StrangeSox Posted September 28, 2012 Author Share Posted September 28, 2012 "Foodstamp President!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 28, 2012 -> 09:28 AM) Government is involved via collecting fees from FCC licensees. It's a self-funded program. Do you believe advertising claims are always 100% true and accurate? Why does it matter what some stupid sign says if you're wrong on the facts of the program? Government is involved because they subsidized the providers that are part of the program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 28, 2012 -> 09:15 AM) That program is 100% real. They have it here in Chicago. A buddy of mine is a cop and texted me a picture of the tent they set up on the West side. You don't even have to bring ID, you just have to bring proof that you're a welfare/SS/whatever recipient. The sign on the tent was "FREE GOVERNMENT CELL PHONES." And it was crowded. f***ing pathetic. I saw those tents in downtown Joliet about 2 weeks ago, thought it was some scam. Amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 28, 2012 Author Share Posted September 28, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 28, 2012 -> 09:29 AM) Government is involved because they subsidized the providers that are part of the program. The USF is funded through fees paid by the telecoms, though. http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/contributi...agement-support I am not sure but it seems to me that the USF is not funded by taxes but solely through fees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 28, 2012 -> 09:32 AM) The USF is funded through fees paid by the telecoms, though. http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/contributi...agement-support I am not sure but it seems to me that the USF is not funded by taxes but solely through fees. That's still a tax, they're just not calling it that. As we are still the ones paying it as part of our cell phone bills. This is why I balk when people say taxes are low...because megatons of fees like this exist that 'aren't taxes', only they actually are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 28, 2012 Author Share Posted September 28, 2012 QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 28, 2012 -> 09:30 AM) I saw those tents in downtown Joliet about 2 weeks ago, thought it was some scam. Amazing. This is likely why they add "GOVERNMENT" to the sign. Most people would see a big sign with "free cellphone" and assume there's some sort of long-term contract or something else you have to sign up for. By implying that it's a government program (which it is, but not tax-funded), it adds legitimacy. It is amazing that we live in a country that can provide the least privileged among us with access to basic, modern communications tools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 28, 2012 Author Share Posted September 28, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 28, 2012 -> 09:34 AM) That's still a tax, they're just not calling it that. As we are still the ones paying it as part of our cell phone bills. This is why I balk when people say taxes are low...because megatons of fees like this exist that 'aren't taxes', only they actually are. Tax incidence isn't 100%, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 28, 2012 -> 09:34 AM) This is likely why they add "GOVERNMENT" to the sign. Most people would see a big sign with "free cellphone" and assume there's some sort of long-term contract or something else you have to sign up for. By implying that it's a government program (which it is, but not tax-funded), it adds legitimacy. It is amazing that we live in a country that can provide the least privileged among us with access to basic, modern communications tools. God, not this argument again. Cell phones = luxury item, not necessary item. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 28, 2012 Author Share Posted September 28, 2012 What's the difference between a cheap cell phone or a cheap land line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 28, 2012 -> 09:44 AM) What's the difference between a cheap cell phone or a cheap land line? Nothing, and neither should be provided for free from a "tax" or a tax collected by the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 28, 2012 Author Share Posted September 28, 2012 The late 19th and early 20th centuries disagree. I'm sure it'd be easy for those lazy, irresponsible "victim" poors to find a job without having telephone service. Anyway, we can add the "OBAMA PHONE!" to the list of things like "Foodstamp President" and the Obamacare witchdoctor signs that are totally-not-at-all-racial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 I'm not specifically pointing at Obama here. It's the nanny state federal government we have that I'm complaining about. And let's not pretend this is some cheap program either: In 2008 the program cost $772 million, but by 2011 it cost $1.6 billion. http://washingtonexaminer.com/where-do-oba...03#.UGW-bJjA-b4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 28, 2012 Author Share Posted September 28, 2012 More people need social safety net spending after the economy collapses and before it fully recovers. This is not surprising. But more to the point, these chain emails and the post that started this are, in fact, pointing directly at Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 28, 2012 -> 10:22 AM) More people need social safety net spending after the economy collapses and before it fully recovers. This is not surprising. But more to the point, these chain emails and the post that started this are, in fact, pointing directly at Obama. Anyone that reads chain emails is an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 28, 2012 Author Share Posted September 28, 2012 That may be so, but those emails are read and the claim is spread uncritically around the blogs, forums and websites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 28, 2012 -> 10:26 AM) That may be so, but those emails are read and the claim is spread uncritically around the blogs, forums and websites. Idiocy spreads like a virus...but the cure is simple. Think for yourself, use the SAME device you just used to read that chain letter, and see if what you've just read is fact or fiction. I mean, sure, it'd be awesome if we had some sort of search thingy where we could search a vast array of fact checked knowledge, compete with citations, in mere minutes...if only something like that existed on the same systems we use to read chain emails... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 28, 2012 Author Share Posted September 28, 2012 Confirmation bias & motivated thinking are a hell of a drug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 These are basic lessons we all learned in grammar school. Seriously, who here hasn't had a class at some point in their childhood where the first person starts a story and TELLS it to the second person in class to write down AFTER the story has been told (adding both of their names to the paper). That person passes that story to the next person, who reads it and THEN retells it from memory to the person behind them, who then writes it down after having heard it (writing both of the 3rd and 4th names down). Rinse/repeat. If you do it this way you can track the changes, where and how they happened, what was added, and by whom. By the time you get to the end of the class the story is completely unrelated to the original... These are BASIC lessons in life...people apparently need to remember them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 28, 2012 -> 10:02 AM) The late 19th and early 20th centuries disagree. I'm sure it'd be easy for those lazy, irresponsible "victim" poors to find a job without having telephone service. Anyway, we can add the "OBAMA PHONE!" to the list of things like "Foodstamp President" and the Obamacare witchdoctor signs that are totally-not-at-all-racial. You forgot the person who was goona eit him some Obama Money. Add that one too. After all its just coming from his "stash". Edited September 28, 2012 by Cknolls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 I read today that the race is a virtual tie. Is this true? Or just popular vote?? Is Obama still a lock to win? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 21, 2012 Author Share Posted October 21, 2012 If you want to watch the day-by-day polls, it's hard to pass up Nate Silver's 538 website. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/ His models had Obama at over 85% to win before his disastrous first debate and subsequent polling collapse. He's rebounded a bit and is around 68% to win. So, it's definitely tighter than it was a few weeks ago, but "virtual tie" is a bit of a stretch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 21, 2012 -> 09:42 AM) If you want to watch the day-by-day polls, it's hard to pass up Nate Silver's 538 website. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/ His models had Obama at over 85% to win before his disastrous first debate and subsequent polling collapse. He's rebounded a bit and is around 68% to win. So, it's definitely tighter than it was a few weeks ago, but "virtual tie" is a bit of a stretch. Nate Silver is wrong a lot more than people talk about. But the excuse is always that he is within his margin of error. But with so many contests with 2% point margins, you can predict the wrong guy in 7 states, but still be in the margin of error and claim a perfect record. he missed pretty bad in congressional races in 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Obama's first debate performance was like the White Sox collapse in September of '05. Just needed to make things interesting before catching fire and finishing it off in style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Nate Silver is wrong a lot more than people talk about. But the excuse is always that he is within his margin of error. But with so many contests with 2% point margins, you can predict the wrong guy in 7 states, but still be in the margin of error and claim a perfect record. he missed pretty bad in congressional races in 2010 Well, Congressional races are a lot harder than Senate/Presidential races because you are polling smaller areas plus much fewer polls to work with. Also, though Nate predicts a winner in every race, he is putting probabilities on all of them and if he has 25 races where his winner is <60%, he should expect to be wrong on 10 of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 22, 2012 Author Share Posted October 22, 2012 I thought he actually did pretty decently in 2010? http://www.pacificnorthwestcoastbias.com/g...on-predictions/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts