Christian,The phone program you are referring to is called Lifeline, and
provides assistance for phone service to the poor. Like food stamps and medical
care. It was started in 1985 and expanded to include cell phones in 2008. Both
of which preceded Obama, so I am not sure why you think it is honest to hang it
on him. Pop quiz, who was president during 1985 and 2008? Conservatives
frequently lied during the campaign by claiming that Obama promised free cell
phones to win votes. That's been debunked, and that is "the truth of
the matter". And I never said or suggested that phone companies were
providing this service, so don't put words in my mouth in an attempt to
make your flawed argument stronger.Perhaps it was rude to call Mike
Lee a blowhard. He is, however, an extremist and an embarrassment who has less
influence and garners far less respect than his predecessor. I'm sorry if
you like him, but that is the truth.The 2% rise in payroll taxes is
the byproduct of a dysfunctional congress that should have addressed these
issues long ago. Conservatives share the blame, so don't try to hide from
is it the phone? I do realize that Obama himself does not personally
physically hand out or pay for all the phones. They are funded by
government-collected telecommunication fees (ie a tax), paid by consumers (not
the phone companies). Obama happily takes credit by lending his
name to these Obamaphones, and his picture for the website, similar to the way
he likes the use of the term Obamacare, as he stated in the debates. He was well
paid for that name association, in votes. That is the truth of the matter. Don’t try the lie that the phone companies pay for the phones. I
have looked it up. I know it is a lie. Phone companies are saddled with
collecting the tax for the federal government, in the same way stores are
saddled with collecting sales tax for local governments. Taxes pay for the
phones. Taxpayers pay for them. And Obama takes the credit for them and gullible
people voted for him based on that.By the way, some people who
qualify for a free government cell (Obama)phone, will be getting a tax increase.
Don't you love that? I don't.
Emajor You say that Mike Lee is a blowhard, and then pretend that you are
speaking in generalities.Your liberal friends say: "Chaffetz, Bishop, Lee, Hatch, etc need to go the way of the dodo
bird...". You realize the dodo is extinct, as in dead. So Mav is wishing
death on these men. Okay with that?"Jan is talking about the
recently reelected Utah delegation being divas." (Jan actually didn't
say that.) So Grover says the Utah delegation are all Divas and you're okay
with that."Dude, you just compared John Boehner to Paris Hilton.
Awesome." So John Boener is a spoiled rich heiress? Such a civil comment.Why so offended? Is it who I applied it to? Women? Diva is generally
applied to women only. The 5 characteristics? They fit with the dictionary.
The untouchable Obamas? They are not perfect. Get over it. Or is it that your
tolerance ends when criticism is aimed at the democrats?Or the tax
increase? Everyone getting a check from an employer will have a 2% tax increase.
FICA went back up. Didn't you hear? That hits every class, not just the
rich. Obama has promised to sign it.Or...
You can avoid watching the movie or tv show by doing nothing. But sending the
same people to washington over and over takes effort. Which 'divas'
should you be using as the bad example to which you compare the others?
Hollywood is subject to public fickle. But we'll do anything for someone
with the R beside their name in utah.
So why do we here in Utah keep voting the same way?If we want change
then we need to change who we keep sending to DC.Chaffetz, Bishop,
Lee, Hatch, etc need to go the way of the dodo bird...
It's no wonder this country is so polarized and nothing gets done in our
national government when someone writes a non-partisan letter to the paper
complaining about general government incompetence, and folks like Christian 24-7
can only write snark about the other side.Christian, it takes real
effort to write a comment as rude and unconstructive as your first one above.
Opinions are one thing. Character assasinations are another. And Obama
didn't give out phones to curry votes. Look it up. That way you won't
inadvertently be perpetrating a well disproven lie.
Jan mentions no names, nor does she hint at any one person or persons.Diva is almost exclusively applied to females.We have no female
"congressmen" from Utah. The Utah congressional delegates
have not been on the national news night and day for the last month. So is it such a stretch to think that she is speaking of female congressional
delegates from other states? I just picked the ones that act the
diva part in the national press most often.You don't have to
like it. That is way okay with me.Happy Obama New Year! Enjoy your
tax increase, or free phone, whichever applies.
Dude, you just compared John Boehner to Paris Hilton. Awesome.
Chris: Jan is talking about the recently reelected Utah delegation being divas.
If you disagree, you could cite some instances of their non-diva behavior and
state your support for the lot. Instead we get this blather about women who
represent other citizens (unless Murray is now part of California) who do not
act as you would choose. I am guessing the people of California would not value
your commentary since they have elected most of the women you cite more often
than Utahans have picked Orrin Hatch. Hey, maybe you could move to California
and work to get them replaced by people more to your liking.
As that great philosopher’s mother would say, “Obnoxious is as
Divas in congress? Oh yeah!Maxine WatersNancy Pelosi Dianne FeinsteinCome quickly to mind. There is also
the diva down the street on Pennsylvania Avenue, Queen Michelle.You
can tell these are real divas because:1. They like being called
divas and think it's a compliment2. They think they the laws of the
land shouldn't apply to them.3. They think the world revolves around
them4. They think they know what is best for everybody else5. They
love cameras on themYup, I see just what the writer is talking
Perhaps the real problem is that some relatively small, but very loud and very
wealthy power groups have been able to intimidate the lawmakers.If
anything is going to change it will require some very real changes. Such things
as extensive campaign finance reform, term limits, and overturning Citizens
United would be good starters.What will it take to make Americans so
angry that we DEMAND adequate and effective reforms in our government?
You mean we are just now getting to "obnoxious"? I thought we passed
that mile marker a while ago.
I think it is more than just seeking public attention. A lot of our congressmen
are completely ineffective because they are unwilling to compromise. They take
the extremist position and refuse to yield any ground, citing moral authority
that doesn't exist. Bob Bennett is just one example; he lost his primary
race because he was a reasonable person. Utah didn't want reasonable, we
wanted a blowhard. And we got one. And lost a respectable senator who was at
least willing to reach across the aisle.
The operative question becomes... how bad will it get before voters do something
meaningful to end the charade?