Houston Seeks Wi-Fi Network Builder to Replace Earthlink Getting back on that horse After Earthlink pulled out of its agreement to build a citywide wireless network in Houston, the city could have become overwhelmed by the idea of trying to move forward with a new plan. However, they opted to just keep pushing through with the development of a network designed to bring Wi-Fi connectivity to everyone within a large geographical area. Houston’s first step was to use money gained from Earthlink’s delay to establish hot spots throughout the city as a way to bridge the digital divide and connect certain populations to the Internet. The city has now requested new proposals for new companies interested in replacing Earthlink in building out the full citywide network. Their hope is to extend their hot spot design and incorporate the rest of the city in order to compete with the top municipal broadband markets in the nation.
|
  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4
1 edit |  Who will bid?? Anyone? PLEASE
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|  | | | Re: Who will bid?? Anyone? PLEASE Come on city of Miami get it together!!!  | |
|
 SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | Vendors? I'll do it. I'll hook up a bunch of Linksys wifi routers on top of light poles and connect it to ComCrap's cable modem on a business line. Cost - maybe $1,000 LOL. But I'm not signing any penalty clauses. | |
| garmst
join:2000-09-17
New York, NY | The Mythical Digital Divide With DSL in many if not most areas at $15-$20 (2-4 packs of cigarettes depending on locale). Heck, it is way less than their CELLPHONE tabs! The branch of my family on welfare has faster Internet than I do!
PC's at $400 - $500 on the cheap side is affordable for anyone. Just cut out the cigarettes, candy, skip a few restaurant meals, cut a tier off your cable, stop using drugs?
The divide is a marketing myth...... | |
| | | | Re: The Mythical Digital Divide don't forget the scratch off lottery tickets. | |
| | cjams
join:2000-11-28
East Orange, NJ | garmst... im with you 100 percent you couldnt have made it any simpler ..oh but you forgot about thos same ones that seem to come up with 20 or 30 dollars a week or even a day to play that idiotic pickit machine i think its just a case of misplaced proirities... good show | |
| | | | said by garmst:PC's at $400 - $500 on the cheap side is affordable for anyone. Dude, not even that. I can get someone online for $150, tops. Probably less. I don't "need" a 1GHz machine for surfing; no one does.
The machine I'm using right now is a 450MHz box. IIRC, I paid $150 for it. And that was a couple years back. It's perfectly adequate for surfing. 500MHz machines can be had for less than $100 now and are definitely fast enough to get you online. Even a 350MHz machine for >$50 will do it, provided you have a bit of patience to spare. I was surfing at 350MHz myself until 2005 when I upgraded to 500MHz.
In fact, I have never paid more than $300 for any computer, and that includes laptops, too. My monitor is a CRT that cost me $10.
A crap dialup account is, maybe, $15 a month. Call it $20. If someone can't spare $20 a month, trust me, they're not worried about their lack of Internet access: they're worried about getting something to eat.
I'm just tired of hearing about how, without free broadband, "poor people" cannot get online. Dialup access is perfectly adequate to use the Internet and was the standard for years (how soon we forget). I do not need broadband in order to get online and start looking for a job. You know, a job that would allow me to earn the money to upgrade my computing equipment/connection to whatever I want.
said by garmst:The divide is a marketing myth...... Not even that: it's an excuse for Yet Another Wealth Redistribution Program. All this talk about "free" municipal wi-fi obscures the fact that nothing is free; they're just cost-shifting and taking money from people on the back end to pay for it rather than upfront.
Whenever anyone talks about free wi-fi, (or "free" anything else for that matter) they are trying to get you to overlook the fact that someone, somewhere, is going to get stuck with the bill for the allegedly "free" service.
Want to guess who that "someone" will be?
If someone is so poorly motivated that they haven't been able to scrape enough dough together for a crap PC and $20 a month (tops) dialup account by now, taking (even more) money out of my wallet is going to do nothing to increase their level of motivation.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm tired of getting bent over so that more money can be taken from me in the name of "helping the "underpriviledged." Anyone who lacks anything in this country needs to go out and get it on their own, not wait around to have it handed to them. Sitting on your ass, waiting for things to happen (without you making them happen) is not what makes a country great.
I would hope that being on dialup would be motivation enough for people to start coming up with the dough for broadband service. But, hey, why bother? Not when the local government will bring the service to you without your lifting a goddamn finger. | |
|
| | | | Re: Wouldn't Wimax be cheaper? said by r81984:They could make it free by charging a premium on wimax adaptors and the giving low income people free wimax adaptors. Oh, I get it now! [smacks forehead]
If I take money from one group of people, and give it to another group of people, then that money, suddenly and mysteriously, becomes "free" money. Awesome!
And all this time I thought taking money from one group of people to give it to another group of people who have done nothing to actually earn it was called "stealing."
How wrong I was!
Can you please stop calling a service that is funded by taking from Peter and giving to Paul a "free" service? There is nothing at all "free" about what you've described; you're simply cost-shifting.
I want free wimax, too. How about opening up your own wallet so I can have it? Remember, because money is being transferred from you to me, despite my having done nothing to earn it, that money becomes "free" money.
Therefore, you should not have a problem with me taking it from you. After all: "low income" people have every right to take money from the "high income" people.
It even says so in the Constitution!
I guess I'm confused at to what the incentive is for people to get a good education and then go out and work since they can have everything (food, shelter, and now broadband) paid for by other people? | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Wouldn't Wimax be cheaper? said by r81984:Wow, I hope you typed that from a mental hospital. You seem very unstable. Sorry to sound so cranky-poos, but it seems like every time I turn around, some asshat is coming up with yet another reason why I should be giving my money to other people.
And I'm simply tired of it.
Look up the term "Taxpayer freedom day" some time. "Taxpayer freedom day" marks the point in the year in which the average American worker will finally have earned enough to pay for "his or her share of government taxes (federal, state and local) plus the cost of regulation."
Last year it was July 11th, the 192nd day of the year. Which means that until July 11th, I wasn't working for myself or my family, I was working solely to pay all my taxes. You know, so the poor can supposedly have food and shelter.
Isn't working 191 days for other people enough? I would hope so. I don't know about you, but at some point, I would like the fruits of my labor to help pay for things my own family wants and needs.
Otherwise, there is little incentive for me to continue working. If most of what I earn is taken from me and given to other people, what is my incentive to work?
Perhaps I should simply declare myself to be "low income" and have other taxpayers start working for me while I kick back and enjoy living on their dime?
said by r81984:I assume your anonymous because your an ass. The ideas I present stand or fall entirely on their own merits. My being anonymous does not make my ideas any less (or more) valid. Please stop pretending that just because someone is anonymous, they automatically deserve to have their ideas dismissed.
If the Town Drunk, with no teeth, tells you "drinking too much is a bad idea," does that mean what he says is automatically invalid? No. The Town Drunk can speak the truth just as well as you are able to, even with no teeth.
I'm claiming that taking money from one group of people, and giving it to another group of people who have done nothing to earn that money, is stealing.
And so far, you have not presented any arguments to refute that assertion.
said by r81984:It is "free" wimax like they call it "free" wifi. Exactly. There is nothing "free" about either one. By offering an allegedly "free" service, all you are actually doing is cost-shifting. Rather than having everyone pay for their own service.
said by r81984:You do not pay monthly fee's, its paid by taxes, Yes. And I've already explained to you that the average American spends the first 191 days working to pay federal, state, and local taxes (and the cost of regulation).
If my working 191 days out of the year does not give the government enough money for things like wi-fi/max projects, I just don't know what to tell you. Maybe it's time that they learned to start spending their money wisely?
I can't help but notice that when you spend money foolishly, you never have enough. And the taxes I pay are supposed to go to "necessary" things. If wi-fi/max is indeed necessary, then they need to figure out a way to pay for it with the money they currently get from me.
The point you're missing here is that if we allow politicians to inflict extra taxes on us for "special" projects, then there is no incentive for them to spend the "regular" tax money wisely. Why should they when they can simply declare that another "special tax" is needed, and that you and I are going to pay it, like it or not?
It's the same principle as a spendthrift worker being given a raise every time his spending gets out of control. If you keep giving a spendthrift more and more money all the time, then there is little incentive for them to get a grip on their spending and start controlling it.
said by r81984:but everyone gets to use it like the "free" public library. And what happens if I don't want to use the public library? Should I pay for it anyway?
I already do in the form of taxes. And I pay those taxes if I go to the "free" library every day, or if I never set foot in the place.
How, exactly, is this fair? Should people pay for things that they do not use?
said by r81984:One way to subsidize the wimax adaptors for the low income, is by selling wimax adapters to people who can afford it. My question for you is: what, exactly, have these "low income" people done to earn wimax access?
You seem to be of the opinion that because I'm not starving and have a few bucks in the bank, that that means I am automatically "rich" enough to start subsidizing wimax for poor people.
Please explain to me what is wrong with dialup? Is dialup not Internet access? Is it not affordable?
said by r81984:One of the reasons for "free" internet is to give everyone equal internet access. My point is that everyone already has the opportunity to get online. It's called "dialup."
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that poor people have the "right" to move from one place to another. You and I already pay for something that makes that possible: it's called "public transportation."
Claiming that poor people "need" wimax access is like claiming that poor people have the right to move from one place to another....and that we should all chip in and start buying them cars to make that possible.
Sorry, but no. Anyone who is unhappy with dialup access needs to get out there and start earning the money to pay for something better.
The thing you're missing here is that by giving Poor people free wimax, you're removing the incentive for them to want to get a better Internet connection through their own efforts. Instead, you just want to hand it to them.
And I call bull**** on that. Poor people can well afford dialup. And until they decide to improve themselves and make more money, there is simply no reason why they shouldn't be happy with that.
said by r81984:The whole point of giving poorer people free wimax adaptors Again: under your proposal, the poor are not getting "free" anything. They are having their wimax paid for by other people.
If you're at the gas station, and I pay for your gas as well as mine, are you getting "free" gas? To you, perhaps, it is "free," but someone else bore the cost of that gas.
So the gas was not "free" as much as it was merely paid for by another person. Let's get that straight, please.
said by r81984:is if you use 802.11g then their laptop should already have that, Whoa, wait a minute: why do poor people "need" laptops? Are desktop machines not enough for them? I would hope so, as laptops run at a premium.
said by r81984:but if you use wimax low income people might not be able to afford a wimax adapter to use it. You still haven't answered my question: why is it that poor people are suddenly entitled to wimax?
If I can't afford something, and I want that "something," isn't that an incentive for me to improve myself so that I can earn more money to get that "something?"
Through taxes, we already subsidize food and shelter for the poor. Asking me to pay more taxes in order give the poor "free" wimax is, I feel, simply asking too much.
Again: poor people already have internet access: It's called dialup. I'm sorry if the fact that they're on dialup means that they can't watch YouTube or download their porn fast enough, but that's too bad.
You've heard of the saying "tools to make tools?" Well, consider dialup access a "tool" that will enable you to gain access to another "tool." If I am poor, I can use my dialup access to look for a job or to access information that will help me do better at my existing job and be worth more money to my boss.
Broadband Internet access is not a "necessity," it is a convenience. Dialup access is enough to get the basics done: I used it myself until 2005. If people want faster access, they need to pay for it, same as they do anything else.
said by r81984:Also, the incentive for people to get a good education is to be rich instead of poor. And what is the incentive to be rich? So you can buy things you want.
My argument is that wimax access is not a "need," but a "want." Poor people have access to dialup accounts if they want/need to get online.
By giving them free wimax, you're removing the incentive for them to improve themselves, plain and simple.
said by r81984:Low income people have no right to TAKE from the rich, You're absolutely right: I don't have the right to take another man's property any more than he has the right to lay claim to mine.
said by r81984:but the rich have every right to GIVE to the poor. If they desire to do so, then yes. But you're not giving them that choice. Do you understand the difference?
The claim you're making here is that just because someone can afford Wimax for themselves, that automatically means that they can afford to pay for wimax for other people, too.
It seems that the Middle Class are being mistaken for "rich" people more and more often simply because they don't happen to be starving and have a few dollars in the bank. My entire point is that if you continue to come up with "reasons" why Peter should be made to pay for what Paul uses, then there won't be a Middle Class any more.
Whether or not someone can "afford" to have money taken from them does not alter the fact that the taking of that money constitutes stealing. If you want to help the poor, fine: start up a foundation so that everyone who gives you money is doing so on a voluntary basis.
But please do not ask me to pay for someone else's wimax because I'm already working 191 days of the year for other people. I'm not going to thank you for coming up with a "reason" why I should start to work 192 days next year. | |
| | | | |  r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T DSL Service
 ·row44
| Re: Wouldn't Wimax be cheaper? Being anonymous does mean no one will take you seriously.
Signup for an account, its not that hard.
For our economy to work, some people have to be poor.
Everyone can work 50 hours a week, but yet make drastically different amounts of money.
An engineer could make $75,000 a year while a teacher makes $30,000 a year. Both spent the same amount and took the same time to get their college education. The only reason why one person makes more money is based on what interested them.
Anything that has equal access should be paid for by everyone. And those who cannot afford to use the service because their career makes them poor, even with a college degree, should get subsidies.
If we do not help out the working poor then why should anyone do those low paying jobs???
Maybe we should all be engineers and not have any teachers.
You do like driving on roads instead of mud paths, right?
Well, we have roads to drive on because of cost shifting.
--
»www.ryanoneill.us | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Wouldn't Wimax be cheaper? said by r81984:Everyone can work 50 hours a week, but yet make drastically different amounts of money. An engineer could make $75,000 a year while a teacher makes $30,000 a year. Both spent the same amount and took the same time to get their college education. The only reason why one person makes more money is based on what interested them. The reason why engineers and teachers make different amounts of money is because employers are willing to pay them different amounts of money.
Money is a way of assigning value to something. And according to the salaries you've given, teachers are not valued as much as engineers are. It does not mean that teachers are "inferior" as people, just that their skills and services are deemed to be worth less in the marketplace.
Of course, if I'm an employer, and cannot find teachers that are willing to accept a salary of 30K a year, I either have to 1)raise the salary I'm offering 2) Do without teachers or 3) Find an acceptable "substitute" for teachers (robots, perhaps?)
said by r81984:Anything that has equal access should be paid for by everyone. According to whom? To you? Where, exactly, does it state that "anything that has equal access should be paid for by everyone?"
As I've pointed out before, everyone does indeed have an opportunity to access to the Internet: it's called a dialup account.
If I want a broadband connection, I fail to understand why my neighbor should subsidize it any more than he should subsidize my car payments. If I want a better car, I need to get more money to allow me to purchase one. Likewise with my broadband connection.
Last time I looked, no one "owed me" (or you, or anyone) a broadband connection.
said by r81984:And those who cannot afford to use the service because their career makes them poor, even with a college degree, should get subsidies. Should get subsidies according to whom? Them?
I'd like other people to pay for my broadband connection, too. However, I realize that asking them to do so is wrong.
Taking money or property from Peter to give to Paul is stealing if Paul hasn't done anything to earn it. And "subsidies" are simply another name for "wealth redistribution." You are taking from Peter to give to Paul.
How is this okay for something as non-critical as broadband?
said by r81984:If we do not help out the working poor then why should anyone do those low paying jobs??? First off, what obligation do I have to help out the working poor? Don't I have my own family to look after, first?
I think you'll find that a great many families have their hands full trying to make sure that they do not become part of the "working poor." And if I cannot help myself, I can hardly be expected to help anyone else, can I?
Secondly, jobs remain "low-paying" jobs as long as people agree to accept the low salaries that are currently being offered for those jobs. Garbagemen in my neck of the woods make 50K a year. Why is this? Because the trash companies cannot attract enough workers by offering a lesser salary than this.
So if those people in "low-paying" jobs want to make more money, they need to either a) acquire more skills that will allow them to undertake higher-paying jobs or b)refuse to accept work at the salaries that are being offered and hope that the price goes up.
But suggesting that I (or you) have a "responsibility" to these people is ridiculous. Where does it say that? Am I not already working 191 days a year so that the poor will have food and shelter?
You seem to feel that the poor are entitled to things simply because they are poor. I maintain that no one in this country is automatically "entitled" to anything.
Instead, they must learn to work for whatever they want.
said by r81984:Maybe we should all be engineers and not have any teachers. Maybe we should. You've already said that people choose to become teachers because it is what "interests" them. Fair enough.
Perhaps if everyone is interested in becoming engineers instead of teachers, the salaries for teachers will have to go up in order to attract people to the teaching profession?
You and I do not have the right to decide what other people do with their lives, any more than we should have the right to decide how much money they may make. When you're endorsing "subsidies" for something, you're doing no more than claiming that it's okay to take money from the engineer making 75K a year and give it to the teacher (or "lower-income" person) making only 30K a year.
My point is that if you do this enough times, that engineer is suddenly no longer making 75K a year. Because every time you've felt that the teacher "ought to" have something, but cannot afford it, you've decided that reaching into the engineer's pocket to take the money to pay for it is okay.
How is this fair on the engineer? If Paul accepts a job at 30K a year, and Peter makes 75K a year, do I just keep taking money from Peter to give to Paul until their salaries are equal?
That's called "wealth redistribution." And no, it doesn't work. The reason it doesn't work because by taking from Peter to give to Paul, you are removing Peter's incentive to better himself and make more money. Why should he? All you're going to do it take any "extra" money he has and give it to Paul, right?
Do you finally see what I'm getting at here? If you want to give poor people things like broadband free of charge, you are removing their incentive to improve themselves, get better jobs, and make more money for the things that they want to have.
Just because someone is poor at one point in their life does not mean that they need to remain poor. And yet, if you want to subsidize things like free broadband, what incentive do they have to go out and make more money?
None. Because you've decided that, somehow, things should simply be handed to them. And I maintain that this is not only a disservice to the poor, but that your taking from Peter to give to Paul to make all this happen is wrong.
said by r81984:You do like driving on roads instead of mud paths, right? Well, we have roads to drive on because of cost shifting. Sorry, but that just isn't so.
Do you know what a "gas tax" is? Every time you fill your car up, you pay taxes on every gallon of gas that you pump. This is how the roads are paid for: via gasoline taxes.
So those people who like to drive a lot end up paying more in taxes than those who drive comparatively little.
In fact, before the US Government got into the road-building business, toll roads were quite common in this country. Which meant that every time you wanted to use the road, you paid a fee. So no "cost shifting" was able to take place: you paid as you went.
All I'm saying is that people who want broadband should be willing to pay for it. If you want to subsidize broadband for "the poor," fine: start a foundation. That way, you'll know that the money is being used wisely and not being eaten up by "administrative costs."
But as I've already pointed out, I'm currently working 191 days a year for the federal, state, and local governments to pay for their doings (and eff ups). Asking me to contribute even more on top of that to pay for something that people do not actually need (but that you feel they "ought to have") is, I feel, simply asking for too much.
If you want to go into the broadband-subsidy business, fine: you can start with my monthly bill. As for myself, I have no desire to start picking up the tab for other people's internet access. They'll just have to "tough it out" with a cheap dialup account as I did (for years). | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Wouldn't Wimax be cheaper? said by r81984:There is something wrong with you. You must have the big chip on your shoulder. Who hurt you to make you hate the world. Sorry, but nobody "hurt me" and I don't hate anyone. I simply don't approve of people who try to claim my property or money as their own because they are wrong in doing so.
I'm sorry if that happens to conflict with your own worldview, (the one that seems to condone wealth redistribution at will) but I can't help that.
said by r81984:It sounds like to me that you live way outside your means and are crabby that you do not get any help. On the contrary: I make it a point to live within my means. And I ask that others do the same.
I don't feel that this is too much to ask.
said by r81984:There is a big difference for someone that makes $30,000 claiming to be poor and someone that makes $60,000 claiming to be poor. Why don't you try living in NYC or LA and see how far your 60K takes you? Now throw 3 kids and a wife into the equation. I think you'll find that 60K isn't all that impressive unless you live in Iowa.
My point is that just because someone is making 30K a year, and someone else is making 60K, the person making more money does not "owe" the person making less money anything. You seem to think that the transfer of wealth from people who make less money to people who make more is okay.
And I maintain that that is stealing and is not, in fact, okay.
said by r81984:Your job depends on all of those jobs that you say people should be refusing to do. First off: my job does not. Secondly, I did not say that low-income people "should" be refusing to do low-paying jobs. I said that not performing low-paying work was something they could decide to do: it's up to them.
And if enough people feel that the salaries in a given profession are not high enough, and so choose not to work in that profession, then wages would (very likely) rise. If employers need work performed, and can't find any takers at the salary they offer, they must either a) raise the salary or b) go without that work being performed.
Okay?
If someone does not want to be a teacher at 30K a year, that's their prerogative. But nowhere does it say that I have a duty of any kind to support or subsidize the lifestyles of people who make less money than I do.
If someone wants money from me, (and you, too, hopefully)
they need to perform a service or provide a good that will make me want to give them money.
And standing around with your hand out is not performing a service, I'll clue you.
said by r81984:If those people who work $30,000 a year jobs had their salaries doubled, YOU would be paying for it. No, their employers would. I'm not in charge of paying anyone else's salary, only my own.
Did you mean to say that prices would rise if salaries were to be increased? I agree: they probably would. But that's the law of Supply and Demand and there is nothing intrinsically "bad" about that happening.
Of course, all these people having their salaries mysteriously doubled overnight would mean that their employers suddenly decided that they were worth twice what they were currently being paid.
Which, if you'll pardon my saying so, isn't likely.
said by r81984:You would pay in higher taxes and higher prices So what's your point here? I've already explained that the law of Supply and Demand would apply.
Are you saying that I should be resentful if/when someone making 30K a year succeeds in doubling their salary? Sorry, but I just can't bring myself to do that. Everbody should be trying to better themselves and make more money. Making more money means that the skills you have to offer are deemed worth more. Simple, no?
In case you didn't notice, everyone is keen to make more money if they can. And while someone making 30K a year may well manage to get their salary doubled, that doesn't mean that I have to sit still and keep earning the same amount I always do, does it?
Economics doesn't operate in a vacuum.
said by r81984:Also, the gas tax pays for very little of our roads. I think you'll find that the gas tax raises rather a lot of money. And the maintenance of the road network is what those taxes are supposed to be applied to.
said by r81984:Most of our roads and bridges are paid out of the income taxes you hate paying for. Where I live, the county maintains the local roads and bridges, not the federal government. If you want to claim that the federal government maintains the highway system, fine.
And as you pointed out, the highway system is (at least theoretically) paid for by income taxes. Whether or not I "hate" or "love" to pay income taxes does not matter: if I do not pay them (or I am deemed not to have paid enough in taxes) I will be sent to prison.
So whether I'm totally enthused about paying them, or I don't file until April 14th, I either pay taxes, or else. I am not given a choice in the matter.
said by r81984:If you do not like the way this country helps each other, then do no live here because helping each other is the American way. There's an important aspect to "helping" people that your proprosal for "free" broadband for the poor overlooks.
First off, a fellow has to decide if he wants to ask for help, or if he wants to go it alone. And that choice is his (and only his) to make.
Likewise, if someone does ask for help, the person they ask for help has to be able to grant or refuse that help as best they see fit. Fair enough? Otherwise, it is no longer a "request for help," but a demand.
And while most people may respond positively to a request, they might feel downright resentful about someone making demands of them.
What I find so upsetting about your broadband proposal is that you don't seem to feel that the people from whom the money for the "free" broadband is coming from are even worth asking. You just automatically "assumed" that poor people "ought to have" broadband access. And that anyone who could afford to pay for their own wimax service should automatically start paying for the services that other people use, too. And that's just not right.
The most disturbing thing is that you don't even seem to feel that any of this is wrong. Well, it is.
Incidentally, America has a longstanding reputation as being the sort of place where people a) stand on their own two feet and b) pay their own way.
And when you start handing things out to people that they don't actually need, you're coming into conflict with that fine American tradition.
said by r81984:If you went to a public school, you are a hypocrite. [laughs] Do you really think schoolchildren are given a choice as to whether or not they want to go to school? It doesn't work that way.
As I recall, I wasn't asked if I "felt like" going to school: I was told I had to go. Schooling is, last time I looked, mandatory. You can hardly call someone a "hypocrite" if they attended a public school: they were too young to be given a choice in the matter.
Also, you aren't considered an "adult" in this country until you reach the age of 18. Until then, someone else is in charge of running your life and making your decisions for you.
I'm flattered that you seem to think I was running my own life at age 10, but I'm afraid that just wasn't the case.
said by r81984:Maybe you should pay back all that "free" money you took from tax payers otherwise you do not follow what you say. First off, (as I've already pointed out) being a child, I wasn't given a choice in the matter as far as my public schooling is concerned.
Secondly, any money spent on my "public education" was paid back many times over long ago in the way of taxes. So no, I don't actually "owe" anyone anything: any "debt" I had to society was worked off long ago.
Lastly, I think you'll find that the government is not in the business of handing out "free money" without any conditions attached to it. When I attended a government-run school, I learned what the government wanted me to learn, not necessarily what I wanted to learn about.
And if you expect me to be grateful for that, you'll be disappointed.
Whenever the government hands out money or services there are always strings attached. And quite often those "strings" involve you doing things that the government wants you to do, regardless of how you, personally, might feel about them.
So please don't pretend that the government ever gives away "free" money because that just isn't the case. You're beholden to them for whatever they decide to give to you and don't think they'll fail to take advantage of every opportunity to remind you of that fact.
said by r81984:I myself went to college because you paid your taxes. I had federal grants. Well, I didn't: I paid my own way through school.
I'm guessing that to obtain those grants, you had to fill out some forms and jump through some hoops. So you know firsthand what I mean when I say that the government does not hand out "free money" or "free" anything else: there is always a price tag attached.
But as I say: I paid my own way through school. And I ask that other people pay their own way through life, the same as I do. I just can't make it any fairer than that. | |
|
| | | | | Huh? Don't you see, it's STILL not FREE! Are you blind? | |
|
| | byebye another sign earthlinks days are numbered | |
|
| |
|
|
