The Inalienable Right to a Remote [63% of households in "poverty" have cable TV or satellite dish]

The Washington Post ^ | December 8, 2005 | George F. Will

[Bon mots]

Ridiculous.

I used to have "Section 8" tenants a long time ago. They were welfare cases. The state paid for everything for them. They had more cable channels than you and all of your friends put together.

To be poor in America.

I always felt that welfare should only pay for the essentials of life - not the fruits of labor.
If I were king, I would look through the welfare rolls, and then match it with the cable subscribers lists and deduct the amount these folks pay for cable TV from their welfare checks.

They want cable, or TV for that matter, go out and get a job to pay for it. Don't tax it out of my paycheck!

[AlaninSA]

...or fillet mignon and a nice car.

My dad was part of a big layoff at a large Midwestern meat company back in the early 80s. Times were hard and work was impossible to find in the area I grew up in. My family and I (I was about 12 years old at the time) did all we could to avoid taking a handout from the government.

We did farm work - baling hay and walking soybean fields.

We went hunting to supplement the groceries we could afford.

My dad also delivered 100# bottles of propane to various houses (where it was used for stoves and water heaters).

I can remember going to house after house of people who did not work and were on welfare. They had nice cars, cable TV and were eating very well - including the previously mentioned fillet mignon.

But they didn't work.

This experience planted the conservative seed in me at an early time. We were making it (barely) on our own, but these freeloaders were making it on the backs of people like my dad.

[gondramB]

"They have to buy votes somehow."

The government that robs Peter to pay Paul is almost assured of Paul's vote.

[nmh]

Seeking new ways to keep the perpetual poverty stricken, by choice, addicted to government and the humanistic ass***** to feel self righteous about something. Sickening, isn't it?

[ErnBatavia]

For the vast majority of Americans, April 2009 will mean . . . absolutely nothing. Nationwide, 85 percent of all television households (and 63 percent of households below the poverty line) already have cable or satellite service.

I'm a little confused about the changeover...my TV's are 'not new', but I have Time Warner cable.

Wifey is certain we'd have to either get new sets or the converter box...the above indicates maybe not.

Anybody here know?

[P-40]

The odd thing is that those converters will allow people to continue to receive commercials and I think it safe to assume that someone somewhere makes money off those commercials....so the taxpayer gets to pay so someone else can make money without providing anything more in return than they would have otherwise. That is making the assumption that media outlets will simply throw up their hands and give up their efforts to reach those that will not afford a one-time charge of $40 per box but can pay more than that per month for cable.

Note to Republicans: You are supposed to be conservatives; that is *why* you were hired. Learn that or be fired. That is all.

[Looking4Truth]

Do conisder, however: the moving force behind the conversion from analog to digital is that the US Gov't wants to auction off the old analog frequencies, and replace them with digital frequencies, which requires much less bandwidth. Those old analog radio frequencies are worth a fortune.

Let us also consider that the new technology will also make each reciever 'addressable' which means no more anonomynity.

Kinda' like todays cell phones and your car.

Big brother is only twenty years late, but he's here.

[AbeKrieger]

The "poor" typically have air conditioners, cars, Xboxes, all the things the rest of us have to struggle to earn money to buy. Why do we even act surprised?

There should be no air conditioners or cars, or satellite dishes, or cable wires, running into ANY public housing. If you can't pay rent, food, and utilities... these other items are absolute LUXURY items that TAXPAYERS should never subsidize. EVER.

[randita]

"No couch potato left behind."

[najida]

LOL!
Yeah,
Only an ADD'er can understand 3 TV's goin' at once ;)

[Pessimist]

I'm pretty sure the constitutional right to TV can be found right there in one of those penumbras emanating from the glow of the screen.

[Paradox]

In my daily commute to and from work, the train passes through some poor neighborhoods in South Florida. I'd say that at least 50% of them have a satellite dish. Thats at least $40 per month (maybe $30). I'll bet alot of them have a cellphone that rings up around $50 a month minimum. Thats better than what I have, which is a prepaid cellphone that averages maybe $10 per month.

[nmh]

It pisses me of no end!

Meanwhile we get tazed up the gazoo to fund this CRAP!

Heck, we're up there income wise but you wouldn't know it AFTER taxes. You're LITERLLY punished for being responsible. It's NOT worth me returning to work - just more to take from us. It's ridiculous.

Where are the REPUBLICANS on this CRAP?

[VOA]

It's "bread and circuses"...I've noted that "impoverished" families
shown on TV often have much better TVs and sound systems than I ever
would be able to afford.

[nmh]

I hope He comes soon ... and then they can have what they reaped with NO Restrainer. DO you think it will be soon, as I hope?

[jimbergin]

Requiring digital tv will cost many people quite a bit of money. For example, for me it will require that I change from basic/extended cable to digital cable. It will cost me to do that.

The bill in congress will not pay for monthly cable charges. It is a one time payment. My guess it would give you at best a converter that will allow analog TVs to get over the air digital. Without a converter, those without cable will no longer be able to get any TV station.

BTW, knowing the the government was going to force me to go to digital, my newest tv is a 30 inch Sony HDTV and as my son says, I am still too cheap to get digital cable.

[Pessimist]

I agree.

Living of the gvt whould consist of living in some sort of quasi military cement block camp. I'm serious. They should provide food, shelter and not much else.

To get in, you should have to sign away your "right to privacy", right to reproduction etc. It should be made clear this is not an entitlement but an act of charity that you may or may not chooses to accept.

I know this sounds draconian, but I think its warranted in order to both sufficiently motivate people not to sink to that level as well as to take over the decision making rights of those who do.

[cpprfld]

I agree with you completely.

[Tenny]

I agree with you.

I'm living well above the poverty line and I don't even own a TV.

Why??

Because working 3 jobs doesn't allow me time to watch TV.

This makes me sick.

[Pessimist]

I thik its safe to say that PBS will never document experiences such as yours, however telling and commonplace they may be.

Our entire nation's attitude toward poverty is shaped by a great lie which can exist because the majority of even middle class people have no first hand experience of it.