Eminem destroys Trump

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-12-2017, 04:12 PM)Benton Wrote: Well, here's the thing.

There isn't an Obama phone. There never was. It's laughably misleading, like most of what some people complain about.

In this instance, the government has been operating the Lifeline program for low income people since the mid-80s. As even the biggest conspiracy theorist will attest, Obama's shadow government didn't come into play until the 90s as Ronald Reagan had the country firmly under control. He locked that shit down, had liberals by the ***** and told people to pull themselves up by their boot straps... while he created a program to subsidize their phone bills as they did the pulling. 

Lifeline.

It was expanded as cell phone usage grew. They are replacing landlines and the government adapted the program over the years (see the FCC link) to reflect that.

http://lifelinefacts.com/lifeline-facts/
https://www.fcc.gov/general/lifeline-program-low-income-consumers
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp

The kicker is, it's not even paid for with tax dollars, it's a surcharge on phone bills. I pay it when I pay my phone bill, most of us do; none of us pay tax dollars for it (although, I would assume tax dollars go to the administration cost of the program.

So — to me — Republicans subsidizing the phones of poor people (who pay taxes) through a surcharge is about the same as Republicans subsidizing a second mortgage for someone well off enough to afford a second home (who pays taxes). The guy who pays for both those? The guy in the middle class who pays his own phone bill and can't afford a second home.

I'd be happier with less subsidizing people's hobbies, failures, etc.

I just had to point this out. That sounds exactly like the wording someone would use so people can say "it's not a tax!" and be technically correct.

Just like calling it a "waste treatment facility" doesn't make your job less about dealing with poop water, calling it a "surcharge" doesn't make it less of a tax. Lol