Mr. Donald Trump ?

[kickingandscreaming]

It's a really dark day in this "great" nation when the best that one team can come up with is an ignorant but rich fascist thug hate-monger well-connected to organized crime, and the other side picks a rich corporate neocon war hawk who is really a member of the first team. 

With each election the choice between the "better of two evils" gets eviler.  I'm devastated that there are enough stupid misguided, hateful people to put Trump on the ballot.  I'm temporarily heartened that Ted Ooze will slither back into his hole for awhile, although I'm sure he's emboldened to run again in 2020. I am assuming that Trump will be elected because the media is lavishing him with coverage which encourages the herd mentality of folks to support him. I will hold open my right to write in Bernie when the time comes--as a protest against the whole corrupt system.

[Simon Dog]

K&S - I don't think you will have to worry about Trump past November - the math works against him.

If you assume that every member of the FSA (Free Stuff Army), all hispanics, and most blacks will vote for Hitlery, the Hildebeast only needs a small percentage of the non-welfare, non-hispanic, non-black vote to win by a landslide.

On the off chance Trump wins, I hope he is as good at screwing our so-called trading "partners" as he was those people who made the mistake of doing business with him.

[kickingandscreaming]

K&S - I don't think you will have to worry about Trump past November - the math works against him.

I'm not even sure I trust "math" anymore, given what a bizarre election season this has been.  I'm no longer assuming anything "normal" will proceed normally.  I'm not going to get into the "free stuff" obsession of yours (and the bigotry it reflects).  You should know already where i stand on that from earlier posts.

[Simon Dog]

I take strong exception to the conclusion that my opposition to the free stuff army is bigotry, as it is not in any way based on color, religion, sexual identity or sexual preference.   I am opposed to Obamaphones for persons of all colors, sexes and religions.

[Vt Big Rig]

I take strong exception to the conclusion that my opposition to the free stuff army is bigotry, as it is not in any way based on color, religion, sexual identity or sexual preference.   I am opposed to Obamaphones for persons of all colors, sexes and religions.

But Simon ... that is the standard accusation. If you don't like Obama or his policies, you are racist, If you want to secure the border ... you are anti Hispanic, if you want able bodied people to earn their keep .. you are a bigot...  if you want to show an ID for voting you are racist....... drug test for benefits ....OMIGOD!!!!!

[kickingandscreaming]

member of the FSA (Free Stuff Army), all hispanics, and most blacks

SD- it sure looks like you're singling out people of different races, colors and ethnicities and calling them "free stuff" wanters.   

I said nothing about Obama.  And I have no idea what an "Obamaphone" is.  For the record, I think Obama has been a decent president--especially when you consider what we're now in store for.  He has just been disappointingly unprogressive in my book--especially considering how he campaigned.

[Simon Dog]

I think there was a misunderstanding about my use of the term hispanics and blacks.

I was identifying three independent classes of people who will not vote for Trump:

1. Members of the Free Stuff Army, who will not vote for him because they want free stuff

2. Hispanics, because they are offended at both his stance on illegal immigration and the things he has said about illegal immigrants

3. Blacks, because they traditionally vote overwhelmingly democratic

I did not mean to imply that members of the FSA are primarily blacks and hispanics.

When you add in a fourth class - liberal Democrats who are not in any of the above groups - you are pretty much assured a Hillary victory.

The Obama administration has a program of issuing free cell phones, with calling plans, to persons on public assistance.   These are called Obamaphones.   A relative who works with an economically diverse clientele can often tell who is on welfare because they have two phones - their free Obamaphone (a basic cell phone, not an iPhone), and their iPhone.   See www.obamaphone.com for details.    Google can be your friend when you see a term you are not familiar with 

[kickingandscreaming]

SD- I stand clarified. Thank you. I still don't think that anything is predictable--math or no math-- in this election cycle.  There are too many wild cards (I use this metaphor since everyone seems to be playing one "card" or another these days ).

[MooseMom]

President Obama didn't start the program; it has been in effect for decades.

http://www.obamaphone.com/started-obama-phone-program

Taxpayers do not subsidize this program.

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

It would be wonderful if the fraudulent use of any and all government programs could be prevented.  But I personally would be willing to put up with it rather than dismantle it entirely because the fact remains that people are helped.  I don't care if people get "free stuff".  I'm grateful that I don't need it.

Is dialysis "free stuff"?

[kickingandscreaming]

"Empathy is the soul of democracy."  Jeremy Rifkin

Some people on this thread should read and take to heart Rifkin's statement.  It is not only the soul of democracy.  It is a cornerstone of civilized life.

[hatedialysis2]

“There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.”
― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

[Michael Murphy]

The last place I would look for a quote about how to treat people is from a German.

[MooseMom]

The last place I would look for a quote about how to treat people is from a German.

But is he wrong?  And Germany's history is just the place for such a lesson. 

[hatedialysis2]

The last place I would look for a quote about how to treat people is from a German.

I do not discriminate that way. 

[Simon Dog]

But the program is funded by telecom companies, not by taxes, and the president has nothing to do with it.

Actually, an agency of the government collects a mandatory fee from the telecoms (who pass it along in their rates) then parcels it out.  That qualifies as a "Tax" since it is money taken from the corporations by government mandate.

If you think YOU are not paying for Obamaphones, call you cell company and ask them to take the USF (Universal Service Fee) off your bill.

SafeLink is run by a subsidiary of América Móvil, the world’s fourth largest wireless company in terms of subscribers, but it is not paid for directly by the company. Nor is it paid for with "tax payer money," as the e-mail claims. Rather, it is funded through the Universal Service Fund, which is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company, an independent, not-for-profit corporation set up by the Federal Communications Commission. The USF is sustained by contributions from telecommunications companies such as "long distance companies, local telephone companies, wireless telephone companies, paging companies, and payphone providers." The companies often charge customers to fund their contributions in the form of a universal service fee you might see on your monthly phone bill. The fund is then parceled out to companies, such as América Móvil, that create programs, such as SafeLink, to provide telecommunications service to rural areas and low-income hous

------------------------------

Is dialysis "free stuff"?

That is an interesting question, and the answer is not clear.   I paid a medicare premium for decades of working, and am now collecting on that insurance.   If your house burns down, and the insurance company pays to rebuild it, is that free stuff, or is it something you paid for via your premiums?    Of course, the Medicare example is a bit more complex because its generally run at a loss, even with the premiums, so it probably is "free stuff" - unless do never get ESRD and die early.

Similarly, I consider EBT, WIC, Obamaphones, etc. to be "free stuff" but consider unemployment payment to be claims paid on insurance funded by payroll taxes levied on the employer.

[Michael Murphy]

Years ago there was a decision by congress that access to telephones was a need for the poor and the rural areas.  It was decided that minimum service would allow acces to police, ambulance, and fire service.  In addition there are other public uses of available telephone service,  this has been going on ffor almost century. Why free cell phone?  The cost of the dedicated land line that was provided for most of the time is actually more expensive to provision and maintain.  That's why in most developing countries cell phones exist while land lines do not.  Obama has no more to do with this then Regan does.  This tax was created by the 1934 telecommunication act, Roosevelt was president. Besides low or no cost it also supports rural telephone companies, Internet access to schools and libraries, and rural medical providers.  So not obamaphones but rooseveltphpnes.

[cassandra]

Gosh I'm loving these socialist ideas


       

[Simon Dog]

The USF (Universal Service Fee) was originally intended to make telephone service available in areas where it would be economically unfeasible to run lines.   It was not originally created as a mechanism to give telephone service to welfare recipients free of charge.

I do not know under which president the transition of USF from "universal service availabiltiy" to "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" went into effect.

Why free cell phone?  The cost of the dedicated land line that was provided for most of the time is actually more expensive to provision and maintain.

That explains "why cell", but not "why free".  Also, free cell phones are very common urban areas.

[Michael Murphy]

A vast majority of the money raised by rhe USF tax goes to rural telephone companies.  Why free because the service is so cheap. The phones are generally recycled and  does not include data, my cell service includes unlimited calling and texting because I pay for late data.  It's cheaper to give a cell phone then to,provide a reduced cost land line.  This program has been in place for 81 years, it's not a Obama thing it's been national policy for a long time.

[Simon Dog]

Obamaphones have not reduced the level of hard wired service available in rural/expensive to serve areas.

The USF was to avoid problems like a rural person paying 10x the normal cost of a pots line because they were far away and it did not make free-market sense to run wires to their one stoplight town to serve a small number of people.   The post office does the same thing when it provides service to rural villages in the middle of nowhere Montana, or even worse, rural Alaska.

The question remains: Why should some ratepayers fund the provision of free cell phones to others?

We had an interesting situation in Boston.  Amazon decided not to run its fleet in one part of town because it was economically not viable (customers in that section of town would be visited by UPS instead).   Amazon reversed its position due to political pressure, since the excluded area was, relatively speaking, economically depressed (which is why it was not profitable to send its trucks there).   Consider this a private sector equivalent of universal service.

[Michael Murphy]

First off there are now areas that the major phone companies are refusing to rewire do to the cost there is a large fight in New Jersey that wire rebuild costs are too great to replace infrastructure destroyed by Sandy.  They are building mini cell towers instead to provide phone service.  Low cost or no cost land lines have.been provided for decades the switch to cell phones was done to lower costs.  Plus most of the UFS money goes to rural phone companies.  If you want to argue against this program fine but to blame Obama is just not right.  Again it's a matter of how much of civilization you want to live in.  If you live in the southeast why am I paying part of your electric bill, southwest why am I paying for your water, northwest electric paid for.  Electricity for the southwest.  Most of the people in the US get some help.  I am retired why go I have to pay for roads I don't use, schools I don't have children to attend.  These are services that help establish a level of civilization. We all benefit from infastucture, the cell phones eliminate the need for fire rescue, and police call boxes on every block.

[Simon Dog]

All true, but you avoided the issue - why should people on public assistance be given free phones of any kind?

[kickingandscreaming]

why should people on public assistance be given free phones of any kind?

Shouldn't they also have the right to communicate?  Or is that only for rich people?

[cassandra]

I just googled a bit and found this

... It is paid for out of the federal Universal Service Fund (USF) through a fee assessed against telecommunications service providers, who may or may not pass those costs along to their customers:

And this

The Lifeline program only covers monthly discounts on landline or wireless telephone service for eligible consumers. It does not pay cellular companies to provide free cell phones to consumers, although some cellular service providers choose to offer that benefit to their Lifeline customers.

And this


Lifeline discounts are not available only to "welfare recipients" — these programs are implemented at both the state and federal levels, so qualification criteria can vary from state to state, but in general participants must have an income that is at or below 135% of the federal Poverty Guidelines, or take part in at least one of the following federal assistance programs: .... A lot

[hatedialysis2]

Instead of nit picking on struggling fellow citizens why not direct your real frustration with the outrageous government spending and billions of dollars of lost revenues given to the corporate elite.  I do agree there are those who are playing the poor card and taking advantage of the system, but that should not reflect on effective programs helping those who are truly in need.   Below is a list of ways our government is wasting billions of dollars of tax payer money of hardworking folks:

______________________________________________________
https://fee.org/articles/most-outrageous-government-waste/

Mr. Schatz is president of Citizens Against Government Waste.

Since my job is to be a watchdog on government waste, I’m often asked about the most outrageous cases.

That’s a tough call because government bureaucrats never take care of your money as carefully as you would take care of it yourself. More important, bureaucrats spend money on what government wants, not what you want—which is the whole point of taxing away your money.

Without authorization, for instance, the feds spent $19.6 million annually on the International Fund for Ireland. Sounds like a noble cause, but the money went for projects like pony-trekking centers and golf videos.

Congressional budget-cutters spared the $440,000 spent annually to have attendants push buttons on the fully automated Capitol Hill elevators used by Representatives and Senators.

Last year, the National Endowment for the Humanities spent $4.2 million to conduct a nebulous “National Conversation on Pluralism and Identity.” Obviously, talk radio wasn’t considered good enough.

The Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency channeled some $11 million to psychics who might provide special insights about various foreign threats. This was the disappointing “Stargate” program.

The Department of Education spent $34 million supposedly helping Americans become better shoppers and homemakers. Wasn’t it about time?

The federal government proposed spending $14 million for a new Army Museum, although there already were 47 Army Museums around the country. We helped stop that idea.

Dubious government spending schemes abound since bureaucrats play with other people’s money. For example, the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) spent $70,029 to see if the degu, a diurnal South American rodent, can help us better understand jet lag . . . they spent $77,826 to study “Coping with Change in Czechoslovakia” . . . $100,271 to see if volunteering is good for older people . . . $124,910 to reduce “School Phobia” in children . . . $161,913 to study “Israeli reactions to SCUD Attacks during the Gulf War” . . . and $187,042 to study the quality of life in Hawaii.

Over the years, political wrangling twists the most noble-sounding government programs beyond recognition. For example, the Social Security Administration’s $25 billion a year Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. Almost 250,000 children qualify for SSI checks because they can’t participate in “age appropriate activities.” Worse, thousands of prisoners get SSI checks relating to their alleged disabilities—costing taxpayers about $20 million a year.

That’s not all. In Denver, the government reportedly sent $160,000 to recipients at their “official address”—a tavern. A San Francisco addict used his SSI check to buy drugs, which he subsequently sold on the street for a profit. A Van Nuys, California, alcoholic received a $26,000 SSI check, then spent the money on a van and two cars which he subsequently wrecked while driving drunk. Los Angeles SSI recipients reportedly faked mental illness and had a doctor concoct false medical records, so they could pocket $45,000 worth of checks. An estimated 79,000 alcoholics and drug addicts are believed to spend SSI checks—some $360 million annually—on their habits.

Again and again, programs aimed at the poor are captured by well-heeled interest groups. For example, the Commerce Department’s U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration (USTTA) gave away $440,000 in so-called “disaster relief” to Western ski resort operators when there wasn’t much snow.

The Economic Development Administration spent “anti-poverty” funds to help build a $1.2 million football stadium in spiffy Spartanburg, South Carolina. During the summer, it will serve as a practice facility for the National Football League Carolina Panthers, and the rest of the year it will be used by Wofford College, which has a $50 million endowment.

Look at one of the most enduring legacies of Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty”: the Appalachian Regional Commission. It was billed as help for an impoverished region. During the past three decades, this bureaucracy you’ve probably never heard of has spent $6.2 billion, yet the region remains impoverished.

Where did the money go? Two-thirds was spent building 26 highways connecting well-to-do urban centers. The money went to construction workers whose wages are definitely above-average. Despite revolutionary talk in Washington, the Appalachian Regional Commission goes on and on.

Or take the plight of the family farmer. I know you’ve been regaled about wasteful spending on agricultural subsidies, so I’ll just cite a single intriguing example: 1.6 million farm subsidy checks for $1.3 billion, mailed to urban zip codes during the past decade. New York City “farmers” pocketed $7 million during the past decade, Washington, D.C., “farmers” $10 million, Los Angeles “farmers” $10.7 million, Minneapolis “farmers” $48 million, Miami “farmers” $54.5 million, and Phoenix “farmers” $71.5 million. Among those on the take, to the tune of $1.3 million: 47 “farmers” in Beverly Hills, California—one of America’s wealthiest cities.

A lot of government spending is justified as necessary for national security. For instance, maritime subsidies supposedly help maintain a fleet for an emergency. Laws require government agencies to use U.S.-flag vessels which are U.S.-built, U.S.-owned, and U.S.-crewed, costing two to four times the world market price of comparable vessels available elsewhere. When the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Agency for International Development give away surplus grain, they must use U.S.-flag vessels for at least 75 percent of shipments, adding $233 million to the taxpayer burden. The U.S.-flag requirement adds $1.75 billion to the defense budget. Subsidy per maritime job: over $100,000.

The defense budget is larded with waste not because it’s run by bad guys but because it’s big, and bureaucrats are, as always, spending other people’s money. The Pentagon has an “operational support airlift” consisting of some 500 airplanes and 100 helicopters for flying military brass and civilian bureaucrats on 1,800 trips a month—costing taxpayers $380 million a year. Many of the destinations are served by commercial airlines.

Last year, the Pentagon announced it would spend $5.1 million to build a new 18-hole golf course at Andrews Air Force Base in suburban Maryland, which already has two. Golf Digest reported there are 19 military golf courses around Washington, D.C. Why a new golf course? One Pentagon official was quoted as saying “a lot of golf gets played out there. On Saturday mornings, people are standing on top of each other.”

Can It Continue?

How can such outrageous waste go on year after year? Simple: bureaucrats aren’t doling out their money, so they have little incentive to be responsible. Politically connected special interests, who are usually better off than the average taxpayer, seem to get most of the loot.

The most powerful special interest is government itself. In fiscal year 1993, the federal government owned 569,556 vehicles—one for every six full-time employees. Included were 117 limousines. The government’s fleet expanded more than 130,000 vehicles since the Grace Commission called for it to be cut in half more than a decade ago.

Government officials multiply the number of regulations regardless of the waste they cause. For example, the Defense Department has 1,357 pages of regulations about how officials travel. Complying with these regulations adds about 30 percent to travel costs. If the Pentagon adopted the best practices of private companies, it could save an estimated $650 million to $840 million every year. Of course, government regulations cause enormous waste in the private sector—tax compliance costs alone run into the billions—but that’s a vast subject unto itself.

The federal government wastes money through grants to the most politically powerful environmental lobbyists. For example, between 1990 and 1994, the Natural Resources Defense Council got $246,622; Defenders of Wildlife, $1,285,658; Environmental Defense Fund, $1,493,976; and the World Wildlife Fund, $26,584,335. All together, environmental lobbyists collected $156,644,352 during this period. Every one pushes the federal government to enact more regulations.

Whenever you hear a politician propose that government take over some private business, like New York’s troubled Long Island Lighting Company, there should be red flags all over the place, because government operation means high costs. At the U.S. Government Printing Office, for instance, costs are estimated to be 50 percent higher than in the private printing industry. If the U.S. air traffic control system were transferred to private companies and the services paid by user fees, taxpayer savings would probably be around $18 billion over the next five years.

With a $1.5 trillion annual budget, the feds take so much of your money that they can’t possibly keep track of it even if they wanted to. For example, a contractor sold $27 electronic relays to the government’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve for between $484 and $521 apiece. The Department of Energy paid some of its employees $5,000 a year to lose weight—the outlays totaled $10 million a year. The owner of a California apartment building got Department of Housing and Urban Development subsidies, then illicitly diverted $610,000 into his own accounts. One “farmer” collected $1.6 million in government insurance payments for non-existent crops. Forty-three people in New York City pocketed over $40 million in phony food stamp claims. Five Floridians stole $20 million from Medicare—part of the estimated $17 billion of annual Medicare fraud.

What to do about such waste? The government is crawling with auditors, and there have been a zillion investigations, yet waste goes on. Citizens Against Government Waste will continue to be a watchdog. The only long-term solution, though, is to somehow cut big government down to size. Only when it’s much smaller will you be able to keep more of your hard-earned money, which, after all, is yours.

Thomas A. Schatz