Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 06-10-2013, 10:59 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,135,461 times
Reputation: 9383

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Draper View Post
So why are you commenting on the thread??

The thread is about conservatives who complain about government phones during the Obama years but not during the Bush or Reagan years.
Its the recipiants of the phones "thanking" obama for giving them phones.. If you dont want people complaining about the spending, then you need to get the people to stop crediting him for doing something he didnt do.

 
Old 06-10-2013, 11:01 AM
 
8,391 posts, read 6,300,068 times
Reputation: 2314
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Yes we are all committing fraud because we're supposed to declare that purchase and pay the tax.
What world do you think we live in here ?
Alright then if we are all committing fraud why does it matter if these people committing fraud? Why the obsession about their fraud? Are you calling and demanding that all Americans who buy things online and who didn't declare should lead to more oversight by the IRS of American taxes?
 
Old 06-10-2013, 11:02 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,135,461 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73 View Post
Alright then if we are all committing fraud why does it matter if these people committing fraud? Why the obsession about their fraud? Are you calling and demanding that all Americans who buy things online and who didn't declare should lead to more oversight by the IRS of American taxes?
I'm pretty sure Democrats are trying to reduce fraud taking place by those avoiding online sales taxes.. Why arent THEY concerned with the fraud taking place in regards to phones?
 
Old 06-10-2013, 11:05 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,519,997 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73 View Post
Alright then if we are all committing fraud why does it matter if these people committing fraud? Why the obsession about their fraud? Are you calling and demanding that all Americans who buy things online and who didn't declare should lead to more oversight by the IRS of American taxes?
So you're quite content to never speak out.
Let everyone get whatever they want at whatever cost to taxpayers ?

And the FedGov saw that people weren't paying internet taxes and have moved forward to rectify that.
States were doing it one by one over time.

The government moves slow to catch up with technology.
But they eventually get there.
 
Old 06-10-2013, 11:13 AM
 
8,391 posts, read 6,300,068 times
Reputation: 2314
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
small program? We are spending 1% of the federal spending on PHONES.. That doesnt strike you as odd?
That is a lie of epic proportions. The federal budget is 3.5trillion. This program cost 2.2 billion. Basic math says that is not close to 1% of the budget. 1% of the federal budget would be 35billion. Damn you really suck at math.

Do better
 
Old 06-10-2013, 11:21 AM
 
8,391 posts, read 6,300,068 times
Reputation: 2314
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
So you're quite content to never speak out.
Let everyone get whatever they want at whatever cost to taxpayers ?

And the FedGov saw that people weren't paying internet taxes and have moved forward to rectify that.
States were doing it one by one over time.

The government moves slow to catch up with technology.
But they eventually get there.
I would expand the program. So I don't see those people as comitting fraud just as I don't see Americans who don't know that they are supposed to not declaring internet purchases on their taxes as fraud, but YOU do, so that presents you with some questions to answer.

You didn't' answer my question.
If one is concerned about fraud then what would rate more in terms of cost to the government? 9% of people on a small federal program that cost $10 per person or massive fraud my a majority of American denying the government money that dwarfed that program many, many times over?

What about corporate tax fraud? What about the waste of the military spending, again these things dwarf this little program, why aren't conservatives outraged about that spending?
 
Old 06-10-2013, 11:23 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,519,997 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73 View Post
I would expand the program. So I don't see those people as comitting fraud just as I don't see Americans who don't know that they are supposed to not declaring internet purchases on their taxes as fraud, but YOU do, so that presents you with some questions to answer.

You didn't' answer my question.
If one is concerned about fraud then what would rate more in terms of cost to the government? 9% of people on a small federal program that cost $10 per person or massive fraud my a majority of American denying the government money that dwarfed that program many, many times over?

What about corporate tax fraud? What about the waste of the military spending, again these things dwarf this little program, why aren't conservatives outraged about that spending?
Start a new thread about your topics.
This is about Lifeline during Reagan's administration.
 
Old 06-10-2013, 11:27 AM
 
12,282 posts, read 13,245,912 times
Reputation: 4985
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow View Post
Conservatives complain about it because it was started as a program to help people truly in need and under Obama it has blossomed into a huge waste of tax payer dollars going to people who don't actually need it.
Where is there proof of that? There were scammers from the beginning.
 
Old 06-10-2013, 11:33 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,519,997 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versatile View Post
Where is there proof of that? There were scammers from the beginning.
But very few scammers since only 1 physical phone could be installed at an address.
Compare that to a program where eligibility and verification were left to the subscriber and telecom companies with no oversight that it was being followed.

It was the technology that lead itself to increased chances of abuse without getting caught.

Change can bring unintended consequences.
Is't it right to call them out and get them fixed ?
 
Old 06-10-2013, 02:44 PM
 
4,837 posts, read 4,169,687 times
Reputation: 1848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaten_Drinker View Post
They were not cell phones in 1985. They were a basic LAND LINE with a dial tone intended for people to have a number where employers could find them.

Cell phones for dead-beats are used to conduct illegal activity.
WTF? Seriously? Dude, please get a grip. People need phones, it's a fact of life. How do you think an employer is going to get hold of them? Thru your tinfoil hat?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top