DON'T?

Not really, no.

And how exactly does eliminating minimum wage so that American workers have to compete with sweatshop labor in Asia give them ENOUGH money to get by?

How does legally preventing the unskilled from working help us?

Government is a multi-headed beast. Law enforcement cares about different things than welfare, than the forestry service. Some of them absolutely care about helping people, that's the whole reason their department was founded. Private companies, by definition, are not interested in supporting people too poor to afford their services.

They aren't? Wow. Just wow. You really have drunk the anti-capitalist kool-aid if you believe that lie..

And logic 101 would tell you that if I was arguing the government should handle EVERYTHING (which I'm not),

You want there to be a government; you want government to control everything. There's no middle ground.

There's that word again, MOST. Again, for clean drinking water, I find that anything less than EVERYONE for a developed society as being a failure of the society.

There's no such thing.

You keep saying over and over again asking people to prove that only government can do something. I'm saying only government can provide essential services to people too poor to afford them on a scale that's needed, since there's zero profit incentive to do so.

And you've never gotten around to demonstrating it.

Let me know when you can.

 

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

You are the one who wants change, so YOU have to give an alternative.

No, I do not. I am not the one begging the question that only government can do certain things. NMFP.

 

[DocSavage]

No, that's the Marxist myth. The reality is that monopolies and oligopolies only happen with government fiat.

How can you say that with a straight face? If you've ever played the game Monopoly, you'll realise that there's always just one winner who ends up controlling everything. How can any other smaller company compete when the bigger company can just take losses and undercut the smaller company in every market the smaller company services?