Free Internet at Your Expense for Low Income Families

[shintao]

Providing more resources to the disadvantaged was very common in the postwar years.

Back then it was seen as an investment in the American people. FDR had great faith in the American people, especially the poor -- who were always the first to go to war to defend freedom. If you give them a leg-up during hard times, some of them will go on to make great contributions. The nation benefits when more of her citizens have access to universities, information (internet), health care, parks, and a living wage. A nation loses when more and more people are born into crippling poverty, as an ever-narrowing group of people control all the wealth, sequestering it from the real economy, as they funnel it into Washington, phantom speculative money games, and dynastic inheritances..

Ronald Reagan's father was jobless. His family was poor, besieged by the depression. FDR wanted to protect disadvantaged Americans from being victimized from the excesses of Wall Street, of which they played no part. He didn't want generations of Americans to be destroyed by poverty and unemployment.

FDR gave Ronald Reagan's father a government job.

FDR saved the Reagan family.

Ronald Reagan is lucky that FDR didn't think he was a welfare queen. Ronald Reagan is lucky that FDR trusted the American people. It would have been much easier for FDR to say "why should I give these losers something they didn't earn"..... but . . . . FDR didn't say that. He invested in the American people. And the investment paid off.

Well, that was mighty kind hearted of FDR to care for Americans less fortunate than himself.

 

[mdn2000]

And you are an imbecile troll, who has been carrying on like an old lady in a sewing circle and making a fool of himself. Imbecile.

Are you referring to this post?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/148477-taxes-6.html

That post isn't on this thread. LMAO!! "Discuss economic policy and wallstreet."

This thread is " Free Internet at Your Expense for Low Income Families."

Come on dude, get a handle.

In the other thread you specifically asked about low income families, here is your post and follows is my response. Man up, boy.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/148477-taxes-6.html#post3154140

How much do you think a poverty striken person, the poor can make in a year, just scrouging or whatever?? And what would you base your opinion on?

What do I base my opinion on, what does it matter, can a man base his opinion on anything but his experience in life.

What have you done for the poor over the holidays. I fed them, three meals, three nice steak dinners, three days in a row. That is three steak dinners for people that make Americans look rich. I made dinner for five people who are poor. They are not starving, they dont live in the streets, but they have no work and no chance at work. Further two of them are stricken with a genetic disease, never got a translation, look like MS. Further I gave another woman my wife wanted to give a kilo of rice to thirty real. I would of gave her fifty Real but my wife had the cash and being Brazilian she is not as generous as I.

Poverty stricken Americans are the most fortunate people in the world. I base this fact on what I have seen after living in the third world around three years of my life. I base this fact on the people I meet in Spain when I bring up life in the country they immigrated from, I base it on the Chinese people I meet as I travel for work and for personal reasons.

I see poor people every day, every minute of the day, I live with people who are poor, I buy them drinks and give them food. I married a woman who grew up on a dirt floor in Piau Brazil, the poorest state in Brazil, her father was the grandson of a slave, a drunk, that never gave a dime to my wife for food even when she was starving. Imagine seeing your father drunk, your eight years old, hungry, he never says hello, you live on a dirt floor, no television, no hope.

Poverty in the USA, my compassion, I gave my playstation to children who would never of had a playstation. I am about to give my PSP to them. As soon as I talk the kid out of buying one, after I tell him a great conservative story and the value of money. I will give this poor Brazilian teenager my PSP.

What are doing for the poor. I married the poor, I feed the power, I give money to the poor. Scraping for food in Brazil means you fighting with dogs over food, literally, they run the streets in packs. A bit timid though.

So what are you doing for the poor.

 

[daveman]

Providing more resources to the disadvantaged was very common in the postwar years.

Back then it was seen as an investment in the American people. FDR had great faith in the American people, especially the poor -- who were always the first to go to war to defend freedom. If you give them a leg-up during hard times, some of them will go on to make great contributions. The nation benefits when more of her citizens have access to universities, information (internet), health care, parks, and a living wage. A nation loses when more and more people are born into crippling poverty, as an ever-narrowing group of people control all the wealth, sequestering it from the real economy, as they funnel it into Washington, phantom speculative money games, and dynastic inheritances..

Ronald Reagan's father was jobless. His family was poor, besieged by the depression. FDR wanted to protect disadvantaged Americans from being victimized from the excesses of Wall Street, of which they played no part. He didn't want generations of Americans to be destroyed by poverty and unemployment.

FDR gave Ronald Reagan's father a government job.

FDR saved the Reagan family.

Ronald Reagan is lucky that FDR didn't think he was a welfare queen. Ronald Reagan is lucky that FDR trusted the American people. It would have been much easier for FDR to say "why should I give these losers something they didn't earn"..... but . . . . FDR didn't say that. He invested in the American people. And the investment paid off.

I'll bet if you try very hard, you can tell the difference between giving someone a job where they can earn their way and giving people free money where they don't.

 

[Big Fitz]

the people always come first.

I'm sorry, don't you mean the party comes first? Lib policy never truely puts the people first. Power is the real interest. Thinking creatures already know this.

Can we do without books that turn to dust?

The longest lived form of modern stored data is less than 25 years. Videotapes, audio tapes, CDs... all into obsolesces quite quickly even if properly preserved thanks to technology moving foreward. A black and white image can last over a hundred years. Print can last 5000 years.

Yes, I can see that a medium like print is dead.

Idiot. You have the wisdom of a mayfly.

I think govrnment makes money

Without any taxes, where does it EARN money by producing? Answer, nowhere. You've the economic knowledge of a dung beetle.

First, you don't know shit about me imbecile,

Online, you are what you type. I've seen nothing that denotes real comprehension. My impression of your age and education drop with every passing post. I'm to the point of thinking you're a freshman in college if that who has no social life and therefore likes to troll and parrots what your commie professors blather.

who I am spending my time getting my cock sucked by

Don't care who he is either, but tell him to stop, he's getting gray matter.

while you are out producing or kissing ass

Spoken like a trust fund brat. Deriding honest work. You lefties always hate that in your hearts. That's why the real meaning of the World Worker's Party is "You work, we party'. The commies goals are to make sure they are the new nobility, and you sure act like you think you will be one of em.

I am surprised you got a problem with evil, greedy bastards like yourself.

I'm not greedy. I just want what I earn by working for wages I chose to accept and negotiated for. I dont' want your money. You want to take other people's money to do what you want while not spending yours. That my friend is evil and greedy. I don't expect you to know the difference, you probably are afraid to make moral distinctions you're so dipped in relativism.

Hate the competition I suppose?

Love competition. As long as they are forced to play by the exact same rules as me. If are getting unfair advantages like subsidies or tax breaks, then I have a problem. Particularly if they get it for racist reasons because they are a minority or female, or politically trendy. Then I have a huge problem.

How did that work out with intelligent people who have more than they need??

None of your goddamn business what another person has. Do for yourself. If they abuse their wealth by fomenting government corruption or thwarting the law, the book SHOULD be thrown at them. I am not envious of their wealth. I am happy they have it as long as they are not using it to harm others. If I can make them my customer and get rich as well, who's the loser in the scenario? We both get rich and needs are met. You've no clue as to how the real world works. Maybe you're just getting ready to go to college.

Nah, I already sit at my own table, and I don't have to fish.

My gawd the whole analogy flew completely over your head. Now that takes effort to be that goddamn dumb. Where did your wealth come from? I suppose you're the kind that thinks that Milk comes from the store but knows nothing before that. You're missing about 5 other steps, Shittoe. What did you do to earn it? If you didn't earn it, where did you get it? Where did THEY get it. Ultimately it all comes back to someone doing work by making or producing a good or service that someone else paid for with their OWN good or service. That is economics 101 for you. Take it in your next semester. The vast majority of respectable economics professors ARE conservative and not Keynsian frauds. Get a new point of view and don't try to talk economics till you actually have had a job, paid rent and taxes.

 

[Immanuel]

I selected "Other..." mostly because I believe that there are times when the government needs to be generous too the needy. However, in this case, I do not believe the internet is a necessity and I do not believe that the citizens of the U.S. should be forced to supply internet connections to the poor.

Immie

 

[syrenn]

I selected "Other..." mostly because I believe that there are times when the government needs to be generous too the needy. However, in this case, I do not believe the internet is a necessity and I do not believe that the citizens of the U.S. should be forced to supply internet connections to the poor.

Immie

Its already happening. We have been providing it for several years now to the "poor" to improve their lives. So far i see on results.

And you wonder why they stay bums sucking off the government teet!

San Francisco Public Housing Gets Free Wi-Fi CBS San Francisco- News, Sports, Weather, Traffic and the Best of SF




Do the math here folks. Thats more then 14k per unit they are spending on FREE wifi. Lets say that again 14 thousand dollars on each unit of public housing to provide FREE wifi.

 

[Immanuel]

I selected "Other..." mostly because I believe that there are times when the government needs to be generous too the needy. However, in this case, I do not believe the internet is a necessity and I do not believe that the citizens of the U.S. should be forced to supply internet connections to the poor.

Immie

Its already happening. We have been providing it for several years now to the "poor" to improve their lives. So far i see on results.

And you wonder why they stay bums sucking off the government teet!

San Francisco Public Housing Gets Free Wi-Fi CBS San Francisco- News, Sports, Weather, Traffic and the Best of SF

Just scanning your link that is a little different. People still have to pay rent (albeit at very low rates) at public housing which means in effect they are paying for the service. That is not the same as bringing internet services to every Tom, Dick and Mary on the Welfare roles.

Immie

 

[snjmom]

@Fitz, Government provides security. That is how it earns. It provides the means to enforce your contracts, the jails to house the perps, the law to produce order and organization, the courts to determine justice, the military to protect us from the predations of other nations and, so far, the infrastructure necessary for a free market.

Nobody is OWED it just because they fucking exist... and while I call for people to give VOLUNTARILY to charities to help causes that speak to their hearts, I do not call for any program that forcibly makes people support others

I assume the poster is not a pro-lifer then?

I'm fine with eliminating any social safety net as long as we remove all laws from the books that criminalize poverty. No more building codes, no vagrancy laws, no child negligence laws, etc. All those laws are unfunded mandates without poverty wealth transference programs. And if you want to see how long 40 yr olds have been living at home, read some Jane Austen or Dickens or see a Neil Simon play.

 

[JamesMorrison]

I agree that much of America is beginning to finally wake up and pay attention. That is the only explanation for the growth of the Tea Party spirit and the results of the 2010 election though much work remains to be done to re-educate those lulled into stupidity by what has been described as 'great sounding propaganda from silver tongued charlatans.'

Due to request from a few others, I am going to start a new thread in a bit (or perhaps in the morning) that will compare attitudes re the poor and how poverty is most compassionately demonstrated.

Is it true compassion to provide computer access at public libraries so that those with the gumption to get up, get dressed, and walk or take the bus to the nearest library to use the computers can acquire education and skills to get ahead?

Or is it true compassion to provide such free to everybody deemed 'poor' on the theory a few might be helped?

Which is more likely to help promote work ethic, a sense of responsibility, and empower one's ability to choose to seize power over his/her destiny?

If I may ask could you please IM me the link to such a thread if you don't or haven't already supplied it? This would be an especially good exercise for any one who agrees with the guy from Texas but knows that to openly express such views allows the left to spin the old uncaring/meanie/cheapskate yarn label RE conservatives.

Let's face, it if we are to label any efforts to alleviate poverty that are described as compassionate they must take the form of charity in the true sense of the word where the adverb 'Voluntary' describes the act. First, if we absolutely positively find it necessary to supply tax money via the federal government (yes I am now holding my nose) individual tax payers' (on the same spot where the hopefully repealed McCain/Feingold law allows for such donations) tax forms will allow to chose the amount they wish to donate. That list is broken down as to if they want the money to go to their state or not. Further breakdowns can be even more specific and write in candidates are to be encouraged. Perhaps at some point individual tax payers will ask for a lower tax altogether and request the feds just to butt out while they themselves will chose the amount, destination, and timing of their gift.

But your point that those receiving such charity must demonstrate a serious desire to acquire the goal in question is essential. Leftist that point out how demeaning those requirements are should then be shown in a light that elevates those pursuing those goals (no matter how modest) and denigrates those so criticizing.

The quality of compassion shown to those in need is not lessened by the requirements of efficacy. Indeed, efficacious programs are more likely to continue and be expanded if those people contributing their own wealth feel their money is not being wasted

JM

 

[JamesMorrison]

In the interest of American desire for free choice Deroy Murdock of NRO has a suggestion:

" Republicans should enact the HOT Tax. The Higher-Rate Optional Tax would satisfy liberals who don’t like their taxes cut.

“I am in the highest tax bracket,” an unidentified woman said in a November 30 MoveOn.org commercial that attacks the Obama-GOP tax-cut compromise. “We don’t need the money. The country does.”

No American should be forced to accept an unwanted tax cut. So, the HOT Tax would require new language on IRS tax returns: “If you believe your tax bracket is too low, please indicate the higher rate at which you prefer to be taxed. Multiply that rate by your Adjusted Gross Income. Send in that higher amount.”

The HOT Tax would spare tax-cut opponents from accepting undesired tax relief. The rest of us can enjoy the lower taxes we need to pay our bills and take care of ourselves and our loved ones. Everybody wins.

Republicans should ask congressional Democrats to support the HOT Tax. If they would deny guilty liberals the chance voluntarily to pay even higher taxes, let them vote accordingly.

"

Three Simple Reaganite Ideas for the New Congress - Deroy Murdock - National Review Online

Hell, perhaps those, so disposed ,can have a Hollywood-like awards program to honor the top 3 or 4 donors with a Prime Time special. A nice contrast to those awards presently which are merely a mutual admiration society of primadonna's. Imagine a contest of liberals competing to spend themselves into penury. Indeed, after the awards ceremony becomes established for a number of years, Congress could then approve the Flat Tax, you know, that where everyone pays the same rate and all deductibles are eliminated. It might then prove interesting to see the continued progression of ever increasing liberal donations...or not.


JM

 

[Foxfyre]

@Fitz, Government provides security. That is how it earns. It provides the means to enforce your contracts, the jails to house the perps, the law to produce order and organization, the courts to determine justice, the military to protect us from the predations of other nations and, so far, the infrastructure necessary for a free market.

Nobody is OWED it just because they fucking exist... and while I call for people to give VOLUNTARILY to charities to help causes that speak to their hearts, I do not call for any program that forcibly makes people support others

I assume the poster is not a pro-lifer then?

I'm fine with eliminating any social safety net as long as we remove all laws from the books that criminalize poverty. No more building codes, no vagrancy laws, no child negligence laws, etc. All those laws are unfunded mandates without poverty wealth transference programs. And if you want to see how long 40 yr olds have been living at home, read some Jane Austen or Dickens or see a Neil Simon play.

I think you may have missed the point a bit.

A social contract based on the Constitutional concept of 'general welfare' does anticipate social services that benefit the whole and that would include building codes, police and fire protection, shared medical facilities, etc. and anticipates that the federal government would PROMOTE that....not PROVIDE that.

The one guiding principle that would direct a true public servant is: Does it benefit all by people sharing services rather than each one having to provide such services for himself or herself? If it can, however, be done more effectively, efficiently, and economically by the private sector, that's where the responsibility for providing it should remain.

And however much I admire Austen or Dickens or Simon, there is nothing in any of their works that suggests that the federal government is good at providing charity to anybody. Nor should be.

The emphasis of the Federal Government in promoting the general welfare should be focused on policy, regulation, and laws that better and enable the people to form a better society. Anytime the government decides to do that for them, however, it will screw it up.

The Founders intended to create the first nation the world had ever known in which people would have unalienable rights recognized and protected and would enjoy the freedom and be left alone to form whatever kind of society they wished to have.

They would have been horrified to think that the government could take money away from you in order to buy votes, influence, and prestige by providing free internet to others.

 

[Big Fitz]

Government provides security. That is how it earns. It provides the means to enforce your contracts, the jails to house the perps, the law to produce order and organization, the courts to determine justice, the military to protect us from the predations of other nations and, so far, the infrastructure necessary for a free market.

Wrong. This is a responsibility of government they are required to provide for the people. Not a "service' to sell. I cannot 'opt out' or 'not purchase' this service, therefore it cannot be said to have been sold for profit.

 

[snjmom]

@Fitz, Government provides security. That is how it earns. It provides the means to enforce your contracts, the jails to house the perps, the law to produce order and organization, the courts to determine justice, the military to protect us from the predations of other nations and, so far, the infrastructure necessary for a free market.

Nobody is OWED it just because they fucking exist... and while I call for people to give VOLUNTARILY to charities to help causes that speak to their hearts, I do not call for any program that forcibly makes people support others

I assume the poster is not a pro-lifer then?

I'm fine with eliminating any social safety net as long as we remove all laws from the books that criminalize poverty. No more building codes, no vagrancy laws, no child negligence laws, etc. All those laws are unfunded mandates without poverty wealth transference programs. And if you want to see how long 40 yr olds have been living at home, read some Jane Austen or Dickens or see a Neil Simon play.

I think you may have missed the point a bit.

A social contract based on the Constitutional concept of 'general welfare' does anticipate social services that benefit the whole and that would include building codes, police and fire protection, shared medical facilities, etc. and anticipates that the federal government would PROMOTE that....not PROVIDE that.

The one guiding principle that would direct a true public servant is: Does it benefit all by people sharing services rather than each one having to provide such services for himself or herself? If it can, however, be done more effectively, efficiently, and economically by the private sector, that's where the responsibility for providing it should remain.

And however much I admire Austen or Dickens or Simon, there is nothing in any of their works that suggests that the federal government is good at providing charity to anybody. Nor should be.

The emphasis of the Federal Government in promoting the general welfare should be focused on policy, regulation, and laws that better and enable the people to form a better society. Anytime the government decides to do that for them, however, it will screw it up.

The Founders intended to create the first nation the world had ever known in which people would have unalienable rights recognized and protected and would enjoy the freedom and be left alone to form whatever kind of society they wished to have.

They would have been horrified to think that the government could take money away from you in order to buy votes, influence, and prestige by providing free internet to others.

By promote, do you mean comply or be deprived of your property or children?

Does it benefit all by people sharing services rather than each one having to provide such services for himself or herself?

The only determinant being will it break the individual to provide it for himself? Or are you speaking about side effects, such as containing communicable disease, fire and vermin spreading, sewage in the street type of benefits to all?

I speak of Austen and Dickens only in the context of 40 and beyonds never being able to leave families of origin or relegated to the poorhouse or nunneries upon the demise of parents. I don't believe either were familiar with the US Constitution and it's delegation of powers. That, and the acknowledgement that it isn't new phenomena.

Again, if regulation makes criminals of those that just don't have the funds to address the restrictions on their freedom to live their lives in the manner they have chosen, then I consider that an unfunded mandate.

I don't think our founders would have been horrified at giving a leg up to the poor. Every shit-paying introduction to the workforce job requires you apply on-line now. Not being able to navigate on a computer is rapidly approaching illiteracy in our society. The libraries that are left only give you an hour a day. The last time I got laid off, it took me 3 months of 5-day a week 6 hour days applying online, faxing resumes and doing interviews before I picked something up. And that was before the 2008 collapse. Having them shell out $125 for the computer puts them on par with the Children's Computer. I don't see why we can't encourage our citizens to engage like we would Third world children.

 

[snjmom]

Government provides security. That is how it earns. It provides the means to enforce your contracts, the jails to house the perps, the law to produce order and organization, the courts to determine justice, the military to protect us from the predations of other nations and, so far, the infrastructure necessary for a free market.

Wrong. This is a responsibility of government they are required to provide for the people. Not a "service' to sell. I cannot 'opt out' or 'not purchase' this service, therefore it cannot be said to have been sold for profit.

The people institute governments in order to provide these services for which they provide the personnel and the tax funding. You may opt out and not purchase this service by relinquishing your membership in the group that composes the pool of potential candidates to provide said government. We the people have demanded more, yet refused to pay it. If you have a beef with the government, take that up with your neighbor. The politicians do the bidding of the people, we are just schizophrenic about what our bidding is.

 

[Foxfyre]

Government provides security. That is how it earns. It provides the means to enforce your contracts, the jails to house the perps, the law to produce order and organization, the courts to determine justice, the military to protect us from the predations of other nations and, so far, the infrastructure necessary for a free market.

Wrong. This is a responsibility of government they are required to provide for the people. Not a "service' to sell. I cannot 'opt out' or 'not purchase' this service, therefore it cannot be said to have been sold for profit.

The people institute governments in order to provide these services for which they provide the personnel and the tax funding. You may opt out and not purchase this service by relinquishing your membership in the group that composes the pool of potential candidates to provide said government. We the people have demanded more, yet refused to pay it. If you have a beef with the government, take that up with your neighbor. The politicians do the bidding of the people, we are just schizophrenic about what our bidding is.

Oh really. The government does the bidding of the people? Do you honestly believe that? (If you do, I have a few choice items including a few bridges to sell you.)

I am guessing if you took a poll of the people on this particular issue, using honest unvarnished facts, it would look pretty much as the poll looks on this thread.

So whose bidding is the government doing?

The 'gimme' group? Along with those who feel righteous when the government is generous with other people's money?

Or the taxpayers and the unemployed and all responsible citizens who see the deficits growing by trillions, the value of the American dollar dramatically declining, our debts to people who don't have our best interests at heart increasing to alarming proportions, and the unemployed and struggling enterprises who see the government doing little or nothing to put the economy back on track?

I can guarantee you the government is not doing the bidding of the second group.

 

[shintao]

I selected "Other..." mostly because I believe that there are times when the government needs to be generous too the needy. However, in this case, I do not believe the internet is a necessity and I do not believe that the citizens of the U.S. should be forced to supply internet connections to the poor.

Immie

Its already happening. We have been providing it for several years now to the "poor" to improve their lives. So far i see on results.

And you wonder why they stay bums sucking off the government teet!

San Francisco Public Housing Gets Free Wi-Fi CBS San Francisco- News, Sports, Weather, Traffic and the Best of SF




Do the math here folks. Thats more then 14k per unit they are spending on FREE wifi. Lets say that again 14 thousand dollars on each unit of public housing to provide FREE wifi.

Yep, a lot of cash because people in SF actually have to make a living to stay there. It also included broad band, and I suppose the wiring for all of this was was quite expensive.

Ain't it great what a socialist government can do, that private enterprise could never handle or consider doing. Tsk!.

 

[hortysir]

I selected "Other..." mostly because I believe that there are times when the government needs to be generous too the needy. However, in this case, I do not believe the internet is a necessity and I do not believe that the citizens of the U.S. should be forced to supply internet connections to the poor.

Immie

Its already happening. We have been providing it for several years now to the "poor" to improve their lives. So far i see on results.

And you wonder why they stay bums sucking off the government teet!

San Francisco Public Housing Gets Free Wi-Fi CBS San Francisco- News, Sports, Weather, Traffic and the Best of SF




Do the math here folks. Thats more then 14k per unit they are spending on FREE wifi. Lets say that again 14 thousand dollars on each unit of public housing to provide FREE wifi.

Yep, a lot of cash because people in SF actually have to make a living to stay there. It also included broad band, and I suppose the wiring for all of this was was quite expensive.

Ain't it great what a socialist government can do, that private enterprise could never handle or consider doing. Tsk!.

At a loss, idiot.
They're providing these services AT A LOSS.

In what world is it okay to operate one's government at a loss?

Why are you excited to see our nation fail?

 

[snjmom]

I am guessing if you took a poll of the people on this particular issue, using honest unvarnished facts, it would look pretty much as the poll looks on this thread.

I think you vastly underestimate the distribution of income levels in our country vs those represented on the internet.

I guarantee you if you asked every american if they would like the government to provide free wireless services and basic desktops for 125.00 in every household, it would be a landslide. Maybe even better than a chicken in every pot.

 

[shintao]

Wrong. This is a responsibility of government they are required to provide for the people. Not a "service' to sell. I cannot 'opt out' or 'not purchase' this service, therefore it cannot be said to have been sold for profit.

The people institute governments in order to provide these services for which they provide the personnel and the tax funding. You may opt out and not purchase this service by relinquishing your membership in the group that composes the pool of potential candidates to provide said government. We the people have demanded more, yet refused to pay it. If you have a beef with the government, take that up with your neighbor. The politicians do the bidding of the people, we are just schizophrenic about what our bidding is.

Oh really. The government does the bidding of the people? Do you honestly believe that? (If you do, I have a few choice items including a few bridges to sell you.)

I am guessing if you took a poll of the people on this particular issue, using honest unvarnished facts, it would look pretty much as the poll looks on this thread.

So whose bidding is the government doing?

The 'gimme' group? Along with those who feel righteous when the government is generous with other people's money?

Or the taxpayers and the unemployed and all responsible citizens who see the deficits growing by trillions, the value of the American dollar dramatically declining, our debts to people who don't have our best interests at heart increasing to alarming proportions, and the unemployed and struggling enterprises who see the government doing little or nothing to put the economy back on track?

I can guarantee you the government is not doing the bidding of the second group.

Yes, terrible how the rich drove you into debt, the dollar decline, the trillions of dollars wasted, the unemployed lost it all. Simply terrible. Someday you will take control of your government and use it responsibly, but alas, that won't be anytime soon.

 

[thereisnospoon]

How much is this program costing the individual taxpayer?

doesn't matter. Producers paying for their own AND for poor people to get HSI free of charge.
That's bullshit.
Next thing government will tax us extra so these people can have free cell phone usage.
I am sick and tired of busting my ass to buy the things I want and need only to see do-gooder liberal politicians take even more of my hard earned coin and hand it to those who refuse to produce for themsleves.
Why does a person who lives in taxpayer subsidized housing, lives off the public dole and more than likely CAN work but the system allows them to no work, need with high speed internet access?. Let them use dial-up.. They can get that free through Net Zero.
This is a terrible misuse of taxpayer resources.
Florida may be gaining population, but it is not gaining population of people who are looking to open new businesses and those looking for a prosperous economy. Those people are leaving Florida. The taxes keep rising and the governments keep demanding more from property owners. The real estate market is in a shambles. No one or almost no one can sell a home. The salary structure sucks.....And now this.
Florida.....Saw it off, let it float to Cuba and call it a day.