[SeMissourian.com] Fair ~ 58°F  
River stage: 21.72 ft. Falling
Monday, Apr. 27, 2015
Post reply Read replies (104) More threads Create thread

Government Regulates Church Communion
Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 8:27 AM:

That should be a lesson regarding same-sex marriage. Proponents of same-sex marriage say churches will not be required to marry same-sex couples if it violates their religious beliefs, but that does not mean they won't use the power of government to try to force them to alter those beliefs, as Mr. Obama is doing with the contraception issue.



Replies

That should be a lesson regarding same-sex marriage. Proponents of same-sex marriage say churches will not be required to marry same-sex couples if it violates their religious beliefs, but that does not mean they won't use the power of government to try to force them to alter those beliefs, as Mr. Obama is doing with the contraception issue.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 8:27 AM

Overstretch much.

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 8:53 AM

We in the US have been regulating communion for a long time. Look at our current regulations on how and when certain Native American religions can legally take their sacraments.

-- Posted by Nil on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 9:19 AM

"One thing which makes me leery of Christianity , too many rules with no explainations , just take it as faith ."

Isn't that true of any religion? I think that's why they call them 'faiths'.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 9:22 AM

"Overstretch much."

Not at all. There was a time that people would have laughed at the idea that the government would require Churches to pay for their employee's contraceptives and abortifacients.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 9:23 AM

Overstretch much. -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 8:53 AM

Underestimate much? We had a heavy discussion on these threads re: the USDA guidelines on eating potatoes in school lunches. Also known as the "great potato war". You said "overstretch much" at the time and there was no slippery slope - and that Michelle Obama was doing nothing to interfere with kids lunches.

Now the USDA has mandated new kids lunchroom policies from Michelle Obama's direction. Kids are throwing their entire lunches away rather than eat the garbage that the FEDERAL government is requiring. Kids lunches are being searched and thin, healthy kids are being forced to eat the garbage that obese kids won't even eat.

And don't get me started on liberal politicians (NY, CA, etc.) and their bans on soft-drinks at PUBLIC businesses. If you can't see the liberal democrat trend here it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 9:24 AM

-- Posted by Spaniard on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 9:32 AM

You're still in denial Spaniard.

Next time you fly in from Spain stop in to a 7-11 in NY City and ask for a large coke. They'll laugh at you. Or take your great-great grandchild to a McDonalds in San Francisco and ask for a "Happy Meal".

I guess since they still allow a Coke in a spit cup we still have rights don't we? That's why your positions are not taken seriously. In spite of clear liberal democrat bans on food and soft drinks you are dismissive and provide no argument - just name calling. It makes you look weak.

Now, are Happy Meals and large soft drinks banned? Eat crow.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 9:43 AM

No - you responded "World Nut Daily" to a comment about growing government involvement (clearly over your head).

And apparently you don't have kids in school that are now required to eat a tasteless meal.

As I *always* say with liberals it's "ME" first. The pattern is so obvious.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 9:51 AM

"Overstretch much."

Not at all. There was a time that people would have laughed at the idea that the government would require Churches to pay for their employee's contraceptives and abortifacients.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 9:23 A

Its still a huge leap.

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 9:54 AM

Underestimate much? We had a heavy discussion on these threads re: the USDA guidelines on eating potatoes in school lunches. Also known as the "great potato war". You said "overstretch much" at the time and there was no slippery slope - and that Michelle Obama was doing nothing to interfere with kids lunches.

Now the USDA has mandated new kids lunchroom policies from Michelle Obama's direction. Kids are throwing their entire lunches away rather than eat the garbage that the FEDERAL government is requiring. Kids lunches are being searched and thin, healthy kids are being forced to eat the garbage that obese kids won't even eat.

And don't get me started on liberal politicians (NY, CA, etc.) and their bans on soft-drinks at PUBLIC businesses. If you can't see the liberal democrat trend here it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 9:24 AM

I read some of that thread.

It seemed people had hard time differentiating between federal and state government.

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 9:56 AM

"Many churches still opposed interracial marriage in the years after Loving v. VA. They were never forced to perform such marriages. And they still aren't today."

It's happening overseas.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18405318

And it's being eyed here:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/proposed...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ma-catho...

http://catholiclane.com/gay-marriage-com...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 10:16 AM

You bring up soda rules in NYC. I don't drink soda and I cannot vote in NYC as I don't live there. -- Posted by Spaniard on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 9:49 AM

You can't walk away or disown what is happening across the country by the very same people you vote for. Liberal democrats are imposing rules all over the country that restrict food (in public restaurants and in schools) and the fact that you don't have to abide by them *here* is not substitution for your passion and desire to elect liberal democrats at all cost.

You dump anyone who disagrees with you into a single category yet run from the very people you would like to elect. How is that?

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 10:20 AM

Obama stuck his nose in with the edict that birth control and abortion services must be a part of a church's insurance plan. What plantet have you been on for the past 6 months?

-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 10:12 AM

So church members no longer have the choice?

But I am just busting your chops a bit. I think churches should have the ability to not provide birth control.

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 10:23 AM

Give it up folks - only wheels and dug know the truth. It's over the rest of our heads.

Thank you wheels and dug for taking care of the rest of us. We can't read or think for ourselves and we need you to tell us what is what. You know the TRUTH and the rest of us just have OPINIONS and we're not supposed to express them.

-- Posted by Username1 on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 10:23 AM

You bring up soda rules in NYC. I don't drink soda and I cannot vote in NYC as I don't live there. -- Posted by Spaniard on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 9:49 AM

You can't walk away or disown what is happening across the country by the very same people you vote for. Liberal democrats are imposing rules all over the country that restrict food (in public restaurants and in schools) and the fact that you don't have to abide by them *here* is not substitution for your passion and desire to elect liberal democrats at all cost.

You dump anyone who disagrees with you into a single category yet run from the very people you would like to elect. How is that?

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 10:20 A

Dug,

You and I disagree 100% with this.

While I disagree with New York's decision, I am fine with them having the ability to make this decision.

How is it you are arguing for more local control, yet complain when they screw it up. Unfortuantly you have to take the good with the bad.

So are you not for local control?

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 10:25 AM

How is it you are arguing for more local control -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 10:25 AM

No one ever said we don't need government. If you can't see the difference between government control over government entities VS. government control over a private entity (McDonalds, 7-11 large sodas, etc) then there's no need to discuss this further.

Cut and paste where I argued for more "local control" over private entities and then we can talk.

You see, schools are government funded primarily by LOCAL taxes, have LOCAL boards and understand LOCAL issues. 7-11, McDonalds, and the Catholic church are PRIVATE entities where the government (local or otherwise) has little to no business regulating things like soda, happy meals and gay marriage.

Spaniard supports all of these regulations through his far-left ideology yet runs from these policies when presented with them. Which is it Spaniard - are you in or are you out?

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 10:47 AM

Using the logic of letting anyone participate in communion, one could say any nonmember could take a seat in Parliament.

-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 10:50 AM

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 10:47 AM

Agree.

Except the school lunch program is federally funded.

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 10:54 AM

"Washington's Law specifically excludes clergy..."

What he says is that the inclusion of gay marriage under the concept of 'discrimination' opens the door for further encroachments, and will likely result in the eventual erasure of that exemption. This would be not unlike the HHS mandate that retains a religious exemption but defines religion so narrowly that few, if any, churches will fall under the exemption.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 1:35 PM

"Not to mention that First Amendment would also protect churches and clergy from being forced to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies."

Just like it protects them from having to provide contraceptives?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 1:53 PM

Spaniard, Spaniard, Spaniard.

You have an ideology that supports bigger government and government solutions. I could cut and paste about 100 of your comments that support this. So when the results of your ideology create problems - aka big government - you run from it. 2 quick questions:

1-Do you believe in government making decisions on Catholic insurance policies, 7-11 Big Gulps and San Francisco Happy Meals?

2-If not, then why do you vote and support politicians who believe such things - big, liberal democrats???

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 2:17 PM

Spaniard, Spaniard, Spaniard.

You have an ideology that supports bigger government and government solutions. I could cut and paste about 100 of your comments that support this. So when the results of your ideology create problems - aka big government - you run from it. 2 quick questions:

1-Do you believe in government making decisions on Catholic insurance policies, 7-11 Big Gulps and San Francisco Happy Meals?

2-If not, then why do you vote and support politicians who believe such things - big, liberal democrats???

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 2:17 PM

But that could also be flipped.

Southern states said black kids and white kids couldn't go to school together. Should the federal government not stepped in?

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 2:20 PM

Southern states said black kids and white kids couldn't go to school together. Should the federal government not stepped in? -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 2:20 PM

Yes it should - and those southerners would be democrats. Hmm.....

You see, some things are unconstitutional - like "separate but equal". That is clearly unconstitutional.

Show me where in the constitution I can force a religion to pay for contraception, limit by soda size and keep my kids from getting happy meals???

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 2:25 PM

Yes it should - and those southerners would be democrats. Hmm.....

You see, some things are unconstitutional - like "separate but equal". That is clearly unconstitutional.

Show me where in the constitution I can force a religion to pay for contraception, limit by soda size and keep my kids from getting happy meals???

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 2:25 PM

Show me where the federal government is limiting Soda.

Also, what about the government punishing Christian Scientist? Is that not making them violate their religion? Also, their taxes are being used to support programs that are against their ideology.

Where is the line drawn?

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 2:40 PM

At this point of time , I am not so sure liberals are the only ones who support big Government .

The Patriot Act was an expansion of Government as never seen before , except maybe the jack-*** Abe Lincoln , several US Consitution rights were taken away under this Act .

-- Posted by .Rick. on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 2:29 PM

Agree.

Both parties are guilty, but yet only want to point the finger at the other parties and never at themselves.

Obamaphones...were actually a program created under Reagan. Yet, people call them Obamaphones? Why? Because they obviously do not feel good enough for their own party they make up (or choose to beleive) innacurate facts about the opposing party.

And democrats are just as bad.

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 2:45 PM

"Obamaphones...were actually a program created under Reagan. Yet, people call them Obamaphones? Why? Because they obviously do not feel good enough for their own party they make up (or choose to beleive) innacurate facts about the opposing party."

That's not true. While the Lifeline programme was created under Ronaldus Maximus, it merely provided assistance with the cost of land-line telephone installlation and monthly billing. It did not give away telephones, cell or land-based, during the Reagan years.

The programme was modified in 2008 include assistance with cell phone bills, but did not provide cell phones as part of the programme.

In 2009, one of the cell-phone companies participating in the programme, Tracfone, began offering free cell phones as part of their qualifying package. Thus, the free phones did originate under the Obama administration, not that of any of his predecessors, although Tracfone was the first provider to sign on in 2008.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:01 PM

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:01 PM

Actually, It is true.

Its the same program. Technology just went wireless and the program, unfortunately, keeps up with technology.

And all companies give away cellphones, not the government. Heck, every cellphone company will happily give you a free phone for your business.

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:12 PM

Show me where the federal government is limiting Soda. - Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 2:40 PM

Show me where the federal government kept black kids and white kids in separate LOCAL schools? I believe that would be state governments. And the federal government moved in to enforce the constitutional rights to equal protection under the law.

I'll show you where the federal government is limiting potatoes - in local, public schools.

The thing that I think is missing on you is - it doesn't matter if it's federal, state or local. Depriving people of their freedom - forced purchase of insurance/fines, forced coverage of contraception despite religious objection, forced limits on soft drinks, forced prohibition of food selection at McDonalds or how many potatoes Johnny can eat in a week - it's all liberal, big government intervention. Federal, state or local.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:12 PM

Obamaphones

Have you ever wondered why the Government has not made the public aware of Obamaphones thru the Main Stream Media ? It seems to be on the down low .

I knew the idea of Obamaphones were not his idea but he was the first President who decided to release them to the public .

My ex sister-in-law has one incase her regular cell-phone goes out .

What a lowly *****....

-- Posted by .Rick. on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 2:53 PM

Actually, the entire program is independent of Obama.

They are called obamaphones because of urbanlegend and medial outlets who report urban legend as news.

Its really a broader example of how governemtn intends to do a good thing, then exploited by bigbuisness.

The program was not designed to provide free cell phones. It was a byproduct of a deregulation and designed to provide low income families a link to the emerging 911 service and a vital link to expanding communication.

The program was on the books for a while. Then a couple of cell phone companies saw an opportunity,

and applied to the receive reimbursement like the big phone companies due. Then another company calculated what the actual usage would be, and gave out free phones to get people to sign up for the program...Then bill the government for monthly air time.

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:17 PM

The thing that I think is missing on you is - it doesn't matter if it's federal, state or local. Depriving people of their freedom - forced purchase of insurance/fines, forced coverage of contraception despite religious objection, forced limits on soft drinks, forced prohibition of food selection at McDonalds or how many potatoes Johnny can eat in a week - it's all liberal, big government intervention. Federal, state or local.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:12 PM

And I am not disagreeing with that.

But not a simple as rolling into a single ball and labeling "liberal". This loss of freedom is contributing by both parties.

Heck, look at the TSA and patriot act, yet you call foundain soda's "liberal" intrusion. And that is simply towns making those choices.

Until we demand real change from our officials, this will keep occurring. Instead of the bickering and finger pointing, lets rally behind a deregulating candidate. I know my vote went that way this year.

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:22 PM

"And all companies give away cellphones, not the government. Heck, every cellphone company will happily give you a free phone for your business."

The 'Obamaphone' is the cell phone given away as part of the programme. There was no 'Bushphone' because the programme did not provide free phones when he was President. Nor was there a 'Clintonphone, a Bushphone I, or a Reaganphone.

Yes, my phone company 'gave' me a free phone in exchange for a long-term contract, which is paid for with my money. If I cancel my service before the contract period is ended, I am obligated to pay for the phone, or return it. After I have fulfilled the contractual obligation, I am the owner of the phone free and clear, and they generally offer me specials to upgrade or replace that unit (in exchange for a long-term extension to my contract).

Individual citizens may not obligate the government to long-term contracts, though they can obligate themselves while signing up for government assistance to cover the cost of their contract. I do not know the terms of the contract, should the government decide to terminate the programme, or any particular individual's participation therein. I would guess that some method of recoupment exists for Tracfone to recover the phone or the cost of it.

Whatever arrangement Tracfone has obtained to justify the giving away of phones, it did not exist under prior administrations.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:23 PM

They are called "Obamaphones" because in 2008 - the year before Obama took office - the cost of the program was $772 Million. In less than 4 years under Obama it is now $1.6 Billion - more than double. And many of the subscribers have private cell phones with other companies.

And one of Obama's top donors gets a huge amount of the new subscribers.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:24 PM

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:22 PM

The point is people have a belief system and they embrace it and vote. Spaniard is a big liberal democrat. He supports - with his posts - and votes for liberals yet when food bans come into play he says "it's not in my back yard" yet he would vote for someone who would impose such ridiculous rules.

Answer this: Is NY a conservative bastion? Is San Francisco a conservative bastion? Is Michelle "no potatoes" Obama a conservative person? I don't support liberal republicans either so go ahead and name some of them. My point is that liberal elitists not only believe they know what's best for you but they pass laws to enforce their beliefs on you.

By the way I'm just curious - what part of the patriot act in any way possible has denied you a freedom? Has LIMITED or forced you to stop something you were doing the day before it was passed? Please be specific.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:29 PM

"They are called obamaphones because of urbanlegend and medial outlets who report urban legend as news."

Actually, they are called 'Obamaphones' because the marketing strategy employed by www.freegovernmentcellphones.net and other websites showed a photo of Mr. Obama next to a caption that said "President Obama is giving away cell phones. Sign up for yours."

They now have photos of stock photos of people holding cell phones telling people to sign up today.

These ads were common on facebook and other sites. A similar tactic is used by refinance companies using captions such as "Obama wants you to refinance your home".

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:30 PM

"And all companies give away cellphones, not the government. Heck, every cellphone company will happily give you a free phone for your business."

The 'Obamaphone' is the cell phone given away as part of the programme. There was no 'Bushphone' because the programme did not provide free phones when he was President. Nor was there a 'Clintonphone, a Bushphone I, or a Reaganphone.

Yes, my phone company 'gave' me a free phone in exchange for a long-term contract, which is paid for with my money. If I cancel my service before the contract period is ended, I am obligated to pay for the phone, or return it. After I have fulfilled the contractual obligation, I am the owner of the phone free and clear, and they generally offer me specials to upgrade or replace that unit (in exchange for a long-term extension to my contract).

Individual citizens may not obligate the government to long-term contracts, though they can obligate themselves while signing up for government assistance to cover the cost of their contract. I do not know the terms of the contract, should the government decide to terminate the programme, or any particular individual's participation therein. I would guess that some method of recoupment exists for Tracfone to recover the phone or the cost of it.

Whatever arrangement Tracfone has obtained to justify the giving away of phones, it did not exist under prior administrations.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:23 PM

Yes, but the FCC chair when the law was changed served under bush.

Also, you don't need to sign a contract to get free phones. There are free-pay-as-you go phones as well.

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:31 PM

They are called "Obamaphones" because in 2008 - the year before Obama took office - the cost of the program was $772 Million. In less than 4 years under Obama it is now $1.6 Billion - more than double. And many of the subscribers have private cell phones with other companies.

And one of Obama's top donors gets a huge amount of the new subscribers.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:24 PM

And what about the programs put in place that severly curtailed the fraud that drove up the cost. And estimated $400 million a year savings?

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:32 PM

I don't know but going from $772 Million to $1.6 Billion is not $400 Million in savings.

And, as Shapley pointed out, the Obama administration has marketed the "free phones" for the past 3 years. If you can't see that as vote buying then I don't know what I can say.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:34 PM

"Yes, but the FCC chair when the law was changed served under bush."

So? That doesn't change the fact that giving away free phones began in 2009 under Mr. Obama.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:37 PM

"And, as Shapley pointed out, the Obama administration has marketed the "free phones" for the past 3 years."

To be fair, I don't think that website is government-affiliated. I would also guess the government has stepped in and requested or demanded that they stop using Mr. Obama's image in their ads, as an explanation of why the image has disappeared from the ads.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:41 PM

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:22 PM

The point is people have a belief system and they embrace it and vote. Spaniard is a big liberal democrat. He supports - with his posts - and votes for liberals yet when food bans come into play he says "it's not in my back yard" yet he would vote for someone who would impose such ridiculous rules.

Answer this: Is NY a conservative bastion? Is San Francisco a conservative bastion? Is Michelle "no potatoes" Obama a conservative person? I don't support liberal republicans either so go ahead and name some of them. My point is that liberal elitists not only believe they know what's best for you but they pass laws to enforce their beliefs on you.

By the way I'm just curious - what part of the patriot act in any way possible has denied you a freedom? Has LIMITED or forced you to stop something you were doing the day before it was passed? Please be specific.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:29 PM

No, the point is both parties are guilty. I can't speak for Spaniard, but the any issues in NY and California are not his back yard. So he is right. But you want to incorrectly attribute them to Obama.

And sorry, I do fear the suspension of Habeas corpus over banning 40oz. sodas.

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:42 PM

I don't know but going from $772 Million to $1.6 Billion is not $400 Million in savings.

And, as Shapley pointed out, the Obama administration has marketed the "free phones" for the past 3 years. If you can't see that as vote buying then I don't know what I can say.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:34 PM

Becasue a bi-partisan committee found the program full of fraud and tighten the purse strings.

If you are going to knock the program for overspending, at least credit them for the changes they are making.

And Dug, the cell phone companies marketed the phone, not Obama.

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:46 PM

So? That doesn't change the fact that giving away free phones began in 2009 under Mr. Obama.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:37 P

So...A reagan program, law changed under a bush apointee..

And you say 'so what', its still Obama's fault?

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:47 PM

"Actually, the entire program is independent of Obama.

They are called obamaphones because of urbanlegend and medial outlets who report urban legend as news."

No . It is called obamaphones because he promoted the concept althought the concept was not his .

Of course advancing tech changes information data faster and faster , this does not mean Obama did not take advantage of it .

-- Posted by .Rick. on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:43 PM

He didn't promote them.

And I shouldn't say independent of him becasue he could have stopped it.

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:49 PM

"And you say 'so what', its still Obama's fault?"

I never said it was Obama's fault. I said the phone giveaway began on his watch, hence it became known as the 'Obamaphone'.

As others pointed out, participation in the programme was stable until 2009, when participation took off. What caused participation in a 24 year old programme to double in the last three years?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:58 PM

"And Dug, the cell phone companies marketed the phone, not Obama."

They didn't market it for 24 years. Why suddenly, in 2009, did they start?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 4:00 PM

"And you say 'so what', its still Obama's fault?"

I never said it was Obama's fault. I said the phone giveaway began on his watch, hence it became known as the 'Obamaphone'.

As others pointed out, participation in the programme was stable until 2009, when participation took off. What caused participation in a 24 year old programme to double in the last three years?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:58 PM

Capitalism.

Pretty much one phone company was responsible.

They petitioned to receive the same funding as land line companies. Got the go-head, and actually marketed the program. They did not care about fraud, nor did they really care about who deserved them. They left that up to the federal government.

What is left out is that it did not take the government long to close some of those loopholes.

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 4:12 PM

They didn't market it for 24 years. Why suddenly, in 2009, did they start?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 4:00 PM

Two different industries.

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 4:13 PM

"What is left out is that it did not take the government long to close some of those loopholes."

Apparently, not enough. The cost is still double what it was four years ago, the cost it which it held constistently stable for most of its 24 years. It sounds as if prior administations had been keeping the fraud in check prior to the shift.

"Two different industries."

In other words, it's not the same programme that was created when Ronaldus Maximus was president.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 4:21 PM

"What is left out is that it did not take the government long to close some of those loopholes."

Apparently, not enough. The cost is still double what it was four years ago, the cost it which it held constistently stable for most of its 24 years. It sounds as if prior administations had been keeping the fraud in check prior to the shift.

"Two different industries."

In other words, it's not the same programme that was created when Ronaldus Maximus was president.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 4:21 PM

Actually, it is the same program. People now use Cell phones instead of land lines.

Or are you saying you are happy with the government paying for people's land line?

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 4:25 PM

I can't speak for Spaniard, but the any issues in NY and California are not his back yard. So he is right. But you want to incorrectly attribute them to Obama. -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:42 PM

Actually, you did get into this conversation because you did speak for Spaniard. I was conversing with Spaniard when you interjected yourself into our discussion. That's OK, that's what public forums are for. But I don't think it's correct to say you can't speak for him when you answered my question to him.

If you support liberal politics that put bans in affect then you support the bans. Spaniard said Bush should have been impeached because he was warned about 9/11. Then he said if Obama knew about Benghazi ahead of time he should be impeached. After we found out Obama was warned weeks and days before the attack Spaniard runs. Whether or not Spaniard is correct in supporting bans on products that aren't in his "back yard" is a matter of opinion. I say a typical liberal elitist always supports bans on things that don't affect them - Spaniard is wrong.

================

"But you want to incorrectly attribute them to Obama."

This is where you and I have always gotten into trouble - where, ANYWHERE, did I say that NY and CA issues are Obama's fault? Where? Please cut and paste that. I didn't. The only person that attributed the soft drink and happy meal prohibition to Obama was you - not me.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 4:31 PM

This is where you and I have always gotten into trouble - where, ANYWHERE, did I say that NY and CA issues are Obama's fault? Where? Please cut and paste that. I didn't. The only person that attributed the soft drink and happy meal prohibition to Obama was you - not me.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 4:31 PM

And those are problems in Cauliforna and New York. What do they have to do with Us?

And why throw in Obama when discussing those?

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 4:36 PM

"Actually, it is the same program. People now use Cell phones instead of land lines."

But cell phones were never a part of the programme under Ronaldus Maximus.

The "Universal Service Fee" (known as the Al Gore Tax) was enacted in 1996. This is the tax that pays for the programme. Prior to that, the programme was funded by waiving the Subscriber Line Charge of $3.50 for qualified users, with the state providing the remainder. This was a major change to the programme, as it shifted the funding to an actual tax on phone users.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 4:39 PM

"Or are you saying you are happy with the government paying for people's land line?"

The original programme did not pay for the land line, but merely reduced the monthly bill. I think my phone bill, independent of phone calls, was $13 per month in 1986. The programme would have reduced that to about $6, if I read the documents correctly. Nor did the $7 reduction come from the federal government, as noted.

While it is wrong to say it 'comes from the federal government' in one sense today, the fact is it is paid for by federally-imposed taxes (though they call it a 'fee' rather than a 'tax'), and is drawn from a federally-administerd fund. While the USAC that administers the fund is technically independent, it was created by and is overseen by the FCC.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 4:46 PM

And why throw in Obama when discussing those? -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 4:36 PM

Look, lumbrg, YOU attributed NY and CA to Obama. I never said Obama had anything to do with them. Get it? Or is this too hard for you?

California and New York have nothing to do with "me" because I don't support liberal elite democrats that impose these things. Do you? Spaniard does and that's why I was speaking to Spaniard and not you.

Now talk about something you're struggling with. The FEDERAL USDA guidelines that prevent students from eating potatoes as they wish that Michelle Obama pushed and the Obama administration - yes "Obama" - put into affect.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 4:46 PM

"Actually, it is the same program. People now use Cell phones instead of land lines."

But cell phones were never a part of the programme under Ronaldus Maximus.

The "Universal Service Fee" (known as the Al Gore Tax) was enacted in 1996. This is the tax that pays for the programme. Prior to that, the programme was funded by waiving the Subscriber Line Charge of $3.50 for qualified users, with the state providing the remainder. This was a major change to the programme, as it shifted the funding to an actual tax on phone users.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 4:39 PM

So phones are not phones?

My first car had a carborator. My current car has a fuel Injector. I still drive a car.

And are you saying that made it OK? That the program reagan created was correct? Becasue I am not ok with the original program, nor what it gown to be.

The telcom act was an updating (and surprisingly deregulation) of the communications act. It did not create the LifeLine program. I remember when this happed, there were talks about the Missourian buying Zimmer, or zimmer buying the paper? I can't remember back hat far.

The changes we are discussion occurred when the FCC expanded to cell phones in 08.

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 4:59 PM

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 4:46 P

Look, all I know is that you disregarded Spaniard for saying that New York and California are not ther back yard.

All I am saying is that she was correct.

Kids can't eat potatoes? Or is this more over your overstatements?

Who is lumbrg?

And I don't have a problem seperating local, state and federal...Like you just did in this very argument.

Learn to separate your issues.

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 5:06 PM

Actually,

Here is the federal site for it

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/lifeline-and-l...

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 5:29 PM

Bloomberg is a liberal. Just like many democrats and some republicans.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 10:05 PM

Kids can't eat potatoes? Or is this more over your overstatements. Learn to separate your issues. -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 5:06 PM

If you don't know about the issue, then don't be critical. Instead research, learn and then comment. Learn to "learn" before criticizing.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 10:17 PM

"So phones are not phones?"

The original programme did not give away phones, cell or otherwise. It merely lowered one's monthly phone bill.

Most land-line service required you to rent the phone from the phone company, if you did not own your own. Eventually, people shifted to buying phones, and Wal-Mart and others sold them. Wireless phones replaced corded phones, etc., but telecom companies did not give you a phone when you signed up for service. They sold you one.

Cell phone companies originated the idea of 'giving' you a 'free' phone if you signed a long-term contract with their company. Of course, you paid for the phone over the life of the contract but it was hidden in the bill. In essence, you financed the phone over the course of the contract. That concept did not exist with land-lines.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Nov 10, 2012, at 8:00 AM

The FCC expanded the progamme in 2008, but Tracfone did not begin the 'free' phone programme until 2009.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Nov 10, 2012, at 8:03 AM

And why are we discussing the same thing on two different threads. It makes it awfully confusing, and redundant.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Nov 10, 2012, at 8:03 AM

-- Posted by BCStoned on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 10:57 PM

BC - that's why I've posted over and over that I don't listen to what they say, I watch what they do. I'm not suckered in by sound bytes and 30 second TV commercials from them or their opponents. I read and I watch from several sources.

-- Posted by Dug on Sat, Nov 10, 2012, at 9:18 AM

Rick, I don't know if it is true or not but I heard that when Pine Ridge was lastly to get electicity in the early '40s, they hired and trained a local guy to hook up the electic lines where needed the most. The out houses each got an electric light.

This fellow claims to be the first Indian to wire a head for a reservation. :)

Note: this is humor and no way meant to be offensive!

-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Nov 10, 2012, at 11:36 PM


Respond to this thread

Posting a comment requires free registration:

Want to comment?

In order to participate in semissourian.com's forums, you must be a registered member of the site. Once registered and logged in, you can post comments to existing threads or post new threads of your own. Click below to register now (it's free!). If you're already registered, just start commenting and posting threads.