dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
866
share rss forum feed

brianiscool

join:2000-08-16
Tampa, FL
kudos:1

Internet

How will providing cheap internet to the poor improve the economy?



tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast

said by brianiscool:

How will providing cheap internet to the poor improve the economy?

I don't think this has anything to do with the general economy.

brianiscool

join:2000-08-16
Tampa, FL
kudos:1

1 recommendation

If you keep on giving cheaper stuff to the poor. They will continue to stay where they are. We should not subsidize prices for the poor. This will just want them to remain at a low salary rate.



kdwycha

join:2003-01-30
Riverview, FL
Reviews:
·Bright House

said by brianiscool:

If you keep on giving cheaper stuff to the poor. They will continue to stay where they are. We should not subsidize prices for the poor. This will just want them to remain at a low salary rate.

Yeah i'm quite sure the poor really want to stay at a low salary rate. :/


PapaMidnight

join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD

said by kdwycha:

said by brianiscool:

If you keep on giving cheaper stuff to the poor. They will continue to stay where they are. We should not subsidize prices for the poor. This will just want them to remain at a low salary rate.

Yeah i'm quite sure the poor really want to stay at a low salary rate. :/

There's no way [brianiscool] actually said that in all seriousness...


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

said by PapaMidnight:

There's no way [brianiscool] actually said that in all seriousness...

It is still a true statement nonetheless. If someone can make a "good enough" "living" by being on food stamps, Medicaid, SSDI, LIHEAP, LifeLink (government provided cell phones) and any other number of welfare programs, then where's the incentive to move to a job?
--
Romney/Ryan 2012 - Put a couple of mature adults in charge.

brianiscool

join:2000-08-16
Tampa, FL
kudos:1
reply to kdwycha

They get used to it and no ambition occurs.



Alex J

@apexcovantage.com
reply to brianiscool

Why does everything have to "improve the economy." Why can't we just help one another once in a while like compassionate human beings?


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

1 recommendation

reply to pnh102

It is true. I know several people who do it. The only thing they are driven to do is keep having children so they can get more welfare. I am not joking.



Metatron2008
Premium
join:2008-09-02
united state
reply to brianiscool

People who ask this don't understand the power that the internet gives to knowledge. I'm sure you guys will just say they'll surf for porn, but why even have schools then? Ever met a school kid?



battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000
reply to brianiscool

Don't for get the "It's for the children" card....



Metatron2008
Premium
join:2008-09-02
united state

Actually, especially in poor neighborhoods, something like the internet, where you can learn and better yourself instead of buying booze or guns, would be very helpful for children.

But these people need to have ambition as well..


thedragonmas

join:2007-12-28
Albany, GA
kudos:1
reply to pnh102

said by pnh102:

said by PapaMidnight:

There's no way [brianiscool] actually said that in all seriousness...

It is still a true statement nonetheless. If someone can make a "good enough" "living" by being on food stamps, Medicaid, SSDI, LIHEAP, LifeLink (government provided cell phones) and any other number of welfare programs, then where's the incentive to move to a job?

SSDI = social security disability insurance.

your really gonna say disabled people should be forced to work even if there unable to do so? yeah i know, im focusing on this one part of your statement, but im about fedup with people taking that stance. dads 70, has herniated disks in his back, herniated disks in his neck, blind in his left eye, has an artificial hip he got when he was in his 20's thats wearing out. you think he can work? fact is thanks to a former employer skipping out on taxes (something im sure the guy in your tag line would approve of since it meant more profits for the company) hes on ssi, $698/month, think you could live on that? its not as easy as people think, and no, he doesnt get all those things you just listed, people seem to think every one on ssi is gaming the system.

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
reply to Metatron2008

said by Metatron2008:

Actually, especially in poor neighborhoods, something like the internet, where you can learn and better yourself instead of buying booze or guns, would be very helpful for children.

If they can buy booze and guns can't they also buy internet service?

said by Metatron2008:

But these people need to have ambition as well..

Ding ding ding, we have a winner....


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
reply to thedragonmas

Why yes, I do think too many people are gaming SSDI as a freebie for when their unemployment benefits ran out.

»news.investors.com/business/0420···m?p=full

But to be fair to you, this sounds more like an enforcement problem than a policy problem.
--
Romney/Ryan 2012 - Put a couple of mature adults in charge.


GroovyPhoenx

join:2006-05-22
Gloucester, ON

1 recommendation

reply to brianiscool

said by brianiscool:

If you keep on giving cheaper stuff to the poor. They will continue to stay where they are. We should not subsidize prices for the poor. This will just want them to remain at a low salary rate.

This has got the be the most ignorant statement I have read today... I get 10$ internet so I want to stay poor to keep it? Wow...


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
reply to Crookshanks

said by Crookshanks:

If they can buy booze and guns can't they also buy internet service?

The booze part is the perfect reason why anyone on government assistance should be forced to submit to and pass routine drug, alcohol and tobacco screenings (the ones where you are watched as you pee in the cup, or perhaps a blood test, etc.) as a condition for getting help. I'd go even further and require that the government also check with cable TV, cell phone and other providers to ensure that these people really are so poor that they aren't purchasing any of these things either.
--
Romney/Ryan 2012 - Put a couple of mature adults in charge.


Metatron2008
Premium
join:2008-09-02
united state

1 recommendation

reply to GroovyPhoenx

said by GroovyPhoenx:

said by brianiscool:

If you keep on giving cheaper stuff to the poor. They will continue to stay where they are. We should not subsidize prices for the poor. This will just want them to remain at a low salary rate.

This has got the be the most ignorant statement I have read today... I get 10$ internet so I want to stay poor to keep it? Wow...

There are quite a few people who, once given things repeatedly, are lazy and have no pride for themselves, and would rather keep what they have then work for better.

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
reply to pnh102

Drug testing is fraught with biological/technological limitations that create very perverse incentives. The metabolites of THC (marijuana) show up for weeks after use, while the metabolites from far more harmful substances are out of your system within 48-72 hours. Alcohol is gone within a few hours to a day at most, so testing for it is ineffective, unless the person is stupid enough to show up to the test drunk.

Rather than impose drug testing, I'd rather see a mandate similar to that in place for those on unemployment. You should be required to document your efforts to obtain gainful employment, in the absence of efforts to find gainful employment you should not be able to receive assistance. We also need to remove the perverse incentives from our social safety net. A lot of people are stuck at an income level where they are penalized if they make more money. I know a single Mom who turned down a job offer because she would have lost access to state funded healthcare for her children. What's the point of making an extra $5,000/yr if it means you have to pay an extra $12,000/yr to insure your kids? Her decision made perfect sense from an economic standpoint.

There are other sociological issues at play that harm the poor, though the ability of Government to check some of these issues is limited at best. There are things we can do though, as a starting point I'd really like to see our country have an honest discussion about the merits/lack thereof of our societal experiment with drug prohibition, preferably without the extremist propaganda so often heard from both sides.

I'm not in favor of making heroin as accessible as beer, but it's hard to deny that prohibition has driven a wedge between the police and the communities they are supposed to protect. It's hard to deny that it creates opportunities for unsavory elements to pray on the weak and downtrodden. It has driven the para-militarization of our police, who here is old enough to remember when your local beat cop had a revolver on his belt and perhaps a shotgun in his car? Now he's got a 17+ shot pistol, three or four reloads, a select-fire AR-15 in the cruiser, with the SWAT team's armored vehicles on hot standby. Asset forfeiture laws have made a mockery of due process, you're presumed guilty and must prove your innocence if the Government seeks to seize your assets.

Alas, I don't think we're ready for an honest discussion about this issue. There's too much propaganda on both sides, while too many people are invested in the status quo.



pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

2 edits

said by Crookshanks:

Drug testing is fraught with biological/technological limitations that create very perverse incentives. The metabolites of THC (marijuana) show up for weeks after use, while the metabolites from far more harmful substances are out of your system within 48-72 hours. Alcohol is gone within a few hours to a day at most, so testing for it is ineffective, unless the person is stupid enough to show up to the test drunk.

True, but it does create some incentive to stay clean, and it sends the message if someone wishes to partake of such forms of entertainment, to do it on one's own dime. And besides, if most people have to pass drug tests in order to work, then it is perfectly appropriate to insist that a person on the dole pass a drug test to receive benefits.
said by Crookshanks:

Rather than impose drug testing, I'd rather see a mandate similar to that in place for those on unemployment. You should be required to document your efforts to obtain gainful employment, in the absence of efforts to find gainful employment you should not be able to receive assistance.
We also need to remove the perverse incentives from our social safety net. A lot of people are stuck at an income level where they are penalized if they make more money. I know a single Mom who turned down a job offer because she would have lost access to state funded healthcare for her children. What's the point of making an extra $5,000/yr if it means you have to pay an extra $12,000/yr to insure your kids? Her decision made perfect sense from an economic standpoint.

Agreed.
said by Crookshanks:

I'm not in favor of making heroin as accessible as beer, but it's hard to deny that prohibition has driven a wedge between the police and the communities they are supposed to protect. It's hard to deny that it creates opportunities for unsavory elements to pray on the weak and downtrodden. It has driven the para-militarization of our police, who here is old enough to remember when your local beat cop had a revolver on his belt and perhaps a shotgun in his car? Now he's got a 17+ shot pistol, three or four reloads, a select-fire AR-15 in the cruiser, with the SWAT team's armored vehicles on hot standby. Asset forfeiture laws have made a mockery of due process, you're presumed guilty and must prove your innocence if the Government seeks to seize your assets.

IMO The "War on Drugs" should be ended. It is bad policy, ineffective, and then there is what you said... it is a literal shredding of our Bill of Rights.
--
Romney/Ryan 2012 - Put a couple of mature adults in charge.


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to Metatron2008

said by Metatron2008:

There are quite a few people who, once given things repeatedly, are lazy and have no pride for themselves, and would rather keep what they have then work for better.

So if "the great society" has conditioned them to react that way, then we MUST take responsiblity to "re-educate" them/recondition them to value the rewards of working for it.
Not punishment, but consistant goal oriented reward systems.

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
reply to pnh102

said by pnh102:

And besides, if most people have to pass drug tests in order to work, then it is perfectly appropriate to insist that a person on the dole pass a drug test to receive benefits.

Well, YMMV, but I've worked at three jobs in my day, and only my current one required a drug test. That was only at hire, not random testing without cause, so you can partake all you want, so long as you don't show up to work stoned. Frankly I'm not even sure why they do the test at hire, other than to weed out the people who are so stupid as to not be able to abstain before the test they know is coming. It's pretty sad but I know of more than one position that went unfilled because the chosen candidate failed the drug screening. Just how stupid do you have to be to fail a drug test that you knew was coming weeks in advance?

The whole concept bothers me on a philosophical level. Unless they have reason to suspect I'm under the influence at work, why is it any of their business? Now we've got employers testing for nicotine, and that's a legal substance! Hell, I have an interview scheduled at just such an employer. After the test, should I get the job, I'm sorely tempted to smoke a cigar, just on general principle.

Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now. It's nice to converse with someone who recognizes the futility of prohibition, now if we could only get some of our legislators to look at the issue objectively....

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
reply to brianiscool

Isn't that also an argument to cut corporate subsidies?


brianiscool

join:2000-08-16
Tampa, FL
kudos:1

1 recommendation

I believe the middle class needs more help than the poor. Middle Class people need to be awarded for working on a daily basis not the poor who sit around and do nothing.


Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
reply to CXM_Splicer

said by CXM_Splicer:

Isn't that also an argument to cut corporate subsidies?

It isn't amazing that despite the $16 Trillion in debt that neither major party is seriously campaigning to end the billions and billions of corporate welfare.


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 recommendation

reply to brianiscool

a great many of "the poor"* work just as hard, in some cases much harder/longer hours trying very hard not to be poor.
due to economic ,educational and individual disadvantages/disabilities many never had the chance YOU have.

* it's easier to classify/discriminate against some other group when you depersonalize them with names like "the poor" or "the 47%".
Try think of them as individuals, and Americans rather than something beneath YOUR status.
Maybe treat others as you would hope to be treated, were your roles reversed.



tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to pnh102

said by pnh102:

IMO The "War on Drugs" should be ended. It is bad policy, ineffective, and then there is what you said... it is a literal shredding of our Bill of Rights.

Everyone should agree with that, for financial reasons if nothing else.
The cost of chasing, proscuting and housing 2 million plus, non violent, mostly personal use drug "PoW's" boggles the mind and creates a dream businees opportunity inside this country (and the rest of the world) for the most violent members worst cartels on the planet.
decrimializtion, minmal taxation (need to keep the profit motive near zero) and free treatment would release billions towards health care and MANY other worthwhile NEEDS in this counrty without any tax increases.
Getting back to the point where it is the govt for the people, by the people, is a long road, but this would be a big step.

mullinsmf

join:2011-09-02
Morrisville, NC

1 recommendation

reply to brianiscool

Are you really that dumb? Don't you realize that the more youth, especially poor youth are educated, fewer of them will drop out of society & become a burden rather than a contributor?

In most schools today, children are assigned homework that either require internet access or would at least be enriched by internet access? Saying they should go to the library is not an option for many youth. Especially the ones who must risk going through gang controlled areas to get there.

Beyond homework however, can you deny that internet access in & of itself will enrich the life & mental grow of a child? Dial-up is not a viable option today.

We talk about a level playing field, Well, let's provide one. It is well & good to piously drone on about how poor people should not steal or commit crime to provide for their families. (note, I am not advocating crime for greed or substance abuse)
However, those of us who can buy a new car every year, or throw out 1 -2 year old appliances and furniture because we are tired of their color & decide to change the decor, cannot understand the mind set or despair of a poor family that has never owned anything new and must squeeze every bit of use from a car, an appliance or a sofa before they go to a salvage store to buy a replacement.
Those of us that have a secure career cannot understand the hopelessness of those that are unemployable because of mistakes made when they were young and now would be so grateful for a legal way to support their family that they would bend over backward to be the best employee in the company.

Someone who has never had an empty refrigerator cannot understand how a man or a woman feels when their child says for the second or third day in a row that they are hungry.

However, I ask you, if you & your spouse were both laid off. All income has ended, all savings are depleted and you do not qualify for any assistance. You do not have anyone for a safety net and your baby has no diapers or milk, you older kids have no food.

Would you steal or rob? Or would tell your wife & kids that doing without builds character?

Before you dismiss that as impossible in America, realize that many people face that choice everyday.

How does that relate to internet access? The better prepared a child is when he or she enters the work force, the better are their chances to get a job that has a future.

The more poor kids that enter college, the fewer of them that enter prison & must be supported with our tax dollars.

As a matter of face, unless you enjoy paying to feed & house a grown, able bodied man, we should demand that our society do any & everything possible to get every child on welfare or food stamps prepared to succeed in college and get them in college.

We should support the President in increasing funding for education rather than going along with the fat cats that own the private prisons and benefit from stealing kids from college so as to make them cash cows for the prison industry.

My tax bill is high enough without taxing me more to send people to prison to earn the stockholders (mostly people in the so-called justice system) of the prisons higher dividends.