Were you tricked by President Obama also?
Howdy, taburkett. I am sorry to jump at this point but your statement above appears to be wrong.
According to the FCC: “Federal rules prohibit eligible low-income consumers from receiving more than one Lifeline discount per household. An eligible consumer may receive a discount on either a wireline or wireless service, but not both. A consumer whose household currently is receiving more than one Lifeline service must select a single Lifeline provider and contact the other provider to de-enroll from their program. Consumers violating this rule may also be subject to criminal and/or civil penalties.” {1}
As for the origin of the program: According to FCC documents, the Lifeline program was implemented in 1985 in the wake of the 1984 divestiture of AT&T. {2} However, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 codified the FCC policy.
Again, I’m sorry, taburkett, to interrupt the discussion but I think facts are important.
{1} http://www.fcc.gov/lifeline
{2} http://www.universalservice.org/_res/do … cc/FCC-12- 11.pdf, p.7
Speaking of being fooled . . .
I suspect you take issue with the last image, Jaxson and that's fine; however, I suggest you end your magazine subscriptions—they'll only make you more crazy-angry when Obama wins!
The glaring point, Jaxson, is that you chose to focus on only one of the many elements in those graphics (on a wonkish technicality and one that I can't affix a "Jaxsonian" asterisk to) when the majority of that argumentation is salient to the justifiable criticism of corporate behavior and unbridled greed when it comes to evading taxes and allowing America and the American worker to be sold down the river for Darwinian profits.
So please, don't accuse me of "spreading lies" when I argue for my own point of view with graphics that conveniently (if not always accurately and to your liking) condense the points of debate. We all know your bias as well as mine and if you think I'm going to concede anything to someone who ignores the essential argumentation for some arcane element that you "think" is crucial, then you are indeed wasting your time and mine.
Besides I love the fact that it gets under your obcessive-compulsive skin and you always make my day when you get apoplectic over some nonissue.Well if you were genuinely "obsessed" with the truth and the facts, you'd acknowledge that Romney and the NeoRepublicans reason for being is to exploit anything and everything for a buck—where success is solely measured in profits, houses and offshore bank accounts.
If that were the truth, then I would acknowledge it.
Firstly, you erroneously group everyone together so you can paint with a broad brush.
Secondly, you ignore simple facts in Romney's history at Bain, where a company was months away from closing down completely, and Bain(through painful measures) saved it.
Third, your little list of success measuring sticks is just completely ignorant of reality. If Romney's only desire in life is money, houses, and offshore bank accounts, why would he work as governor for free? Why would he work at the olympics for free? Why would he leave his lucrative position as CEO of an extremely successful firm, to run for president? Being president won't even come close to being a drop in the bucket of what 'success(your standard)' he could achieve at Bain.
You posted a chart that was nearly 100% false information about tax rates, but then claim that the information it presents doesn't really matter. I call you out on it, and look what happens
Liberal playbook: Ad hominem, redirect.
Oh okay, Dillon, we should all just take your word for that because you are a trustworthy source of opinion? You shouldn't be required to provide proof for your 75% faulty claim or tell us what specifically is the 25% accurate part and the 75% faulty.
And some of us see through the kind of "pro-life" hypocrisy Mittens and so many neoRepublicans preach . . .
- JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago
0Jaxson, many corporations have been irresponsible and ruthless and you are incapable of appreciating that fact; so let's just agree to disagree and you can go back to your worship of Darwinian Capitalism while the world turns to crap!
No Jaxson, the topic is "being tricked" and with a 57,000-page GE federal tax return, it's easy to be hoodwinked—especially for the average person who doesn't have your passionate obsession with arcane economic details.
I also now disagree because I no longer trust your conclusions because you have no objectivity or inclination to be appropriately reasonable.
Thanks for your criticism, JS. I won't take it personally.
I'm sorry, Ralph.
All the polls you cite are wrong.
The Romney campaign has its own polls they say Mitt is winning everywhere.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romn … ction.html
- Justsilvieposted 12 years ago0
Indeed and it's more genuine than Mittens' phony, "Ha! Ha! Ha!" . . .
When your own candidate has nothing coherent or relevant to say, the only defense is the same offensive play over and over.
It's seeming a bit half-hearted these days, though. Isn't it?Greetings.
How strange! I monitor the progress of the economy pretty closely. Most economic indicators reveal that the nation’s economy is improving every day. Can you point us to the empirical data that indicates to you we are sliding into a depression?Good evening, JSC.
Of course, we do not agree on the direction the country is going. Many Americans, however, take the time to study what is really going on in this country. No one can learn the real facts by standing on a soapbox. You have to burrow into the data, peal away the spin, the rhetoric, and the hyperbole to discover the things you are never going to learn from a TV sound bite.
This country is coming out of a recession whether you wish to admit it in public or not! The unemployment number is an economic indicator. It IS NOT a head-count of able-bodied Americans in need of a job. Therefore, to fully understand what is happening in this country, you have to study a range of indicators to identify the trends.
In this case, the 8.1% unemployment rate indicates the trend toward an improved job picture. The rate maxed at 10% in October 2009; remained above 9% for 22 of the next 23 months; fell into the 8% range in October 2011; and has been declining gradually ever since. This country has been successfully clawing its way out the Great Recession. That, my friend, is a positive trend.
Ah, but the uninformed will argue, there is no positive trend. Your numbers lie! Just like you said, JSC, “Yes indeed like the unemployment numbers that get better when people drop off as they stop looking for work because it isn't there.”
You must keep digging. The facts are there if you look for them. Instead of trumpeting the unemployment rate and trying to figure out why an estimated 6.4 million job seekers are not working, more folks are counting the 4.5 million Americans in NEW jobs created during the Obama administration in the private sector since January 2010. FACT: The job picture has improved under this president during the last three years even though many misinformed citizens continue to deny this reality.
{1}
According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics nonfarm private payrolls hit a post-recession low of 106.8 million jobs in Jan. 2010 and has risen to 111.3 million jobs as of July 2012. {1}
So, while many are content to parrot the mantra “the glass is half empty,” others are doing the necessary research and are finding for themselves the glass is filling up faster then you would like to admit.
{1} http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=abwNext you'll be proving the Dow Jones Industrial Average has doubled since 2009* and is within spitting distance of breaking the all-time high set in 2007.
You and your facts, Quill.
You seem to take delight in ruining perfectly good irrational rants with them!
Keep 'em coming!
MM
*From nadir point of 6,547 in March 2009.
- Billie Paglioloposted 12 years ago0
Man you are hilarious 
Related Discussions
- 121
To those who voted for President Obama, seeing the current state of
the United States, are YOU happy with or regret the choice that you have made? Why? Why not?
- 54
Do you research candidates before voting? How could anyone vote for Romney or Ob
Do you research candidates before voting? How could anyone vote for Romney or Obama?I wrote articles about a local Modesto mayoral election in 2012. Though I was on the first Google results page for the biggest search phrases on Google (and there weren't too many!), only a few dozen read the...
- 48
At this point, who are you voting for? Romney or Obama?
At this point, who are you voting for? Romney or Obama?I realize it's a pretty redundant question, but I'm wondering what some of my followers(and hopefully new followers) actually think. Give me some legitimate reasons why you chose who you chose, and please try to refrain from...
- 18
Is Romney a bold face liar when he claims Obama's federal spending is unpreceden
Is Romney a bold face liar when he claims Obama's federal spending is unprecedented?The facts are as follows: Reagan '82 - 85 federal spending was 8.7 and 86 - 89 4.9. Bush I 5.4 and Bush II 7.3 - 8.2. Clinton was 3.2 - 3.9 and Obama 1.4 on government spending. Without talking about...
- 22
Complete the phrase: Obama will be (voted out of office/reelected) because ____
Complete the phrase: Obama will be (voted out of office/reelected) because _____Provide your best comment or opinion as to why the President will either be reelected or ousted this November.
- 44
What advice would you give Obama and Romney for the next debate?
To Obama, I'd say to be more engaged and show a little more passion. Act like you WANT to be POTUS for 4 more years.To Romney, I'd say, "Calm down!" I thought he did a good job in the last debate, but at times, he seemed almost manic. I'd also tell both to be completely truthful, but that...