PDA

View Full Version : GDP increases from 1.1% to 1.7% because of sequestration



genglandoh
08-01-2013, 08:26 AM
Well all the libs who thought cutting Government Spending by 3% was going to destroy the US economy have been proven wrong.
The US GDP is growing at a faster pace then before the spending cuts.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/31/news/economy/gdp-report/index.html?iid=SF_BN_River

John Smith
08-01-2013, 08:35 AM
It's early yet.

genglandoh
08-01-2013, 09:35 AM
1)You have no proof or evidence that any increase in growth was due to sequestration. The economy has been growing slowly for several years now. It's a correlation/causation disconnect.

2) Conversely, you might have mentioned the millions of people who were hurt by sequestration.... I guess THOSE people don't really matter, do they?

Are these the same millions of people who got a win fall when Government spending increased 39%?

Come on Norm you know that Government spending increases 39% so asking for a small 3% one time drop is spending is not asking for too much.

wardd
08-01-2013, 09:41 AM
Are these the same millions of people who got a win fall when Government spending increased 39%?

Come on Norm you know that Government spending increases 39% so asking for a small 3% one time drop is spending is not asking for too much.

unless you're the one dropped, and yess it has caused hardship for many peripherally affected

John of Phoenix
08-01-2013, 09:47 AM
Federal budget cuts continued to drag on the economy, but the impact was not quite as severe as in prior months.According to the report, the U.S. economy took a major hit from the federal government in the last three months of 2012, when a drop in defense spending alone was deep enough to subtract a full percentage point from economic growth.How good would things have been without you reds and your insane obstructionism? How many more jobs? How much more growth?

You choose the strangest things to celebrate. It's that "reality thing", isn't it.

Concordia 33
08-01-2013, 10:23 AM
1)You have no proof or evidence that any increase in growth was due to sequestration. The economy has been growing slowly for several years now. It's a correlation/causation disconnect.

2) Conversely, you might have mentioned the millions of people who were hurt by sequestration.... I guess THOSE people don't really matter, do they?


I don't disagree with your points here, but pretty much everything a government does benefits some at the expense of another. I do a agree that no one should be subjected to unreasonable "hurt" (though defining what is unreasonable is the tricky part) so I can maintain my middle class standard of living, but where and how do we draw this line. In a few more years I will be on Social Security and Medicare... should young wage earners be asked to contribute more so I can maintain my benefit levels, or should I be asked to lower my benefits so that young wage earners are not paying in so much into the system - someone has to be "hurt" so that others can avoid being "hurt".

wardd
08-01-2013, 10:29 AM
there is enough wealth in this country that no one should lack for necessities

John Smith
08-01-2013, 10:40 AM
I don't disagree with your points here, but pretty much everything a government does benefits some at the expense of another. I do a agree that no one should be subjected to unreasonable "hurt" (though defining what is unreasonable is the tricky part) so I can maintain my middle class standard of living, but where and how do we draw this line. In a few more years I will be on Social Security and Medicare... should young wage earners be asked to contribute more so I can maintain my benefit levels, or should I be asked to lower my benefits so that young wage earners are not paying in so much into the system - someone has to be "hurt" so that others can avoid being "hurt".

Especially when they keep bridges maintained. Only benefits those who use those particular bridges.

Government spending helps create jobs.

Our economy is in wonderful shape. Just ask those who live in Detroit.

Concordia 33
08-01-2013, 10:56 AM
It is supposed to be a balance, and admittedly, we can argue about the appropriate thresholds and levels.

However, when we stop to consider what other things tax revenues get spent on, it's not unreasonable to question priorities. For years, SNAP was always part of the farm bill.... in which, usually, the need to provide food security for the poor was balanced by the desire on the part of congressmen to insure that the big agribusiness constituents in their districts continued to get things like price supports, subsidies, and so on. The GOP strategy now is to separate the two, so their cuts to SNAP won't affect the handouts to agribusiness.

I can easily find conservatives who are philosophically opposed to things like SNAP. It's vastly harder to find conservative congressmen willing to tell their big agribusiness constituents that the gravy train is over.


I agree. However I would feel better about SNAP if I was more confident that the government was only awarding benefits to those who truly qualify and that those benefits are being properly used. I'm not saying that there is rampant abuse, but I think there is so little effective scrutiny of this that it is unclear and I am a little mistrustful. That said, I don't think the needs of agribusiness should be a factor. If I had more confidence that government assistance programs (such as the infamous "Obama Phone") were going to those that need it I could be very happy with the "sacrifices" that our society makes to those less fortunate.

Concordia 33
08-01-2013, 11:46 AM
Then your complaint is basically an argument of questionable accountability... and it is a reasonable concern. However, the concern ought to be based upon empirical fact, and not on anecdotes. We have repeatedly heard accusations of program abuse from the right which are not only incorrect and not fact-based, but even absurd.... like Steve King's accusation that 99% of illegal immigrants have calves the size of cantaloupes from hauling 75 lbs of marijuana across the border.

I'm not aware of any genuinely alarming or grossly significant abuses of the SNAP program. Sure, I've heard anecdotes. Are they representative? Probably not.

I HAVE heard stories of abuses of things like subsidies, price supports, special tax breaks, etc., for agribusiness. Since there are far, far fewer huge agribusinesses, than there are SNAP recipients, it stands to reason that those anecdotes are FAR more significant.

I don't really care if this doesn't benefit Agribusiness, and I concede that businesses work all the angles (legitimate and otherwise) to optimize returns every bit as much as the individual. If a business or an individual is benefiting unjustly from the SNAP program then it is a problem. Much of my concern about snap is from news anecdotes and personal observations at the grocery store and may only represent a very small percentage of SNAP recipients. None-the-less it makes me concerned that this may be more wide spread and that the government is not monitoring the program with sufficient diligence. In fact today, the USDA announced additional steps to reduce fraud:


While the vast majority of businesses participating in SNAP are honest and play by the rules, USDA continues to strengthen sanctions against those few bad actors seeking to take advantage of the program. Last year, USDA compliance analysts and investigators took action to permanently disqualify 1,387 stores for trafficking in SNAP benefits (http://www.fns.usda.gov/pressrelease/2013/fns-000113) (i.e. exchanging SNAP benefits for cash) or falsifying an application. (from the USDA website)

And the "Obama Phone" program.......

Granted this is anecdotal and was written by a National Review Staffer, but if it represents an accurate account of what happend, I would like to think that this would be upsetting to you:


Confession: You’re paying my phone bill.

In the past month, I have received three shiny new cell phones, courtesy of American taxpayers, that should never have fallen into my hands.

The Federal Communications Commission oversees the so-called Lifeline program, created in 1984 to make sure impoverished Americans had telephone service available to call their moms, bosses, and 911. In 2008, the FCC expanded the program to offer subsidized cell-phone service, and since then, the expenses of running the program have soared. In 2012, the program’s costs had risen to $2.189 billion, up from $822 million before wireless carriers were included. As of June, there were 13.8 million active Lifeline subscriptions.

To be eligible for Lifeline, the applicant is supposed to be receiving some significant government benefit — food stamps, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, public housing assistance, etc. But because welfare eligibility has expanded under the Obama administration, more people than ever before are qualified to receive “free” cell-phone service — part of the reason why Lifeline mobiles have become commonly known as Obamaphones. Alternatively, applicants can qualify if their household income is less than 136 percent of the federal poverty line.

But as with any federal program with too much funding, too little oversight, and perverse financial incentives, Lifeline has become infamous for rampant fraud and abuse. There have been news reports about recipients flaunting dozens of subsidized phones. And in February, the Wall Street Journal reported on an FCC audit of the top five Lifeline providers, which found that “41% of their more than six million subscribers either couldn’t demonstrate their eligibility or didn’t respond to requests for certification.”

The FCC supposedly buckled down on eligibility standards last year and established other safeguards aimed at reducing fraud. I was curious about how tough it was to get one of these phones, so last month, I hit the streets of New York. And out of respect for the law and my journalistic integrity, I did not lie to obtain a phone.

Now is the point, I suppose, where I should explain that I really, really shouldn’t have received a single phone. Despite what you hear, not all 20-something writers in the Big City are starving. Given my earnings, even if I were supporting a family of eight, my income would still rule me out. Nor do I receive any type of government benefit. By the Lifeline program’s standards, I am unambiguously ineligible.

My first task was figuring out where to register. The rule of thumb is that wherever you can sign up for food stamps, you can apply for an Obamaphone.

Representatives from SafeLink and Assurance, two of the leading New York Lifeline vendors, stand outside the food-stamp offices, paired like Mormon missionaries, young and polite and earnest. They carry electronic tablets and ask all passersby whether they’ve received their free phone “yet” — as if it were an inevitability.

They approached me for the first time outside the food-stamp office at Tenth Avenue and 216th Street, on the northern tip of Manhattan. The SafeLink vendor, a man probably in his mid 20s, asked me whether I was enrolled in any benefit programs.

“No,” I said, “but I’d certainly like to be. I’m hoping to be.” And indeed, while doing research for another story, I had gone through the motions of applying for New York City welfare, which I also don’t qualify for. I showed him my Human Resources Administration paperwork packet and the case number assigned to me. I reiterated that though I had once applied, I had never been approved for any sort of benefit.

He brought out his electronic tablet immediately to sign me up for phone service. He asked if I had an insurance card, so I pulled out my trusty Blue Cross Blue Shield. He looked at it for a second, puzzled, then asked if I had Medicaid. No, I told him, just private insurance through my work plan.

“Private insurance? What’s that?” he asked, maybe not facetiously. My BCBS card was nevertheless photographed, as well as the first page of my Human Resources Administration paperwork. He asked for my name and my home address, and that was about it. The whole process took less than five minutes, and I had to provide no documentation verifying my income level or (nonexistent) welfare status.

The SafeLink vendor then referred me to his opposite number, a rep from Assurance. She too took down my information, registering me for another Obamaphone.

Traveling to several of the welfare offices in the city, I learned this was common practice. Obamaphone reps come in twos, and both will sign you up if they can.

That’s a very questionable practice, given the Lifeline program’s rules: Each eligible household may receive only one Lifeline subsidy, and obtaining multiple subsidized phones from multiple Lifeline carriers is “a flat-out violation of our rules,” says Michelle Schaefer, an attorney-adviser from the FCC’s Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau.

Captain Intrepid
08-01-2013, 12:10 PM
And the "Obama Phone" program.......

Granted this is anecdotal and was written by a National Review Staffer, but if it represents an accurate account of what happend, I would like to think that this would be upsetting to you:

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

Nah.

Concordia 33
08-01-2013, 12:23 PM
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

Nah.


I'm not sure what that has to do with the misuse of the program, but we (anyone that has a cell phone or land line) is paying for this program through a portion of our phone bill.

From the article your cited...


The USF is sustained by contributions from telecommunications companiessuch (http://www.universalservice.org/about/universal-service/) 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 (http://www.fcc.gov.akadns.net/cgb/phonebills/samplePhonebill.html) you might see on your monthly phone bill.

Money taken from you to go to common fund. Not technically a tax, but the effect is the same.

In either case, the issue for me isn't its necessity, but to make certain that when the money is spent that it goes to those who need and will benefit from it.

Did you even read the article I posted about it?

Captain Intrepid
08-01-2013, 12:29 PM
There were enough misrepresentations to cast doubt upon the article, and I don't take anecdotes as even suggestion, let alone proof of widespread fraud.

Going by anecdotal evidence there's widespread voter fraud, but in the fact based reality we live in there's so little that it's almost unmeasurable.

Cuyahoga Chuck
08-01-2013, 12:31 PM
In a country as big as the US you would expect it's programs to big, too. And being big such programs are certainly going to be gamed by somebody. But to damn a program like SNAP that helps individual citizens get affordable foodstuffs because there is evidence of a some amount of cheating certainly isn't an exhibition of Christian charity.
We are and will be for a while the richest most powerful country that ever existed. And to intentionally jerk an ability to get food away from any citizen is the height of cruelty.

ljb5
08-01-2013, 12:46 PM
I'm not sure what that has to do with the misuse of the program, but we (anyone that has a cell phone or land line) is paying for this program through a portion of our phone bill.

No one is forcing you to have a cell phone or landline.

Sheesh.

This is as silly as complaining that every time you go to McDonald's you're being forced to play for indoor playgrounds.

Concordia 33
08-01-2013, 12:55 PM
So, diligence is fairly good, and actually increasing. Doesn't this demonstrate that the right wing extremists who still characterize the program as 'rife with fraud' are not telling the truth? You seem to be admitting, in light of the facts presented, that you carry a prejudice based on anecdotal experience, despite those facts.

Does anything you know or have discovered lead you to believe, as the Republican congressmen do, that SNAP ought to be severely cut back?

No. I think that supplemental nutrition is important for those who are doing their best to feed themselves and their family, but need assistance. You cannot cut, add or maintain Snap without first assuring that you have the right criteria, and that these criteria are being followed. If it turned out that the criteria are good but the enforcement is bad, then I would say that enforcement should be increased, and that the budget should be cut to reflect the overspending. If on the other hand, there are people that should be getting the benefit, but do not currently qualify, then the criteria should change and the budget should be increased to reflect the additional participants. I realize this is a vague answer, but I am only versed in the SNAP program from a superficial level and am not qualified or able to say exactly what constitutes a reasonable benefit level or qualification criteria.

Again, anecdotal, but it gives me cause for concern that the program is not being monitored adequately:


Food stamps are paying for trans-Atlantic takeout — with New Yorkers using taxpayer-funded benefits to ship food to relatives in Jamaica, Haiti and the Dominican Republic.
Welfare recipients are buying groceries with their Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards and packing them in giant barrels for the trip overseas, The Post found.
The practice is so common that hundreds of 45- to 55-gallon cardboard and plastic barrels line the walls of supermarkets in almost every Caribbean corner of the city.
The feds say the moveable feasts go against the intent of the $86 billion welfare program for impoverished Americans.

A spokeswoman for the US Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service said welfare benefits are reserved for households that buy and prepare food together. She said states should intervene if people are caught shipping nonperishables abroad.
Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, called it just another example of welfare abuse.
“I don’t want food-stamp police to see what people do with their rice and beans, but it’s wrong,” Tanner told The Post. “The purpose of this program is to help Americans who don’t have enough to eat. This is not intended as a form of foreign aid.”
The United States spent $522.7 million on foreign aid to the Caribbean last fiscal year, government data show.
Still, New Yorkers say they ship the food because staples available in the States are superior and less costly than what their families can get abroad.
“Everybody does it,” said a worker at an Associated Supermarket in Prospect Lefferts Gardens, Brooklyn. “They pay for it any way they can. A lot of people pay with EBT.”
Customers pay cash for the barrels, usually about $40, and typically ship them filled with $500 to $2,000 worth of rice, beans, pasta, canned milk and sausages.
Workers at the Pioneer Supermarket on Parkside Avenue and the Key Food on Flatbush Avenue confirmed the practice.
They said food-stamp recipients typically take home their barrels and fill them gradually over time with food bought with EBT cards.
When the tubs are full, the welfare users call a shipping company to pick them up and send them to the Caribbean for about $70. The shipments take about three weeks.




The fact that it it widely described as the 'Obamaphone' program, given the history detailed in the factcheck.org article, ought to tell you something extremely significant. It sure does, to me.

I realize that this program was actually initiated under the Reagan Administration, and use the term "Obama Phone" as a commonly recognized shortcut, if you prefer me to use a different label please let me know what you would prefer. I don't disagree to its need, but the anecdotal abuses are pretty spectacular. Don't you agree?

ljb5
08-01-2013, 01:01 PM
I realize that this program was actually initiated under the Reagan Administration, and use the term "Obama Phone" as a commonly recognized shortcut, if you prefer me to use a different label please let me know what you would prefer. I don't disagree to its need, but the anecdotal abuses are pretty spectacular. Don't you agree?

"Commonly recognized shortcut" is an awfully fancy way to say "lie."

You can call it "Obama Phone" as much as you want... but that doesn't make it so. And the fact that you know it isn't so yet still persist in calling it that is beyond the pale.

It's not a government program.
It's not an Obama program.
It's not a recent program.
It's not funded by the taxpayers.
It's not associated with Medicare or Medicaid or Welfare or Foodstamps.

No one is forcing you to participate in it.

It's freakouts like this that really make conservatives look dishonest and ill-equipped to deal with reality.

Nicholas Carey
08-01-2013, 01:03 PM
Well all the libs who thought cutting Government Spending by 3% was going to destroy the US economy have been proven wrong.
The US GDP is growing at a faster pace then before the spending cuts.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/31/news/economy/gdp-report/index.html?iid=SF_BN_River

Or ,ore likely, despite sequestration.

Concordia 33
08-01-2013, 01:12 PM
It's not a government program.
It's not an Obama program.
It's not a recent program.
It's not funded by the taxpayers.
No one is forcing you to participate in it.



Everyone that pays their cell phone or land line bill is forced to participate in it. The phones aren't actually free. the money to purchase and use them actually comes out of someone else's pocket.

If you see my use of the term "Obama Phone" as lie, so be it. None was intended. If you find it offensive then please tell what words you would like me to use in the alternative. No Offense was intended.



It actually is a government program. Are you lying?


The federal program wasn’t started by President Obama. It dates back to 1996, as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Act did a number of things, including increasing internet access to doctors and patients in rural hospitals (for consults with specialists); subsidizing internet and phone coverage for schools and libraries and providing free or subsidized coverage for families who can’t afford it so that they have links to emergency and government services. The Act was not taxpayer funded… exactly. Taxpayers do pay for coverage but not via federal income taxes. Instead, the Act “mandated the creation of the universal service fund (USF) into which all telecommunications providers are required to contribute a percentage of their interstate and international end-user telecommunications revenues.” So that little fee on your phone bill labeled USF? That’s what you’re paying for.

It is funded by taxpayers, but not by taxes (it is an extra charge on your phone bill)

I never claimed it was an Obama Program or a recent program. In fact I attributed it to Reagan in an earlier post. Did you bother to read this thread at all?

Concordia 33
08-01-2013, 01:18 PM
You REALLY think that national policy should be based on anecdotes.... especially false and defaming ones?

Of course not, but I also don't want to ignore them either. They shouldn't dictate policy, but they should dictate a re-examination of the efficacy of the program if such anecdotes prove true and may represent a trend. I'm sorry, but I don't trust the efficiency of our government as much as you do and would prefer more diligence around abuses before I can accept that the money is well spent. I would hope that we can agree to disagree with this aspect. That said i do not think that we should lurch from one extreme or the other based on anecdote, or even on a single CBO or GAO conclusion. There are people that genuinely need help and they should get it in the most humane and efficient way possible.

Gerarddm
08-01-2013, 01:28 PM
GDP increases from 1.1% to 1.7% because the sun comes up every day.

See? Cause & effect.

ccmanuals
08-01-2013, 01:31 PM
Let's not forget that the minute that Congress realized that the sequester might actually affect them personally or their reelection with the closing or reduction of hours by the FAA of small airports they passed a supplemental funding bill for the FAA in a matter of minutes.

This was done while at the same time exclaiming that the warnings about the impact to Airlines was Obama scare tactics.

Concordia 33
08-01-2013, 01:33 PM
You also pay for a CEO salary of $23 Million (if you're a Verizon customer), or $21 Million (if you're an ATT customer). Your tax dollars pay for a LOT of things that you might not personally approve of.

Personally, I'm willing to pay a tiny premium on my phone service so that people in rural areas, or people too poor to have a phone (which isn't a luxury, but an essential of life these days) can have access. It's called the 'common weal', and each of us owe something to the common weal. If you object, you can vote for representatives who agree with your point of view.


I haven't argued that the charge shouldn't be there and the remainder of the bill goes to many things beyond the provision of phone service: CEO salary/bonus, Advertising, Lobbyists, Political Contributions, Government regulation. My point remains that the money taken for this purpose should be properly spent for that purpose. When a reporter can obtain 3 phones while being completely honest and clear about his financial situation (He did not meet the financial guideline) there is a problem. He did not qualify but even if he did he should only have received one phone, not three. I allow for the possibility that the reporter has not been completely honest, but there are other anecdotes to support this phenomenon as well. It's hard to believe that there isn't something wrong with execution of a program that couldn't catch prevent this from happening. If you want to argue about the worthiness of the program as a whole you will need to find someone else. I think the phones are good when they get to the right people, I just don't believe that it happens as consistently as you do.

John of Phoenix
08-01-2013, 01:35 PM
If Concordia 33 ever had credibility.......
Say... what happened to that thread anyway? :D

Concordia 33
08-01-2013, 01:36 PM
A perfectly reasonably point of view... but remember, many of the folks who are bringing these issues up are not doing so because they want to improve efficiency, or eliminate fraud.... these are contemporary topics because these people want to simply END these programs because they believe them to be philosophically objectionable. Not enough recognition of this point is being made here.


Agreed, they are using it as ammunition to dismantle the program. But those who support this program would do well to avoid dismissing the complaints on that basis, and make sure that the program is not being mismanaged as additional problems would serve to accelerate a growing public unrest with this program.

Concordia 33
08-01-2013, 01:42 PM
If Concordia 33 ever had credibility.......


Say... what happened to that thread anyway? :D

I deleted the thread when I found that a google search picked it up in relation to Sandra Fluke. Given that it was a spoof I did not feel was fair to leave it out there and unjustly attack her reputation. I did not do so until late on Sunday night after everyone seemed to get there licks in and there were no new posts. I did not see that as unreasonable under the circumstances. It did not restrict people from saying whatever they wanted first. I read all the comments (well intentioned and hostile) and took them to heart.

Speaking of credibility have you caught your error of omission on the melting North Pole thread that you started this morning? The site you quoted has revised their article to reflect the inaccuracies

Concordia 33
08-01-2013, 01:43 PM
The reporter's experience may have been honestly described... or he may have been just another James O'Keefe, spinning the story madly for the sake of the political perspectives of his particular employer... I don't honestly know.

I simply believe that we need to distinguish the 'anecdotes' which are intended to reveal fact and truth, from the ones that are intended to kill a program. See my post #28.


Fair enough.

John of Phoenix
08-01-2013, 02:01 PM
I deleted the thread when I found that a google search picked it up in relation to Sandra Fluke. Given that it was a spoof I did not feel was fair to leave it out there and unjustly attack her reputation. I did not do so until late on Sunday night after everyone seemed to get there licks in and there were no new posts. I did not see that as unreasonable under the circumstances. It did not restrict people from saying whatever they wanted first. I read all the comments (well intentioned and hostile) and took them to heart.

Speaking of credibility have you caught your error of omission on the melting North Pole thread that you started this morning? The site you quoted has revised their article to reflect the inaccuracies
This morning? It was the 26th and it promptly went to hell so I ignored it.

But no, I missed the update. Does that totally demolish my credibility? Should I delete the thread? :D

Concordia 33
08-01-2013, 02:13 PM
This morning? It was the 26th and it promptly went to hell so I ignored it.

But no, I missed the update. Does that totally demolish my credibility? Should I delete the thread? :D

But for someone who is so critical of others for poorly vetted threads, and the need to apologize for misstatement you might want to set a example here.

Or you could lay low and duck the issue. Delete if you like I don't really care.

John of Phoenix
08-01-2013, 02:21 PM
I thought it was an interesting article but it garnered no attention here so I ignored it. I didn't know it was in error until now and I haven't defended it after the error was discovered.

Thanks for pointing out the mistake. I wouldn't want people to labor under a misconception because of my error.

Concordia 33
08-01-2013, 03:36 PM
I thought it was an interesting article but it garnered no attention here so I ignored it. I didn't know it was in error until now and I haven't defended it after the error was discovered.

Thanks for pointing out the mistake. I wouldn't want people to labor under a misconception because of my error.

Thank you for clarifying. Have a nice evening.

Paul Pless
08-01-2013, 03:46 PM
GDP increases from 1.1% to 1.7% because of sequestration

Please tell me there's no one really this stupid or this brainwashed to believe there's actually a strong correlation between sequestration and our current economic recovery.

Paul Pless
08-01-2013, 03:46 PM
its just a troll, right?

Paul Pless
08-01-2013, 03:51 PM
flaming, hell

John of Phoenix
08-01-2013, 03:57 PM
Please tell me there's no one really this stupid or this brainwashed to believe there's actually a strong correlation between sequestration and our current economic recovery.I've heard it called "booger-eating stupidity".

ljb5
08-01-2013, 06:28 PM
Everyone that pays their cell phone or land line bill is forced to participate in it.

Sure, in the same way that everyone who pays to go to a Barney show is being "forced" to pay for a big, purple dinosaur.

:rolleyes:


If you see my use of the term "Obama Phone" as lie, so be it. None was intended.

Doesn't seem like you intended it to be the truth either.

CWSmith
08-01-2013, 06:31 PM
I doubt anyone in this Bilge understands the time scales involved in our economy. Voters always want an immediate result. I doubt it works like that. I can tell you that uniform cuts across the board impact scientific research that fuels tomorrow's industry, education, health and research to cure disease, the military, roads and bridges, and on and on. Eventually you have to pay the bill.

Concordia 33
08-01-2013, 06:56 PM
Doesn't seem like you intended it to be the truth either.
It seems like you just want pick a fight for the sake of seeing your own words in print. But it won't be with me. Have a nice night.

ljb5
08-01-2013, 09:35 PM
It seems like you just want pick a fight for the sake of seeing your own words in print. But it won't be with me. Have a nice night.

You called it "the infamous "Obama Phone" and then quickly admitted that Obama had nothing to do with it. And then you said that you couldn't see anything wrong with calling it by such a deceptive name.

Honestly, I wouldn't even know how to pick a fight with someone who is doing such a fine job of beating themself up. :D

Canoeyawl
08-01-2013, 09:48 PM
If you see my use of the term "Obama Phone" as lie, so be it. None was intended. If you find it offensive then please tell what words you would like me to use in the alternative.

Maybe "Reaganomics" ?