UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (17) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: JoshRandall Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 137219  
Subject: The Greatest & Lamest Generation Date: 11/13/2012 10:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 12
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GwGJUZU6iHw/UJxbaNztv2I/AAAAAAAAk0...
Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 110929 of 137219
Subject: Re: The Greatest & Lamest Generation Date: 11/13/2012 10:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
This "free stuff" meme is weird. Romney was the one making all the free stuff promises: tax cuts that won't reduce revenue, increasing the defense budget without increasing the debt, keeping the "good" stuff in Obamacare, while cutting the "bad" stuff that paid for the "goo" stuff, etc. Oh, and 12 million jobs out of thin air.

What free stuff did Obama promise anybody?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 110941 of 137219
Subject: Re: The Greatest & Lamest Generation Date: 11/14/2012 10:35 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
What free stuff did Obama promise anybody?

You're kidding, right? Romney wanted to move the government towards paying for what it is supposed to pay for (the "few things" actually enummerated in the Constitution) and cut a bunch of crap the government shouldn't be paying for while lowering tax rates so the economy would rebound and increase tax revenues.

Meanwhile liberal moochers voted to protect their 0bamaphones, food stamps, constant extensions of unemployment and other wealth redistribution in the form of continual fleecing of "the rich" in order to pay for it all.

Then libtards voted to enable the liberal moochers because "it's fair" or "social justice" or however they rationalized their idiocy. It's easy to be compassionate when someone else is footing most of the bill.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 110942 of 137219
Subject: Re: The Greatest & Lamest Generation Date: 11/14/2012 10:48 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Meanwhile liberal moochers voted to protect their 0bamaphones, food stamps, constant extensions of unemployment and other wealth redistribution in the form of continual fleecing of "the rich" in order to pay for it all.

What percentage of the Obama vote do you think gets free "Obamaphones," which by the way, aren't paid for the government and were introduced during the Bush administration.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/


And Romney said he wasn't going to cut the food stamp program.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/22/mitt-romney-food-st...


You're too gullible. You can easily look this stuff up, you know.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ascenzm Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 110946 of 137219
Subject: Re: The Greatest & Lamest Generation Date: 11/14/2012 10:57 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
What free stuff did Obama promise anybody?


xLife


This lady is liking her Obamaphone.

I'd be LOL, but I'm helping pay for her phone :(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 110950 of 137219
Subject: Re: The Greatest & Lamest Generation Date: 11/14/2012 11:13 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
This lady is liking her Obamaphone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio


You are demonstrating that you are no smarter than she is.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

Q: Has the Obama administration started a program to use "taxpayer money" to give free cell phones to welfare recipients?

A: No. Low-income households have been eligible for discounted telephone service for more than a decade. But the program is funded by telecom companies, not by taxes, and the president has nothing to do with it.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 110952 of 137219
Subject: Re: The Greatest & Lamest Generation Date: 11/14/2012 11:19 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
What percentage of the Obama vote do you think gets free "Obamaphones," which by the way, aren't paid for the government and were introduced during the Bush administration.

A small but growing percentage who were quite vocal about why they were supporting 0bama.

And Romney said he wasn't going to cut the food stamp program.

Yup. But there were still plenty of people saying they were voting for 0bama to protect their food stamps. Perception is reality, lots of people perceived that voting for Romney would mean they'd be losing their entitlements (a perception that Dems weren't in any way trying to deny, quite the opposite!)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 110960 of 137219
Subject: Re: The Greatest & Lamest Generation Date: 11/14/2012 11:35 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<i.A small but growing percentage who were quite vocal about why they were supporting 0bama.

Really? And you're not even going to address the "Obamaphone" canard?

<i.And Romney said he wasn't going to cut the food stamp program.

Yup. But there were still plenty of people saying they were voting for 0bama to protect their food stamps. Perception is reality...

Oh boy. Okay. So your complaint isn't really that Obama is going to do anything significantly different from Romney, but that stupid poor people think he is.

And it seems to me that a lot of stupid not-so-poor people think he is too. Just look at all the folks here whining about free "Obamaphones."

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jerryab Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 111006 of 137219
Subject: Re: The Greatest & Lamest Generation Date: 11/14/2012 3:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
You're too gullible. You can easily look this stuff up, you know.

Facts? Since when have facts made a difference to conservatives? And that was a major point of the Romney campaign. They were not going to let facts (or fact checkers) impede their claims--but they did want others to "do as they {the Romney campaign} say and not as they do).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/fact-chec...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 111009 of 137219
Subject: Re: The Greatest & Lamest Generation Date: 11/14/2012 3:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Facts? Since when have facts made a difference to conservatives? And that was a major point of the Romney campaign.

Just about the only reason I'm glad Romney lost is that had he won, it'd have set a horrible precedent: that you can win an election by lying you a$$ off. I'm not talking about the usual political lies that all candidates engage in. I'm talking about switching your position, sometimes twice in one day, telling whoppers... and when you get caught, repeating them more loudly.

Frank Rich captured my feelings on this well:

http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/gop-denial-2012-11/

The American weakness that Romney both apotheosized and exploited in achieving this feat—our post-fact syndrome where anyone on the public stage can make up anything and usually get away with it—won’t disappear with him. A slicker liar could have won, and still might.

All politicians lie, and some of them, as Bob Kerrey famously said of Bill Clinton in 1996, are “unusually good” at it. Every campaign (certainly including Obama’s) puts up ads that stretch or obliterate the truth. But Romney’s record was exceptional by any standard. The blogger Steve Benen, who meticulously curated and documented Mitt’s false statements during 2012, clocked a total of 917 as Election Day arrived. Those lies, which reached a crescendo with the last-ditch ads accusing a bailed-out Chrysler of planning to ship American jobs to China, are not to be confused with the Romney flip-flops. The Etch-A-Sketches were a phenomenon of their own; if the left and right agreed about anything this year, it was that trying to pin down where Mitt “really” stood on any subject was a fool’s errand... Yet some 57 million Americans took him seriously enough to drag themselves to the polls and vote for a duplicitous cipher.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Radish Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 111018 of 137219
Subject: Re: The Greatest & Lamest Generation Date: 11/14/2012 4:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 13
xLife,

What percentage of the Obama vote do you think gets free "Obamaphones," which by the way, aren't paid for the government and were introduced during the Bush administration.

As usual, I suspect you know that in the larger picture this isn't true (well, the part about cell phones being introduced during the Bush administration may be technically but irrelevantly true).

The so-called Obamaphones (which is just a recent nickname, the program as a whole dates way back) is a program established by the Federal government, whose rules as set solely by the Federal government, paid for by taxes imposed on phone companies by the Federal government, at rates set periodically by the Federal government, so that phone services and equipment can be provided to people meeting qualifications set by the Federal government.

Notice the term "Federal government" in there at every single step?

You might quibble at the term "taxes", but it certainly is a monetary amount imposed on phone companies by the Federal government. While the government may avoid use of the word "tax" and hide behind an "independent" organization, whose own website gives a page full http://www.universalservice.org/about/tools/fcc/default.aspx... of FCC Orders that it operates under, by any normal definitions of the words, it's still a tax imposed by law and a program carried out by a subsidiary of the government.

Your "fact check" link doesn't bother to mention that there were no significant number of cell phones given out under the program until Carlos Slim of América Móvil met with President Obama in multiple meetings at the White House. Forbes, incidentally, calls the Slim the richest man in the world.

So, fittingly, the nick-name Obamaphone refers to a government-created and government-controlled program to take money largely from middle-class people (since by and large the phone companies pass the cost of the tax on to their customers) and send it predominately to a company in Mexico owned by the richest man in the world. Part of that money is kept by the Mexican company, and part takes the form of phone equipment and services provided to people who claim they are already receiving at least one other government handout.

You're too gullible. You can easily look this stuff up, you know.

Unfortunately for you, one can look this stuff up.

Phil

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: drebbin Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 111019 of 137219
Subject: Re: The Greatest & Lamest Generation Date: 11/14/2012 5:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Radish: Unfortunately for you, one can look this stuff up.

I think he means look up the 0bama/MSNBC/DailyKos/HuffPo talking points. That's what the lefties seem to wrongly assert as facts much of the time.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 111020 of 137219
Subject: Re: The Greatest & Lamest Generation Date: 11/14/2012 5:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
As usual, I suspect you know that in the larger picture this isn't true (well, the part about cell phones being introduced during the Bush administration may be technically but irrelevantly true).

Not at all sure why you feel it necessary to impugn my motives and honesty, but anyway... thanks for the additional info. Didn't know about Carlos Slim's involvement at all. Makes it seem more like a "redistribution" of wealth from the middle class to a rich Mexican.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 111021 of 137219
Subject: Re: The Greatest & Lamest Generation Date: 11/14/2012 5:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Again, you're off the mark. Again, you might want to respond to what I've written rather than what you imagine I've written.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/...

Lifeline and programs like it have been around quite a while. Lifeline was created in 1985 and expanded in 2008 during the Bush administration to include cell phone service. An FCC spokeswoman told PolitiFact in 2009 that the 1996 Telecommunications Act required the FCC to create the Universal Service Fund, a pool of money subsidized by small charges on phone bills and redistributed to low-income service programs, as well as programs that bring telecommunications services to rural areas and schools.

In early 2012, the FCC implemented changes to Lifeline aimed at modernizing the program and eliminating fraud and waste.


Egads! A program begun by Reagan and expanded by Bush is modernized by Obama to reduce fraud and waste!! The horror!!!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Radish Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 111033 of 137219
Subject: Re: The Greatest & Lamest Generation Date: 11/14/2012 7:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
xLife,

Not at all sure why you feel it necessary to impugn my motives and honesty, but anyway...

From my experience with your posts over the years, I think you're a really smart and perceptive person. Often you catch an angle on a topic that no one else has caught... and sometimes that novel viewpoint is very interesting.

So I assume that someone as perceptive as I think you are would immediately recognize that just avoiding the use of the word "tax" doesn't make a government-compelled payment not be a tax, nor does a government agency (carrying out requirements of a Federal law) setting up an "independent" organization run by that agency make the program not be a government program. If you're not perceptive enough to recognize those things, I apologize. ;-) Actually, please allow me to apologize unreservedly; my introductory comment was out of line.

thanks for the additional info. Didn't know about Carlos Slim's involvement at all. Makes it seem more like a "redistribution" of wealth from the middle class to a rich Mexican.

Forbes has done a piece on this, but I read it in the print version of the magazine (which I have recycled). I did use Google and the search on Forbes' website to try to find it, but to no avail (admittedly, I didn't bother looking past the first few entries from a couple different search phrases). It may be too recent (non-subscribers can't access the most recent info at Forbes' website). No outsider knows what Obama and Slim discussed, but the dates of their meetings at the White House are public record, and the cell phone program started after the meetings.

Phil

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 111043 of 137219
Subject: Re: The Greatest & Lamest Generation Date: 11/14/2012 9:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Thanks, Phil. I agree with on the "tax" thing. It is a small tax, levied by he telecomms. (What fraction of one cent of your phone bill do you imagine pays for this program?)

I still don't understand how this is an Obama thing though, considering the program was started when Reagan was president, the tax/fee or whatever instituted under Bush he First and the program was expanded by Bush the Second.

I think the YouTube video of the black woman in Cleveland ranting about her Obamaphone unhinged a few folks.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Radish Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 111046 of 137219
Subject: Re: The Greatest & Lamest Generation Date: 11/14/2012 11:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
xLife,

Thanks, Phil. I agree with on the "tax" thing. It is a small tax, levied by he telecomms.

Good. While I like the insightful viewpoints you often come up with, as I noted in my previous post, I dislike your tendency to engage in word games. Sure, it can be amusing to watch people get sucked into the word games, when they don't even realize that's what they're doing (and you, I presume, do). But (if you've read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"), it's pretty much a "funny once" kinda joke.

I still don't understand how this is an Obama thing though, considering the program was started when Reagan was president, the tax/fee or whatever instituted under Bush he First and the program was expanded by Bush the Second.

Largely, it's not really an Obama thing, hence my persistence in calling "Obamaphone" a nickname for the program, and a recent one at that. The origins of the program are quite fuzzy, but clearly it dates back well before Obama. However, I think it's reasonably fair to say that the cell phone portion started during Obama's administration (even though technically there might have been some insignificant number of cell phones involved prior). Now, whether that's because cell phones are relatively new and the government is slow to respond (after all, the FCC blocked cell phones entirely for roughly 10 years because "no one wants the product"), or because of rather-questionable meetings between Obama and major cell phone operator Carlos Slim (and the fact that significant numbers of cell phones only appeared in the program after those meetings), who is to say? If it's due to the meetings, then calling the cell phones "an Obama thing" is pretty accurate.

I think the YouTube video of the black woman in Cleveland ranting about her Obamaphone unhinged a few folks.

The impact of the video has nothing to do with Obamaphones or even the Universal Service program in general. The primary reason that video was pushed by Republicans was that it clearly spoke of the whole "gimme" attitude that Republicans oppose. And it did it so eloquently. That the item which was the focus of the "gimme" attitude was a cell phone is irrelevant.

A big fear of the Republican party is that the Democratic party will give out so many "freebies" (none of which are, of course, free) that the traditional downfall of democracy (in which the majority of voters vote themselves the goodies at the expense of the minority) will come to pass in our lifetime (or our children's). And this video exemplified that there's a real reason behind that fear. (Now, whether it was a typical voter attitude or an isolated case is a different matter... of course.)

Phil

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (17) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement