It's a good thing we don't have to worry about pesky little things like Social Security and feeding the hungry anymore....
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
I suppose I could see a somewhat decent argument in that the government is forcing a new standard in what has become a fairly ubiquitous communication technology and so it should help the affected populace access the new standard.
All the same, that's a heck of a lot of money for the government to spend to pay for people to access TV. There are better places for that money.
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
There's enough pork there to send all of Israel to hell.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
I haven't read the article; I have attended Congressional hearings discussing the issue. One of the rationales that's often raised is that the TV is the de facto emergency communication technology in this country, the method by which the government can deliver homeland security alerts to the citizens. Thus having as many citizens as possible able to access the network is seen as a public good.
. . .of course, I don't own a TV in the first place, so I'm not sure how much I buy the argument, but it's there.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
The one time I went to Congress, they were discussing the price of peanuts. Us third-graders weren't to impressed.
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
I was watching C-span a while back and for over an hour they debated weather or not to wear flowers on their lapels in commemoration of something or another.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Slightly worried about dante's comment there...
I suppose there's a couple of ways you can try to rationalize it, but it still doesn't make a ton of sense when you look at all the other issues that need attention.
Miro, how much were peanuts going for back then? Posted by Chreese Sroup (Member # 8248) on :
You're right, if we hadn't been taxed in the first place, it'd be in our pockets where it belongs "There are better places for that money."
I personally think the government should be far less socialist. Let private corporations, religious organizations and the general public help those in need without government regulation.
And, if we had less money taken from us, it would help every market out by adding more cash to the markets themselves.
Free markets tend to take care of themselves.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Frankly, I think a MUCH more important issue when it comes to TV legislation is the availability of CableCard technology and tuners for PCs. And of course Congress hasn't ruled on that one, because none of them know what it is. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
*facepalm*
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
smitty - No clue. All I remember is my teacher explaining that though it may seem petty to us, the price of peanuts is very important to the people who grow them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If it's for emergency purposes, change it from a $50 television voucher to a $10 clock radio voucher. Walmart, Walgreens, all those places sell them for that cheap.
Get your emergencies for cheaper, and wake up on time for work more often, kills two birds with one stone.
Posted by Laitment (Member # 1508) on :
Why bother dealing with money at all, when we could just deliver to those who are in need?
I think that we should scrap the concept of money in general, and switch to an anarcho-communist government.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
But if they didn't give everyone digital TV's, who would want to re-elect them?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)