how-to block ads
|
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
 ·Qwest.net
| USF and E-rate
My $.02
I'm sure there are plenty of horror storys out there, but I would just point out that there are plenty of rural school districts who depend on E-rate to help provide the small amount of telecom services they do have. I currently live in an area where the entire school district uses 1 t-1 for internet, and shares that among the different schools in the district, including outlying areas. They also have a minimal amount of pots service. You know why they aren't gaming the system? Because they can barely afford the 10% that they pay for what they have, much less order new or advanced infrastructure and services.
As far as being an ILEC slush fund, my understanding is that 3 state, Alabama, Mississippi and West Virginia recieve over 80% of the money for rural telecom deployment. I'm sure that much of that goes to Independant telcos, as opposed to RBOCs. I know that an Independant I worked for in Utah got a good chunk of their money from USF, and they have grown to depend on it. However, they do have pretty good rural service (they run fiber to RTs all over the place). If things were as many advocate here, meaning market based unregulated competition and no USF, Joe Farmer out in the hinterland would have to pay hundreds of dollars month for telecom services, while taking all the risk in his fields in order to put food on the nations tables. Anyone who thinks RELIABLE telecom services in rural areas can be provided inexpensively has never worked telecom (or cable, for that matter) in a truly rural area. And Joe Farmer can't move into town.
So before more people start screaming because the pay an extra $.50 a month to USF, tell me how to fix these issues, and I'll listen. If the USF and E-rate distrubution method needs fixing and oversight, fine. But just wholesale dismantling isn't the way to go. | |
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
1 edit | My question is
Why should everyone in the country subsidize joe farmers phone service?
Why not just the consumers in Joes own state. OH! That would make too much sense and the telcos wouldn't have all that money sloshing around in their bank accounts.
That way, those poor rural (There's probably reasons no one wants to live there) school districts could soak the rest of the state and not have to depend on a lowly T1, poor them, and not the rest of us.
And, Joe farmer works his farm as a business and does business in town as far as selling his products. Joe never had a problem before all this communications infrastructure (Never mind that, if he has a large farm, he likely uses 2 way radio of some kind) so, why does he suddenly have problems now?
No, the USF is nothing but another tax dreamed up by congress to feed their masters unending greed for cash for the stockholders at our expense. Follow the money and one usually finds truth. | |
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net
| said by Fatal Vector  :Why should everyone in the country subsidize joe farmers phone service? Because Joe Farmer feeds everyone in the country.
Why not just the consumers in Joes own state.
Actually, that might work.
OH! That would make too much sense and the telcos wouldn't have all that money sloshing around in their bank accounts.
That way, those poor rural (There's probably reasons no one wants to live there) school districts could soak the rest of the state and not have to depend on a lowly T1, poor them, and not the rest of us. It sounds like you are implying that there is no need for rural America, and everyone should just move into the big city. Actually, rural towns support rural businesses, like farming, ranching, the timber industry, the mining industry, oil, coal, etc... the list goes on (not enough trees, minerals or oil in the big city, or enough land to farm or ranch).
And, Joe farmer works his farm as a business and does business in town as far as selling his products. Joe never had a problem before all this communications infrastructure (Never mind that, if he has a large farm, he likely uses 2 way radio of some kind) so, why does he suddenly have problems now? Because today's farmer needs every edge he can get, from satellite imaging to instant weather reports, to market reports, to veterinary services, etc... the list goes on.
No, the USF is nothing but another tax dreamed up by congress to feed their masters unending greed for cash for the stockholders at our expense. Follow the money and one usually finds truth.
You and I will just have to respectfully disagree on this point, remembering that 'We that People' are actually the masters of Congress. | |
owenhome
keeper of the magic blue smoke
Premium
join:2002-07-13
Bentonville, AR
| reply to Fatal Vector
The USF is necessary. Its seeds were sewn with the best of intentions and there is an absolute and tangible need for the program. However, there is not, never has been, and may never be ANY oversight whatsoever. It needs to be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up, just like most government agencies and programs (FCC?? FDA??). The USF, in its current form is disgraceful, filled with rampant fraud, waste, abuse, and every other form of corruption. But, name any one government agency or program that isn't! Personally, I can't think of one that puts the people first and any big businesses profits second.
So, why do we need the USF???
Well, we need it for the very reason our great country, USA Inc, is such an economic powerhouse. We need it because every person in the tel-com scene is a greedy SOB who won't do a single thing for the benefit of the people at the expense of profit. Spending cash running lines out to the boondocks, wiring a library or school, etc. is NOT a smart business decision. Its not smart because of the complete lack of the return on the investment. Spending a few thousand bucks to run a line out to farmer Smith so he can get $12/month DSL is a damn foolish thing to do! Likewise, wiring up a library or a school, which can be a MAJOR expense, just so they can spend $60/month on basic cable and cable BB is also just as bad. Such places, which exist solely for the benefit of the public, have no money. They just can't blow $75,000 on running cable. So then, who can?
The USF is, unfortunately, an intensely needed program. And that sucks because, while it has the best and most warm hearted intentions, it seems to only line pockets rather than improving the lives of our citizens as it was meant to. Who knows? At this point, it may have been meant to line pockets in the first place with the whole "helping hand" BS as just a warm and fuzzy cover story. But even if that is the case, it doesn't change the fact that it IS a very needed program FOR THE PEOPLE.
What the USF needs is a complete tear down, a 100% independent audit going back to day 1, with abusers held accountable for their fraudulent behavior, and reorganization with a full-time oversight committee. For those who have worked with Uncle Sam, you know who Contracting is? Well, the USF needs a contracting department with a staff who neither benefits or has any personal interest in "where the money goes".
Will this happen? No.
It won't happen for the same reason President Reagan saved NutraSweet from being banned and every FDA associate who helped it get through went to work for the makers of NutraSweet for big money. It won't happen for the same reason Halliburton wins no-bid contracts. It won't happen because the people who we need to MAKE it happen are just as bad as the people who abuse the program in the first place! They let us die from poisoning and from toxic medications for the same reason. There's more money in killing us then there is in forcing deadly products off the market. And besides, while we are dieing, we spend all those mega-bucks on treatments to keep us from dieing. It doesn't matter that the treatments are what was killing us in the first place. Think about it. You're far more valuable spending hundreds of thousands of dollars trying not to die then you are spending nothing and staying healthy. Now hurry up and get sick and die so YOU can do YOUR part to help grow the economy. You owe it to the country to do your part!
They have known for years of the rampant fraud of the USF. But, they haven't done anything about it! Why? Well, that would be because there is nothing in it for them. Why would any politician stand up to the telco's? That's something they just won't do. You don't snub the toes of the people who line your pockets and pay for your campaign. The truth of the matter is, they don't give two sh!ts about us.
The only way anything is going to change with the USF is the same way anything else changes. One, it creates a media firestorm. Or, two, it either betters their political careers or makes them money. One won't happen because the media is OWNED lock-stock-and-barrel by the communications industry and they will quash it there, and two won't happen because there is more money in screwing us then doing the right thing.
Welcome to the United States of America Inc. Now pay up, shut up, die, or get the f%$# out!
--
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference. | |
stevephl
join:2000-11-27
Colorado Springs, CO
 ·Comcast
| reply to viperlmw
Re: USF and E-rate
Easy, raise the taxes in those areas and buy the equipment period. Bottom line, you want it you pay for it, don't come ask me to pay for your phone/internet service I am already paying. I have voted for every school bond issue on the ballots and give more. People are poor because they want to be poor, throwing more money from illegal taxes is not going to solve the problem. | |
stevephl
join:2000-11-27
Colorado Springs, CO
·Comcast
| reply to owenhome
Re: My question is
The Constitution of the United States says we are guareenteed the pursuit of happiness and liberty. It does not say we are entitled to other peoples money whether we need it or not. There is no provision to provide telco services. We are not all equal and there is always going to be the have's and the have nots and that is the way it sould be. If you want something bad enough you will work hard enough to get it.
Finally why does everyone think rural areas are poor? Mostly the fund is used in those areas where the people are not very intelligent and pass this off to their kids, areas of high illegal alien residency for instance and those areas that think education is learning to fix cars.
The tax is illegal and should be repealed.
My schools never had Internet access let alone a computer or calculator but we managed to get an education handicaped as it were. People have got to quick depending (whinning) for money from others and whinning about how bad off they are.
If the Government always steps in and provides a seervice people become to lazy to provide that service for them selves. | |
owenhome
keeper of the magic blue smoke
Premium
join:2002-07-13
Bentonville, AR
| said by stevephl :The Constitution of the United States says we are guareenteed the pursuit of happiness and liberty. It does not say we are entitled to other peoples money whether we need it or not. There is no provision to provide telco services. We are not all equal and there is always going to be the have's and the have nots and that is the way it sould be. That would be the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Constitution came later, 11 years later. The Articles of Confederation were torn down and re-written, that became the Constitution.
If you are going to quote the Declaration of Independence, get it right at don't self-contradict. quote:
"..all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
said by stevephl :If you want something bad enough you will work hard enough to get it. You must be living under a rock or something. The world doesn't work that way. Although, if our lives and possessions were provided and acquired simply on the merit of our work, it would be nice, but you will have to wait until the afterlife for that. Some don't have the luxury or the benefits of opportunity.
said by stevephl :Finally why does everyone think rural areas are poor? Mostly the fund is used in those areas where the people are not very intelligent and pass this off to their kids, areas of high illegal alien residency for instance and those areas that think education is learning to fix cars. "Area" has NOTHING to do with how intelligent one is. Obviously, you say you are from Colorado Springs, a relatively affluent area with nice schools and 21st century communications systems, but you don't know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
said by stevephl :The tax is illegal and should be repealed. Then do something about it. The question here is not one of the legality of the USF, but rather one about its funds being basically stolen by thieving companies who have no intention of doing anything remotely similar to what the funds were intended for. That is fraud, pure and simple. That IS illegal! But, just as is the norm, nothing will be done about it because the very same thieves are the ones running our great nation. You should (we all should) know by now that our government does what it wants, when it wants, how it wants, and all with reckless disregard as to whether or not anything is "legal". Watch any news channel, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, any of them, for at least 5 minutes and this fact will be reaffirmed. Our great government exists above the law. These supposed "laws" are for us, not them. At almost the very instant this country industrialized, the powers that be began to understand that there are no profits to be made in following "laws". Money trumps all. Laws are 4 of a kind, money is a royal flush and a royal flush will always beat 4 of a kind. Even the best of men have their price.
said by stevephl :My schools never had Internet access let alone a computer or calculator but we managed to get an education handicaped as it were.. You have already shown us the level of your education. American history starts in 1st grade, along with grammar, punctuation, and spelling. But more to the point, times have indeed changed. We absolutely must give our children the best chance for success we can, our very future depends on it. Computers, the Internet, calculators, they are all part of that.
said by stevephl :People have got to quick depending (whinning) for money from others and whinning about how bad off they are. If the Government always steps in and provides a seervice people become to lazy to provide that service for them selves. Part of this is true. Everyone does want a handout. But laying fiber for a new RT is not something people can do for themselves. Here, call up your local telco and tell them you are installing a new RT of your very own and ask them where you can run the fiber for them to hook it up. See what happens and be sure to let us know. The whole problem here is that there is no money in it for the telco's to invest in rural deployments. It costs money to do that and they won't see any of it back. The only reason people even have power out there is because........ the GOVERNMENT supplied the infrastructure. So how do you get a telco to deploy somewhere where the market won't support the cost of the deployment in the first place? Pay for the damn deployment, that's how. We are not talking about people stuck on well-fare here, we are talking about the good of a NATION, not some jobless know-nothing.
We live in a (magic word here) society. And as such, we are ALL responsible for the betterment of our society whether it be physically, morally, monetarily, or otherwise. We all work together to pay for cities, roads, bridges, schools, our military, etc. etc. etc. Communications, technology products, or whatever else that plays a part in the betterment of our society, and the people in it, are all a part of that as well. Where the problems begin is simple. They begin when ill-willed men, thieves, crooks, and shysters are the ones deciding on who needs what and who will pay for it. This injury is furthered when these same men abuse us and our society by defrauding us just as witnessed here with the USF.
Or, maybe we should just say "screw'em all" and be done with it, that's what you want, right? This kind of third world mind-set is what should be illegal. It serves no one, helps nothing, and has no place in modern society.
--
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference. | |
roamer1
sticking it out at you
join:2001-03-24
Atlanta, GA
clubs:
| reply to viperlmw
Re: USF and E-rate
said by viperlmw :As far as being an ILEC slush fund, my understanding is that 3 state, Alabama, Mississippi and West Virginia recieve over 80% of the money for rural telecom deployment. Assuming this is true, it's a bit surprising and actually rather disturbing given that rural AL is mostly BellSouth and CenturyTel with a little Frontier, rural MS is mainly BellSouth, and rural WV is mainly Verizon and Frontier...I'd expect more thinly populated states that are heavy on very small independents like IA, MN, WY, AK, etc. to be toward the top.
I'm sure that much of that goes to Independant telcos, as opposed to RBOCs. It seems like a lot of USF money goes to larger independents (CenturyTel, Alltel/Valor, etc.) and not so much smaller ones...and some smaller ones "rely" on the USF a lot more than others do, as evidenced by the widely varying levels of service that smaller independents offer.
If the USF and E-rate distrubution method needs fixing and oversight, fine. But just wholesale dismantling isn't the way to go. I agree. IMO, the concept of the USF isn't the problem...it's the implementation that's badly broken.
-SC
--
"it seems like all you ever buy is Abercrombie and cell phones" --a friend | |
stevephl
join:2000-11-27
Colorado Springs, CO
·Comcast
| reply to owenhome
Re: My question is
Are you a product of an inner city education? I thought so. The Declaration of Independence was a document sent to England declaring our independence, The Constitution if you should ever read it is what guides this country based on the Magna Carta. The Constitution Sets forth the basic laws of the land and it is the document you use to determine if the Government is within bounds or if has over stepped it's authority do you understand? You seemed dazed and confused
I actually live in the County but Colorado Springs is not far away and yes it is a fairly well to do city made so by men and women who work hard, have goals and value an education. We are also individualist demanding nothing from our government but providing it for ourselves much like our Founding Fathers did. My parents use to live not far from you to the east a little bit when I visited them I was shocked at the deterioration of the town, how dirty it was (I won't mention Henrietta) but the attitudes of the local citizenry showed a complete lack of responsibility or care. Thank god my parents moved.
Washington D.C. spends the per capita of any school system in the U.S. on students yet student test scores are some of the lowest in the U.S. money is not the answer here my friend. Unless we can change attitudes and instill some moral character we are doomed. Oh incidentally I spent close to five years living in a third world country where you paid for anything you wanted including education, it was very hot and humid, no A/C in the schools, kids got up very early in the morning to do chores prior to walking to school (no school buses). Yet these kids managed to learn, becoming bi-lingual and literate more so then a lot of pupils in the U.S. Once again throwing money at every problem doesn't help it only creates additional problems.
Have a nice day anyway 
You need to go back to school.
Everyone has the same opportunities in this country those that are poor, are so because they lack initiative and the motivation to improve their lives. These never ending and escalating government handout programs do nothing to help either, they only promote this attitude of "What has the Government done for me lately?". | |
owenhome
keeper of the magic blue smoke
Premium
join:2002-07-13
Bentonville, AR
3 edits | Um, no, I am not.
I am well aware of what both documents are. You, however, apparently are not. The Constitution makes no reference of "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness". THAT would be the Declaration of Independence, second paragraph. Read it. You misquoted, not I. The Constitution neither makes reference to, makes any guarantee of, or states anything of the kind. You will not even find life, liberty, or the pursuit of anything whatsoever in it.
I will say it one more time, as clearly as possible so that you may understand. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a phrase from the Declaration of Independence, not, I repeat, NOT the Constitution. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not, again, I repeat, NOT rights guaranteed to you by The Constitution. Accordingly, these rights have been granted to you by your "Creator", not the government, and certainly not the Constitution.
I seem dazed an confused? Here's a little truth for you, the Constitution spells out the way the GOVERNMENT shall be laid out, division of power, and the way it is to be operated. Framework, THAT'S ALL. The Bill of Rights lays out "the basic laws of the land". The Bill of Rights is what set forth "constitutional rights" as a series of ten constitutional amendments such as the freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, etc. So when you watch CourtTV in your double wide trailer and someone says "that violates their rights because it's unconstitutional" they are either talking about the 10 constitutional amendments from the Bill of Rights, or the 17 subsequent amendments from 1795 all the way up to 1992. Limitations of government power, aside from the devision of federal and state, comes ENTIRELY from the Bill of Rights and, as I said, the 17 following amendments.
If you are still confused, check out The National Archives were you can read and get a better grasp of the three documents. »www.archives.gov
Say it with me, Articles..........of..........Confederatoion.
Here is a brief history of the Constitution from...... The National Archives ....
"The Federal Convention convened in the State House (Independence Hall) in Philadelphia on May 14, 1787, to revise the Articles of Confederation. Because the delegations from only two states were at first present, the members adjourned from day to day until a quorum of seven states was obtained on May 25. Through discussion and debate it became clear by mid-June that, rather than amend the existing Articles, the Convention would draft an entirely new frame of government. All through the summer, in closed sessions, the delegates debated, and redrafted the articles of the new Constitution. Among the chief points at issue were how much power to allow the central government, how many representatives in Congress to allow each state, and how these representatives should be elected--directly by the people or by the state legislators. The work of many minds, the Constitution stands as a model of cooperative statesmanship and the art of compromise."
Do you understand that, or should I try to interpret for you using smaller words?
You think I need to go back to school? You, sir, are an idiot. Such is obvious, especially in the way you continually try to prove it.
Learn a little, grow a little.
--
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference. | |
stevephl
join:2000-11-27
Colorado Springs, CO
·Comcast
| Thank you sir for your kind words and for your analysis of my educational level but more importantly for pointing out what an idiot I am. I was merely debating not trying to get personal
You are correct that the Declaration of Independence talks about liberty and the pursuit of happiness, what I was trying successfully to convey is that our laws are derived from the Constitution. The Declaration as a document that the Founding Fathers authored to let the world know of our intentions and why, causing the colonies to go to war with England. After the war when we actually won our independence and became a country in our own right the Constitution was drafted voted and ratified that spells out the powers of the government and the three branches of the federal government.
The bottom line is that we lost focus of the main argument and started splitting hairs. The argument is whether the US Government has the right to collect a tax from a group of people to give to another group of people and I argued no and it never was legal, FDR was the first president who illegally started a lot of the federal give me programs and originally the supreme court ruled against him, thus leading him to try and stack the supreme court with up to 15 judges of his own who would do his bidding. The point being even if it sounds like a good thing, taking money from one person to help someone else is no legal. Thank you and have a very nice day, and once again thank you for pointing out my deficiencies and third-world education. Now back to work with me I need to get back to engineering.
Steve | |
owenhome
keeper of the magic blue smoke
Premium
join:2002-07-13
Bentonville, AR
| Ok, lets just start over....
It is, to a point, unjust that we bear the burden of supporting others. But, this tax is so small and insignificant in contrast to what we actually pay to support others.
Lets look at Social Security, TANF, welfare, medicaid, HUD, section 8, and more. Billion and billions sucked from our pockets and handed to others. Or howabout economic aid to other countries, or x billion dollar bailout packages to corporations here at home.
There comes a point, and we're there, when we are no longer working for ourselves, but rather to hold everyone else's head above water while they push us down. That was the very reason for the Declaration in the first place. The abuse of some for the benefit of others.
Some things have their place, some taxes are important, others, not as much. Why should I shell out thousands of dollars every year because some old crony didn't plan for his own retirement, all while knowing full well that when I retire, I'm just screwed?
One of the down sides to living in a society, in a community, is that the society will take from "those who have it" and give it to "those who don't". The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. That's not really fair, but it goes back to the betterment of the society as a whole. What does more harm, talking a few thousand from me a year, or forcing a 70 year old man to live on the street? That question, the "which inflicts the least harm" question is where most of these taxes and laws come from.
Now, lets look at this USF "tax". It is important that this nation, as a whole, takes steps forward in technology and communications for its own betterment and that of our own, as citizens. But when we look at the way our country operates, its powered by corporate capitalism and profiteering. Because we live in a free society (sort of) and not under communism, the decisions made for "who gets what and when" are made with profit in mind. At any given time, that can be an extremely good, and extremely bad thing. Good because it drives advancement, competition, and expansion, bad because the decisions made are made under the direction of profiteers only interested in what decisions make the most money. Because of that, a huge number of people get left behind because they, for whatever reason, are not profitable targets for corporations.
So the question here is a simple one, do we allow corporations to "run" our country guided simply by the possibility of high profits, or do we find some why to guide them? If left to their own devices, they would charge $1000 for a gallon of milk and $2000 for a gallon of gas, $500 for a pack of gum, $800/month for cable TV. Competition and a free market help to protect us from this sort of gouging. But, where a free market fails us is in areas of corporate investment. Deploying a network, be it cable, telephone, wireless or otherwise, is exactly that, an investment. When they determine where to deploy, that decision is guided by how much the deployment will cost verses how much profit may be made from its customers. In a highly populated area, the market is thick with potential customers. A deployment in such an area has a good chance of being successful. But, in a rural area, the cost of deployment is far outstripped by the sparse number of customers. A deployment in such an area makes poor financial sense because they will not be able to make a profit. Therefore, no deployment is made in such an area. The USF is supposed to remedy that by reducing the financial burden, increasing possible profits, and thereby increasing the possibility of such a deployment. Also, in schools, libraries, or other non-profits that exist or for the benefit of the public, who's budgets are already thin and stretched to the breaking point, the USF helps them (and us) by allowing the procurement products and services, otherwise unavailable to them, for the benefit of their patrons, society.
The failure of the USF is that it is being abused by thieves. Money, taken from us, for the benefit of others, is not only taken from us, which is bad enough, but then stolen. So the money we pay doesn't go to fulfill such a noble agenda, but rather to line the pockets of companies. That chord rings true throughout our entire government. Screw the people, lets make some money!
--
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference. | |
wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
| reply to stevephl
Re: USF and E-rate
said by stevephl :Easy, raise the taxes in those areas and buy the equipment period. Bottom line, you want it you pay for it, don't come ask me to pay for your phone/internet service I am already paying. I have voted for every school bond issue on the ballots and give more. People are poor because they want to be poor, throwing more money from illegal taxes is not going to solve the problem. You assume that only the rural areas benefit from subsidies. You don't benefit from the services those subsidies provide, so you feel aggrieved that you must pay this unfair burden.
OK, I decree that from this point on you do not have to pay the USF tax -- there is no longer any need for you to subsidize those hicks, rednecks, and the poor people who are poor solely because they are unwilling to work as hard as you and me.
But at the same time, I also decree that you will no longer receive any subsidies of you own. Do you get federal road money? Not any more. Want that new road built or existing ones maintained? OK -- we'll just raise your property taxes to compensate. Students in your state get subsidized rates on student loans? That's out. Let the greedy little yuppy larva pay the fair prevailing interest rates (and just why aren't their parents kicking in for this education if they want little Suzy to get that BA degree?). All those earmarks your congressman put into the budget for the beneit of you and other citizsens in your state? Say buh-bye! And while we're cutting those subsidies, let's cut out all those wasteful farm subsidies as well. Sorry if your food bill just tripled.
OK -- back to the real world. The fact of the matter is that we all receive benefits of some sort that we did not directly pay for; the USF is no different in that respect from any other subsidy. The argument here is that it is horribly mismanaged, wasteful, and, we suspect, a slush fund for the telcos. Let's fix it and take the "I don't benefit" argument off the table unless you want to rearrange the entire federal budget (that might be a good thing, but that's not the point of this discussion).
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. | |
stevephl
join:2000-11-27
Colorado Springs, CO
·Comcast
| Your analogy is in correct First I never characterized those living in rural areas as "hicks, rednecks and poor people un willing to work" those are your words. My contention is that the USF is an illegal tax.
If farm subsidies were killed now prices of food would go down, free market place, most of that money goes to large mega corporations anyway go do your research.
Your diatribe on federal subsidies does not hold up either. Federal road money you say? The federal government does not generate wealth, but only redistributes wealth. I recently bought a set of tires for one of my vehicles, included in the price of the tires was the F.E.T, or Federal Excise tax. I also pay Federal taxes as well as a host of other taxes, I hunt, fish and camp, all of those activities require expenditures and sporting goods once again have a FET tax of 10 or more percent added in. In my state we fund bonds so the state can construct new roads and repair/improve current roads. I went to college, no one provided me with free monies but I have to subsidize my older kids education. I didn't ask for any free/federal money, didn't get money for being a member of a select group etc... Yes please lets cut all subsidies, including farm, tobacco, steel etc.. let the free market place take over like it once did in the past. As the huge federal benefits/entitlement programs group eventually there will not be enough working people paying in to subsidize those not working and those working for the government/elected officials then what?
Your assertion that we all benefit from subsidies/kickbacks is false and untrue go do some research. There are a lot of hard working Americans who take nothing from the government at any wage bracket, although once you enter the higher brackets you pay even more in taxes which is even more unfair.
In actuality the federal government comes in and steels my money and that of the rest of those working in my state then holds the money up for Ransom so to speak. They dole out a little money back to us if we are willing to become their serfs, in reality that money was ours to begin with.
You seem to be really ill informed on how things work in this country are you an immigrant per chance?
Steve | |
|
