Viral video touting free 'Obama phone' puts spotlight on federal program [ournewsa.blogspot.com]
Question by jellybean213: What is a "left wing radical" in the 1920's? I'm doing a research project on Sacco & Vanzetti and many websites call them radicals and involved in left wing politics, but none evaluate what that means. Can someone explain? One says, "Vanzetti was shocked by the way working class immigrants were treated in America and became involved in left-wing politic." What does it mean? Explain in a way an average person can understand, in other words, your answer should help, not confuse me more. Best answer for What is a "left wing radical" in the 1920's?:
Answer by Bri May
The left wing radical of the 1920s stood for: 1. racial purity; 2. religious intolerance within the white race, most especially against catholics and jews; 3. social equality among qualifying members--redistribution of the wealth; 4. strong labor unions; 5. strong, centralized federal government. Essentially, they stood for everything that the Nazi party stood for in Germany during the 1920s. By no coincidence, the Ku Klux Klan dominated the left-leaning Democrat party in the 1920s.
Answer by GODOT
Right after 1912(T.Roosevelt vs Taft Vs Debbs vs Woodrow Wilson election) the roles of republicans and democrats switched. A left wing radical borders socialism or rather the socialist movement. They basically wanted more workers right, more pay, and women to vote. Think of a liberal democrat of today.
Answer by Vito1964
Women's suffrage The right to unionize Anti-sweatshop Anti-child labor Pushed to make education compulsory Anti-xenophobic policy So yes, someone who was upset at the way the Irish, Italian and Chinese immigrants were treated would have been a left-wing radical of the day.
Answer by Ted
Think anarchists of the Emma Goldman variety.
Answer by Socrates
In 1920, the Left wing radical craze was Communism. they were enamored by the theoretical, intellectual utopian concept but nobody had the experience yet of the horrible corrupted oppression it would bring. Then again, some today still ignore that and focus on the intellectual utopian vision of what they would like it to be.
Answer by Christopher Jorden
Believe it or not, years ago I read a book about the infamous case of Sacco & Vanzetti. But I only remember a few facts. I seem to remember them as being classified as anarchists. (I could be wrong) The 20s, just as today, was filled with all manner of left-wingers, Socialists, Communists and everything in between. It was an interesting period but if you don't want to spend much time reading about it, just realize, that what the left-wing of today wants, was almost exactly what the left-wing of "yesterday" wanted. An overthrow of capitalism, replaced by a state controlled by the workers. It's the same failed hallucination then and now. Listen to what they say today, and you'll know what they said "yesterday".
Answer by Who Else?
Don't leave out the Industrial Workers of the World. The IWW, or "Wobblies," were an anarcho-syndicalist union that organized on the New York docks, especially, but in other industries as well. I believe Sacco & Vanzetti were connected to the Wobblies in some way, and that's where they got the reputation of being anarchists. But it's debatable whether or not the Wobblies were "left wing" radicals, since anarchism is really on the border between extreme leftism and extreme right-wing ideology. Anyway, the Wobblies were active in the 1920s, and I've left a link below. Edit: Maybe not. Looking around, I see where Italian anarchists were tied to a different organization, the International Workingmen's Association. See second link.
Republican attorney general candidate Ed Martin is widely known as a fiery conservative activist who rails against, not afraid to go for the political kill against his Democratic rivals. But former U.S. Sen. Jack Danforth, a regarded moderate ... Danforth touts support of Martin
A viral video of an Obama supporter touting her “Obama phone†has put the spotlight on an obscure federal program that provides discounted phone service to qualifying low-income Americans.
“Keep Obama as president,†the animated woman says on the video. “He gave us a phone.â€
The video is drawing attention to the government program â€" Lifeline â€" as a national debate unfolds on entitlements and the growing percentage of Americans who pay no income taxes and get a long menu of government benefits. But even though some beneficiaries may credit President Obama for providing the phones, Lifeline is an extension of a program that has existed since 1985. Still, critics including Rep. Tim Griffin, R-Ark., note the program has swelled from $ 772 million in 2008 to $ 1.6 billion.
“It's a government-run, taxpayer-funded program that's running wild and costing more and more,†reads Griffin’s official House of Representatives website.
Private carriers who contract with the government, including TracPhone and Sprint, have websites intended to publicize the program. Some attempt to dispel the program’s connection to the president, such as freegovernmentcellphones.net, while others, including obamaphone.net, embrace it.
“The free Obama phone is an important program, especially for low income families that would otherwise not have access to basic communications,†the homepage of obamaphone.net reads.
The site does, however, clarify that Obama did not start the program and that there's no such thing as an "Obama phone."
"It’s true that government provides free cellphones to the poor and disabled people," the site reads. "But the Obama part is not true as Obama didn’t initiate this program. It’s on the run [sic] since the administration of Reagan."
Griffin, who introduced H.R. 3481 in November to end the program, claims to have evidence of dead people getting free cell phones in the mail, ineligible people getting multiple phones and electronic kiosks in convenience stores to encourage people to get the phones.
“The truth is, though, that taxpayers are footing the bill,†the website reads. “The program is called Lifeline, but in reality it's turned into Uncle Sam's Unlimited Plan.â€
Lifeline was originally envisioned as a means of subsidizing landline phone service for poor Americans, paid for with an extra charge on phone bills. To participate in the program, according to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), consumers must either have an income that is at or below 135 percent of the federal poverty guidelines or participate in a number of assistance programs, including Medicaid, Head Start or Supplemental Security Income. In 2008, the plan was extended to supply cellphones and cellular service as many Americans began using those devices as their primary telephone.
“It's a government-run, taxpayer-funded program that's running wild and costing more and more."
- Rep. Tim Griffin
The program, according to FCC officials, has helped tens of millions of low-income Americans afford basic phone service, which is essential to finding a job or getting help during an emergency. To that end, the percentage of low-income households with phone service has increased from 80 percent in 1985 when the program began to nearly 92 percent in 2011.
A message seeking comment from White House officials on the federal program was not immediately returned Friday.
A family of four with an income of about $ 30,000 can qualify for a subsidized line, according to Bloomberg News. The program is available to consumers in every state, territory, commonwealth and on tribal lands.
In 2008, there were 7.1 million Lifeline accounts nationwide. There are 12.5 million today, according to Bloomberg News. About half of those are mobile phones sold by Miami-based TracFone, Sprint and hundreds of smaller regional companies. The government pays those carriers up to $ 10 per month for each program subscriber. Users, in turn, get free phones and 250 minutes of monthly airtime.
Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., received a mailed solicitation last year informing her she was eligible for a phone, leading her to question the program.
“I am troubled by the expansive potential for the program to be abused," McCaskill wrote the FCC in December.
The FCC, meanwhile, announced in July that comprehensive reforms to the program had saved nearly $ 43 million and were on track to save $ 200 million in 2012. The reforms included eliminating unnecessary subsidies, cutting off duplicative subscriptions and requiring better proof of eligibility. Â
Find More Viral video touting free 'Obama phone' puts spotlight on federal program Issues Tiken Jah, Amado & Mariam , M.Chao - Politic amagni...
0 comments:
Post a Comment