stokes
.338 Win Mag
They are poor because being poor pays well, they choose to be leeches."why are these people poor?"
They are poor because being poor pays well, they choose to be leeches."why are these people poor?"
Not for long. The fix is already in for the providers to raise your and my rates to cover the 75% discount the privileged class gets. So the system suckered will be getting what you get for 1/5 of the price or less.I pay $60 per month for internet access in my house. The system-suckers will now get what I get for 1/4 of the price.
Why should a private business be required to run and maintain 30 miles of coaxial just because you decided to live in the middle of nowhere? Even at market cost that's a massive loss, let alone a mandated $15 a month. It can easily cost over $10,000 per mile to run coaxial cable by the time you pay lawyers, right of ways, buy the cable, pay for needed machinery like bucket trucks / trenchers, worker labor, etc.
All that privacy comes with trade offs, maybe not having access to high speed data is one of them.
They are poor because being poor pays well, they choose to be leeches.
If you want less poverty, don't make it so comfortable.I don't even think the government should be providing the necessities of life, far less than this, which has nothing whatsoever to do with necessities.
Department of government controlled water, HQ: Flint MI.
And don't create it by stealing the money from everyone.If you want less poverty, don't make it so comfortable.
Hi stranger ... It's been awhile...My favorite day of the year is the paystub I get that says "you have no more FICA to pay this year." Fuckers.
Hi stranger ... It's been awhile...
100%If you want less poverty, don't make it so comfortable.
May her ship have to turn back while out at sea because of a false positive test. Let her then self isolate at port for 2 weeks.Of course they are using their stimulus for a nice cruise, not to get ahead on finances.
I have always said:That may be part of the answer, but we can't afford superficial simplistic answers anymore. It's easy to say "racism", "circumstance", or even "laziness" are the causes, but we have to go deeper(tm). We need to start asking questions such as, but not limited to:
These are some of the deep questions we need to be investigating.
- Why have our schools failed these people despite nearly unlimited money?
- What cultures of people are in poverty, and does culture have a role?
- What methods are actually effective at helping a person overcome poverty themselves?
Politicians have failed us. If politicians are too inept to lead, we shall lead. We The People need to look into these questions, and demand accountability where it is due.
In my particular case it's not 30 miles. It's less than 1 (probably about 1/3 mile). Literally the next road over has it but mine does not.
And I'd gladly (well maybe not gladly) pay the market rate.
I have always said:
1. Lack of personal responsibility.
2. Breakdown of the family unit.
I'll add another one:
3. Politicians that want to keep people on their knees, divided, broken emotionally/financially/physically and dependent.
Parenting and understanding morality and that we aren't guaranteed anything but life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Knowing where your kids are, who they are hanging out with, teaching them ethics and responsibility.I don't think there is anything I can say with absolute certainty, but it does seem like #3 is true or at least partially true from what I'm observing. If politicians really wanted to drill down and find the root cause, and expose it, of poverty... they would. The fact we haven't found it makes me think there is both power and profitability in leaving it unsolved.
Parenting and understanding morality and that we aren't guaranteed anything but life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Knowing where your kids are, who they are hanging out with, teaching them ethics and responsibility.
From an upbringing it comes down to what people VALUE. You can go into the poorest neighborhoods and find some of the nicest cars, satellite TV, the latest iPhone, etc. but they don't pay their electric bill.
The problem is that it doesn't really save your ISP much to throttle your speed unless you're one of a very small number of subscribers who use a metric crap ton of data.did FUAC specify the Data Rate and usage in this or it up to the internet provider .. you know FUAC leaves things out of things lol ..
internet provider .. 15 a month if they qualify .. ok .. you get high speed for 100 megabytes then your down to 300 baud ..
It's a good call, socialism or otherwise. Internet access is a necessity in this day and age.
At 25 Mbps, it's hardly an extravagant service being provided. I'm in favor of the law.
So, you are okay with the Government forcing a private business to charge what this Government entity says?
By the way, good to see you posting again, been a while.
Society runs on facebook, amazon, and netflix. None of these are essential.Thanks, old habits die hard .
Your question is a good one. My short answer is "yes" with some qualifications.
Here are the groups this legislation targets: "To qualify, the household must be eligible for the National School Lunch Program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP, Medicaid, the Senior Citizen Rent Increase Exemption, the Disability Rent Increase Exemption, or is a recipient of an affordability benefit from a utility."
I'm a tax payer who receives no direct benefit from any of those programs. However, I see the provision of *vital* services to all citizens as a government function. Under Covid-19 rules, we have been compelled to operate more and more via the Internet, which already played an outsized role in our lives. Someone upthread compared its importance to that of electricity when we learned to harness it. I think that's an apt comparison. Society now runs on the Internet.
The government itself creating a telco and directly providing subsidized Internet access would come at a greater cost to tax payers than the price increases consumers will see as a result of this legislation. Market forces will compel the Internet service providers to operate as efficiently as possible.
Told this story but it bares repeating here.Thanks, old habits die hard .
Your question is a good one. My short answer is "yes" with some qualifications.
Here are the groups this legislation targets: "To qualify, the household must be eligible for the National School Lunch Program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP, Medicaid, the Senior Citizen Rent Increase Exemption, the Disability Rent Increase Exemption, or is a recipient of an affordability benefit from a utility."
I'm a tax payer who receives no direct benefit from any of those programs. However, I see the provision of *vital* services to all citizens as a government function. Under Covid-19 rules, we have been compelled to operate more and more via the Internet, which already played an outsized role in our lives. Someone upthread compared its importance to that of electricity when we learned to harness it. I think that's an apt comparison. Society now runs on the Internet.
The government itself creating a telco and directly providing subsidized Internet access would come at a greater cost to tax payers than the price increases consumers will see as a result of this legislation. Market forces will compel the Internet service providers to operate as efficiently as possible.
We will have to subsidize Uber to get people there. People deserve better than public transportation.There is usually free Wi Fi at the public library.
Nobody will go for it.If only we all could have a chip implanted that could get 5g and the government could then check on, health, gunshot locations,etc., it could all be free!