Re: Another Government give away

[JoeRaisin <joeraisin2001@xxxxxxxxx>]

Robert L Bass wrote:
> "JoeRaisin" wrote:
>>
>> No issues with cell phones for women who are in
>> danger and may need to call 911 from anywhere.
>> Around here that's all those phones do.
>
> Frankly, I don't mind if they are willing to provide cell service at a
> major discount to people on AFDC, Medicaid, etc.  In many poor
> households phone service is simply not attainable. If the choice is
> between groceries and a phone, the phone loses out (unless someone's
> mind is really messed up).  But people need to have a way to call for
> help and if they want to use it to call a family member too, there's no
> harm.
>>

AFAIK the phones that only dial 911 that don't cost anything once
activated.  I also believe (I could have it wrong since I've only pieced
it together from things I hear while doing PM tests at a few different
women's shelters) the phone holders can put pre-paid minutes on those
phones but at the regular price - the 911 service works all the time
regardless.

To me, that is a solid program - the brunt of the cost is born by
donations and private companies, the person is provided with a necessity
(given her situation) and if she wants to expand the use of the phone
beyond what is necessary she can do so at her expense.

But we aren't talking about cell phones for scared, abused women.  We
are talking about providing cell phones to folks who can't afford cell
phones - and doing it *only* because they can't afford a cell phone.
They may have been given a land line but for the wanton wallet wenches
in DC that isn't enough.

Look, the only problem I have with any of this is the government paying
for cell phone minutes.  I understand the necessity of a land line - but
like everything the government does, they've got to find a way of making
it stupid and wasteful.  I could see it in cases where, for one reason
or another, the land line offer isn't practicable.

Even then, TracFone was providing the minutes along with the phones but
for some reason that has offended the wastrels in Washington.

The sole purpose of big government, is to make itself needed so folks
won't insist on a smaller government.  People seem to forget that every
single bit of power usurped by the feds during one administration, will
still be there when the next one comes along.

The folks who screamed the loudest when the patriot act was passed have
become oddly silent even though the most heinous provisions are still in
effect.  On the other hand, many of those who applauded it when it was
passed have begun to get worried about the power it gives DC.

Politics of personality puts the focus on the wrong thing.  We need to
be concerned with the laws that are being (have been) passed and focus
on the ins and outs of those rather than the clowns who enact/enforce
them.  A well written law can help compensate for chuckleheads being in
power (since that's pretty much the only ones who survive - another
reason for term limits).


>> I always considered charity and common decency
>> to be synonymous.
>
> Well said.
>

Point being, if the shop owner on the corner sees a family in trouble
and gives them a loaf of bread, that's charity.  When his door is kicked
in by a band of (federal) thugs who force him to give the family a loaf
of bread, it's not.

I'm all for 'safety nets' but view them as just that.

The high wire performers at the circus have a safety net, but it's only
used when needed and then for only as long as it's needed - they get off
of them on pretty quick order and start climbing back up the ladder.
They don't build their houses on them.

The safety net is not meant to be a permanent (and perhaps only) support
structure.

Eons ago, when I was just a lad (during the Carter "malaise"), I was
watching TV at my grandmother's house and it was some Sunday morning
news show.  There was a woman complaining about the level of
compensation she was getting on welfare.

She told how her Grandmother raised her kids (I forget how many) on
welfare, her mother raised her and her three siblings (again - I forget
how many) on welfare but that she only had two kids and couldn't make
ends meet on welfare.

The only thing I got out of that as a kid was that this woman's family
hadn't worked or contributed anything to society for three generations.