Journalist/write gets three "Obama" phones rather easily

[woolfe9998]

How is that different than a sales tax?

How is the fee you pay to the DMV to get your driver's license any different from a sales tax either? You can pretty much characterize anything as a "tax" if it costs you money and it is instituted by the state. If that is your preferred term, then go ahead. It doesn't change the reality of how it operates.

 

[ivwshane]

Some clarification is in order because the difference between a taxes and fees seems to be viewed as merely semantic by some people. A fee applies to people who voluntarily utilize a particular service. For example, in court there is a fee for filing a lawsuit, which in California is now about $400. If you never file a lawsuit, you'll never pay the fee. If you file 20, you'll pay it 20 times. This isn't a tax in any reasonable sense of the word.

I think the argument is made here that since the majority of people pay for telecom service, that this feels more like a tax. Kind of like that fee charged by the DMV for your driver's license. It's something that most people end up having to pay.

In summary; yes people are playing semantics with the word "tax".

 

[SpatiallyAware]

If obama takes my money and gives it to poor and lazy people, then it is a tax.


I don't care if he does it "through" the phone company or not. That argument may work on someone who is literally incapable of critical thinking, but anyone capable of rational thought sees this as a tax.

 

[ivwshane]

If obama takes my money and gives it to poor and lazy people, then it is a tax.


I don't care if he does it "through" the phone company or not. That argument may work on someone who is literally incapable of critical thinking, but anyone capable of rational thought sees this as a tax.

Hmm...that's not what you said before.

I especially like your take on what rational thought is, quite ironic really.

 

[woolfe9998]

If obama takes my money and gives it to poor and lazy people, then it is a tax.


I don't care if he does it "through" the phone company or not. That argument may work on someone who is literally incapable of critical thinking, but anyone capable of rational thought sees this as a tax.

I won't further argue the semantics with you because it's pointless. However, I DO want to know why you continue to insist on pegging this to Obama, when the program has existed since the 1980's, the funding mechanism was a bi-partisan bill passed in 1996, and the more recent sharp increase clearly started because of the recession, which the very table that has been posted several times in thread shows. You care to explain your "critical thought" in making this connection?

 

[marvdmartian]

Sounds like fraud. I hope he is prosecuted.

Why not start with the thousands of other people who have abused it first? This guy is only trying to show how easily the program is abused, and I doubt they'll end up keeping and using the phones, long term.

 

[her209]

If obama takes my money and gives it to poor and lazy people, then it is a tax.


I don't care if he does it "through" the phone company or not. That argument may work on someone who is literally incapable of critical thinking, but anyone capable of rational thought sees this as a tax.

By your definition, any sort of money given by the government is paid for by a tax on the general populace. So can we call subsidies and credits what it truly is, welfare?

 

[SirStev0]

I love the "obamaphone" controversy.
Pretty much a bunch of neocon's with their panties in a twist because a bunch of corporations are scamming the government by handing out incredibly cheap phones to minorities.

Isn't capitalism grand?

 

[berzerker60]

Why not start with the thousands of other people who have abused it first? This guy is only trying to show how easily the program is abused, and I doubt they'll end up keeping and using the phones, long term.

Why not show that thousands of people are abusing it / have abused it?
But that might be hard! Let's just have one anecdote, and since conservatives get into an emotional froth at any convenient anecdote and ignore contrary data and statistics, we'll just assume there's a major systematic problem! Much easier!