221 replies to this topic

[llawen]

I am so beyond tired and disgusted by the LIE that President Obama had no opposition at the beginning of his term. Can you say "filibuster"? The republicans in congress opposed virtually every piece of legislation that he attempted to pass with the threat of filibuster, which would require a supermajority to overcome, even legislation that was previously supported by, and in some cases, even introduced by, republicans.

You go ahead and keep believing what you choose to believe, and keep repeating the lies, but the reason Mr. Romney is going to lose this election is because too many people are better informed than just accepting the "facts" fed to them by right-wing media.

No, I will not return to argue points in this thread, because it seems you have already made up your mind to believe the people who are lying to you. All one needs to do is read through this thread to see what sort of absurdities you believe. The debate seems pointless to me. We choose who to believe, and in some cases, when it's important enough to us, and/or we have time to do so, we dig further to try to get to the truth of the matter (or, at least some of us do). One reason I do not support the republican viewpoint is because most times that I research any given issue, it seems the republican viewpoint is by far the one more skewed by misinformation.

Cite my sources? Why bother? You will simply come back with some other "source" that opposes my viewpoint, however invalid that "source" may be. I've seen this too much with too many people. They believe what they want to believe, and will not seek out or even give credence to any opposing opinion that does not support what they want to believe. From some of your previous statements, it seems you believe President Obama is some sort of radical Muslim (At the very least, you have made some rather obvious ad-hominem and guilt-by-association insinuations to that effect. BTW, both of those are known fallacies used in debating a topic that do nothing to bolster a viewpoint, but rather simply make your argument look weak to anyone educated enough to recognize it.) He is, in fact, a fairly moderate Christian democrat, but like I said, you believe what you want to believe...

I don't know why so many Americans seem to hate President Obama so much, but since the reasons I've seen given so far almost always turn out to be... less-than-true, I can only surmise they are either quite gullible, not willing to spend the time to debunk what they are being fed by thier choice of "news" media, or are not being completely honest with themselves about the real reasons...

Peace out,

I agree with you to a point. But on the other side. That is what's great about this country. We can debate things like this and have freedoms to do so.
As hating Obama. I don't hate him. I do not agree that the path he is taking this country is right for the country. You do. But that again is what this country is all about. Freedom.
I also do not agree with taking money from my pockets to give to others for luxury items. I agree with you, we do need some taxes to help the needy. I agree with land lines. So if one needed emergency services one could get help. Cell phones no.
Also FCC is thinking of adding home internet and low cost computers. I will post link later.
Once again, that is my right as an American citizen. As is your right.
I feel as you do but on a conservative point of view.


Sent from my XT875 using Tapatalk 2

[chiahead52]

I like all the fees Romney added in mass when he was governor to balance his budget while claiming in the recent debates that he didn't raise taxes. So I assume those fees are not taxes???

[- JPB]

Go buy cigarettes or beer. That is a luxury item and they have the sin tax added.
Fee or tax, its arguing Semantics.
Sent from my XT875 using Tapatalk 2

I'm sorry, but I cannot let you say things like this unopposed.

This is quite simply not true. There is a difference, at least in the case of these phones. The things you are citing are direct taxes to the consumer added to the cost of the product by our government. The fee imposed to help fund these phone programs for low income individuals (which, btw, includes SSI recipients and others, not just welfare recipients) is imposed upon the providors, not the consumer. It is the decision of the providors to either pass the cost of this fee on to the consumer or let it eat into their profits. Whether or not this program has merit is debateable, but how it is funded is not. It is also not debateable when the program started, and when it was changed to include cell phones and not just land lines. That would be the Reagan and G.W. Bush administrations, respectively.

Also (to the poster above you), I do not believe the intent is so that the cell phone can be "waved around during the interview"; I believe the intent is so that communication regarding job prospects can more readily occur, thereby aiding the individual to hopefully achieve gainful employment, be able to contact emergency services if necessary, etc.

Furthermore, all this previously stated and oft-repeated stuff regarding the state of the economy, unemployment, increase in welfare recipients, etc. is always portrayed by people supporting republican leadership as being somehow President Obama's fault. To that, all I have to say is: "Ummmm, were you under a rock during 2008 and 2009?" You KNOW FOR A FACT that he walked into a dire situation with the economy in free-fall. To place blame on this administration for all of that stuff is simply dishonest. We can certainly debate the causes of that economic collapse, but the resultant hole we are still tring to dig ourselves out of is very real, and not a product of this administration's policies. While it may also be debateable whether or not this administration's policies are the most effective way to extricate ourselves from the current economic slump, "forgetting" or pretending to forget that the current president was handed a big, steaming pile of poop for an economy when entering office is, as is often the case with republican talking points, imho, misleading at best.

I am now once again attempt to pretend this thread is as it always should have been: nonexistent. The sheer dishonesty (or, perhaps, willingness to accept dishonesty) and lack of compassion for our fellow human beings exhibited in the opposing arguments, quite frankly, disgusts me...

[chiahead52]

I'm sorry, but I cannot let you say things like this unopposed.

This is quite simply not true. There is a difference, at least in the case of these phones. The things you are citing are direct taxes to the consumer added to the cost of the product by our government. The fee imposed to help fund these phone programs for low income individuals (which, btw, includes SSI recipients and others, not just welfare recipients) is imposed upon the providors, not the consumer. It is the decision of the providors to either pass the cost of this fee on to the consumer or let it eat into their profits. Whether or not this program has merit is debateable, but how it is funded is not. It is also not debateable when the program started, and when it was changed to include cell phones and not just land lines. That would be the Reagan and G.W. Bush administrations, respectively.

Also (to the poster above you), I do not believe the intent is so that the cell phone can be "waved around during the interview"; I believe the intent is so that communication regarding job prospects can more readily occur, thereby aiding the individual to hopefully achieve gainful employment, be able to contact emergency services if necessary, etc.

Furthermore, all this previously stated and oft-repeated stuff regarding the state of the economy, unemployment, increase in welfare recipients, etc. is always portrayed by people supporting republican leadership as being somehow President Obama's fault. To that, all I have to say is: "Ummmm, were you under a rock during 2008 and 2009?" You KNOW FOR A FACT that he walked into a dire situation with the economy in free-fall. To place blame on this administration for all of that stuff is simply dishonest. We can certainly debate the causes of that economic collapse, but the resultant hole we are still tring to dig ourselves out of is very real, and not a product of this administration's policies. While it may also be debateable whether or not this administration's policies are the most effective way to extricate ourselves from the current economic slump, "forgetting" or pretending to forget that the current president was handed a big, steaming pile of poop for an economy when entering office is, as is often the case with republican talking points, imho, misleading at best.

I am now once again attempt to pretend this thread is as it always should have been: nonexistent. The sheer dishonesty (or, perhaps, willingness to accept dishonesty) and lack of compassion for our fellow human beings exhibited in the opposing arguments, quite frankly, disgusts me...

+1 and well said

[llawen]

This is from FCC website.......carriers must pay into the fund. Of course they are going to pass it along to us. It is a tax. Be right back to show you it is a tax. Oh by the way FCC is run by the government. I made it easy for you by copy and pasting from FCC website.






Universal Service

The goals of Universal Service, as mandated by the 1996 Act, are to:

Promote the availability of quality services at just, reasonable and affordable rates for all consumers Increase nationwide access to advanced telecommunications services Advance the availability of such services to all consumers, including those in low income, rural, insular, and high cost areas at rates that are reasonably comparable to those charged in urban areas Increase access to telecommunications and advanced services in schools, libraries and rural health care facilities Provide equitable and non-discriminatory contributions from all providers of telecommunications services to the fund supporting universal service programs

The Commission established four programs to fulfill these goals. They are:

The High-Cost program The Lifeline (low income) program, including initiatives for Native Americans The Schools and Libraries program, commonly referred to as E-rate The Rural Health Care program

These programs are funded by the Universal Service Fund. Telecommunications providers must contribute to the fund through an assessment on their interstate and international revenues. The Commission appointed the Universal Service Administrative Company, or USAC, to administer the four programs and the Universal Service Fund.

Detailed statistical informat

Sent from my XT875 using Tapatalk 2

[llawen]

From FCC website.....how they determine percentages they must pay in. Our carriers would be stupid to eat the money. So it is recouped through a fee to us. But to them it is a tax. They must pay. So taxpayer money is paying for the phones. We can call it a contribution, fee or tax. To stay in business they must pay it. And it is millions a year for each provider. If the government says you must pay something.....I call that a tax. You can call it a hot dog if you want. And that tax is passed to the consumer.



Contribution Methodology & Administrative Filings

Current and prior contribution factor Public Notices are now posted on the FCC's Office of Managing Director's Website.

Contribution Factor: Telecommunications companies must pay a percentage of their interstate end-user revenues to the Universal Service Fund. This percentage is called the contribution factor. The contribution factor changes four times a year (quarterly) and is increased or decreased depending on the needs of the Universal Service programs. The FCC's Office of the Managing Director manages the quarterly Universal Service Fund (USF) contribution factor process and lists current and past contribution factors on its Contribution Factor & Quarterly Filings Website.

Quarterly Administrative Filings: Quarterly Administrative filings are submitted each quarter to the FCC by the Universal Service Administrator. The quarterly administrative filings contain information about the needs of the Universal Service fund in the upcoming quarter. The FCC uses this information to calculate the contribution factor.

Click on the "USAC Website" link in the left-hand column entitled Administrative Filings to view Quarterly Administrative Filings.
Sent from my XT875 using Tapatalk 2

[llawen]

This is riddled with abuse. I can post the source of a woman giving an interview who had 6 gov. Funded phones in her pocket and claims to have received 30 in total.
I can post sources of folks making 40k a year getting them.
I do not support taking my money and giving it to any program to support redistribution of wealth.
I want you to take note that the amount determined the carriers must contribute to is determined how much money they need. So if we give 3 billion in free phones that fee is going up.

Sent from my XT875 using Tapatalk 2

[androidlearner]

I don't think that any government funded program should provide anything outside of what someone working minimum wage could provide for themselves. Doing anything other than this just gives people, especially the lazy ones, more of a reason to NOT get a job. I know lots of people who do just this because they would have less if they did start working for anything less than x amount of money. The system is broken all around. You can get on welfare while doing drugs, which also prevents you from getting a job because you fail drug tests which incident you DON'T have to take to get welfare, get a free phone, and food stamps to use food stamps to get food that some people who work multiple jobs can't afford. That's a result of people on both sides. Not just Republicans and not just Democrats. EVERYONE. This broken system is a result of everyone. Pointing fingers and arguing does nothing but feed people's ego and make them feel important because they are "right".

Sent from Razr Maxx running Full Throttle Killer Bean

[androidlearner]

Duplicate

[welsalex]

I just wanted to come back here to mention Romney's Jeep Ad. It just shows how far the GOP is willing to contort reality in a vain attempt to gain support. How can you stand by wild attempt at upsetting Ohio with an outright deception? I'll leave everyone with those thoughts for now.

[llawen]

That's funny, no actually hilarious. Did you see Obama visiting the plant and the news story over a week ago? I can go get it for you. They were in fact considering the move. But, we only see what all the liberal news media airs. They in did consider the move. Romney calls them on it and now he is a liar. Go figure.

Sent from my XT875 using Tapatalk 2

[chiahead52]

That's funny, no actually hilarious. Did you see Obama visiting the plant and the news story over a week ago? I can go get it for you. They were in fact considering the move. But, we only see what all the liberal news media airs. They in did consider the move. Romney calls them on it and now he is a liar. Go figure.

Sent from my XT875 using Tapatalk 2

really??? your are definitely on the payroll of Fox then arent you? So, when the CEO of the company that was allegedly moving Jeep to China comes out and states that they are not moving to China then you still dont believe it? Amazing. In fact he had to assure his employees that production is going so well in US that they plan to increase production here and also expand into China to have more of a global foothold. Go blame the CEO of Chrysler for those facts not the liberal media.

Please Login or Register to see this Hidden Content

[llawen]

Roflmao, OK.

Sent from my XT875 using Tapatalk 2

[llawen]

This is from the Obama care bill

c) NOTIFICATIONOFNONENROLLMENT.—Not later than June 30 of each year, the Secretary of the Treasury, acting through the Internal Revenue Service and in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall send a notification to each individual who files an individual income tax return and who is not enrolled in minimum essential coverage (as defined in section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986). Such notification shall contain information on the services available through the Exchange operating in the State in which such individual resides. (d) CONFORMINGAMENDMENT.—The table of subparts for part III of subchapter A of chapter 61 of such Code is amended by inserting after the item relating to subpart C the following new item

Nothing about IRS taking our taxes right? Wrong. You must look very hard. See section 5000a of internal revenue code? You must go look at what it is talking about. There it talks about the fees.

My question is why is this so hidden? Could Obama be lying to us?
Download obamacare bill via PDF. It is 906 pages
Do a search for internal revenue service
That will take you to what I just posted.
Then download section 5000a of internal revenue code
It is a short document that has been amended.

I have provided you a map to see for yourself the IRS is handling the fees and will take you income tax return

Sent from my XT875 using Tapatalk 2

[llawen]

This is 5000a of internal revenue code


D) Indexing of amount In the case of any calendar year beginning after 2016, the applicable dollar amount shall be equal to $695, increased by an amount equal to— (i) $695, multiplied by (ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year, determined by substituting ‘‘calendar year 2015’’ for ‘‘calendar year 1992’’ in subparagraph ( thereof. If the amount of any increase under clause (i) is not a multiple of $50, such increase

Why is the IRS handling it? Why did IRS hire 16000 new agents? Why did Obama give them 500 million? They fully intend to take our returns.
There you have it and a map to see it in Obama care bill for yourself.

Sent from my XT875 using Tapatalk 2

[welsalex]

I am going to assume you have health insurance. So the penalty tax doesn't even apply to you. I am also going to assume all your friends have health insurance, so they also shouldn't care. The purpose of the penalty is in order to prevent people from just not getting health insurance (thus saving money) until they get hurt or sick.... because the new system in 2014 will prevent companies from denying coverage due to preexisting conditions. That seems fair, so why do you care? Seems selfish to not want to enable people who need healthcare but can't afford it (in the current system) the option of cheaper healthcare. Some will get it for free. More clients, more demand, more jobs for the medical field. I don't get why you care so much, unless you are without health insurance and make just over the level to qualify for assisted medicaid

[welsalex]

Just to make sure you know, if you already have health insurance, you don't pay the penalty. So no 695 fee if you have health insurance. And for those who don't have health insurance you will be able, as a result of "obamacare", to obtain much cheaper insurance in 2014 then you would be able to get today.

[llawen]

Nope don't have health insurance. The bill states any business with under 50 employees does not have to provide insurance plans. That will cost tens of thousands of jobs for companies getting under the 50 employees.
I looked into private insurance 500 a month with a 6000 deductible. I am healthy.
The problem is many folks that get a little 300 bucks back on their returns are going to owe the IRS.
People look forward to their returns and need them. I can get all the other taxes for you too. Obama care is a big tax bill.
It is going to cost a trillion dollars. Where is that money coming from? We are broke. Borrow it from china?
I already showed where Obama said in his bill "from collecting taxes"
Sent from my XT875 using Tapatalk 2

[llawen]

I just want folks to be informed. You debated with me that this was not true. I have proven it is true. And provided a map for all to see it is absolutely true. By using Obama care bill itself. And shown how they hid it. Why hide it? I tell you why. Obama is raising taxes and he wants to get reelected.

Sent from my XT875 using Tapatalk 2

[welsalex]

I just want folks to be informed. You debated with me that this was not true. I have proven it is true. And provided a map for all to see it is absolutely true. By using Obama care bill itself. And shown how they hid it. Why hide it? I tell you why. Obama is raising taxes and he wants to get reelected.

Sent from my XT875 using Tapatalk 2

Well isn't that the republican standpoint? Better yourself as an individual?