How Is This Economy Affecting Your Fishing?

[ness]

I can't believe I'm going to respond to this after all these months of silence, but I have to. Poor people are fat because the only food they can afford is food that makes you fat. Ramen noodles and cheesie poofs and snackie cakes are cheap and accessible. The reason that's not the case in third-world countries is because they're SO poor that they either can't afford ANY food or they eat rice and rat meat or trash fish every day. Those things aren't loaded with trans-fats and sugar.

Still see the world through that tiny little sliver of perspective, huh JD? Good to talk to ya again.

[CanoeBoy]

Without a job I can fish all day baby!!!!!!!!!!!!

[rs00765605]

I keep hearing that the economy is in the dumps ..... but I sure can't tell it by looking around. When I go to town I only see fairly new cars/trucks, hell I can't even remember the last time I saw anyone driving an old rusty beater. Gas prices are high yet the roads are always busy as can be. All the shopping mart lots are full.

The sky is full of jet trails as masses of folks travel abroad for both business and pleasure.

Real estate folks are all driving new cars, sporting 70.00 haircuts, 150.00 shoes, and 60.00 fingernails...so apparently property sales are doing well.

The bass fishermen are all towing fresh boats with sweet new trucks, throwing 30.00 wiggle warts and 50.00 jerkbaits.

Restaurant and bar parking lots are full every night of the week.

Lots of new Harleys on the road.....hell even the bikers are looking rather upper-crust.

So I dunno, unless EVERYONE is operating via credit card (which might explain the ecessive Air Miles) I just find it hard to recognize this financial peril that everyone is supposedly experiencing...... except for Me! LOL

I can tell you that in my line of work ( I am an investigator for a repossession company), that fancy cars and especially Harleys don't mean much as an indication as to the economy. While there are lots of people who have earned what they have and pay their bills, I can tell you that "keeping up with the Jones" is still running rampant. In fact, I would rather work a scam account in the ghetto than a high end account in South Springfield....the fancier they are, the bigger the pain in the a** they are.

Anyway, to answer the question, the economy has it's ups and downs for me too. I found that I can go twice as far if I go half as fast and I stay as long as I can on the water since I'm already there. I also have invested in a couple good lure retrievers, both a pole and knocker type, so I don't use nearly as many baits as I used to. Things have been busy lately, but I'm taking off tomorrow for some Christmas Eve fishing.

[jdmidwest]

I can't believe I'm going to respond to this after all these months of silence, but I have to. Poor people are fat because the only food they can afford is food that makes you fat. Ramen noodles and cheesie poofs and snackie cakes are cheap and accessible. The reason that's not the case in third-world countries is because they're SO poor that they either can't afford ANY food or they eat rice and rat meat or trash fish every day. Those things aren't loaded with trans-fats and sugar. Still see the world through that tiny little sliver of perspective, huh JD? Good to talk to ya again.

The only reason that are obese is that they get free reins to choose what they buy with the food stamps. If the government controlled the products they purchase with our tax payer dollars, maybe there may not be a problem. Not to mention the all essential exercise factor that most do not get, since they get rewards for not working. HO HO's and Cheesy Poofs are more expensive per serving than rice and chicken, but as you state, they tend to buy them anyway.

[mixermarkb]

Ain't stereotypes grand?

[GNSfishing]

Exactly .000162 of a second in research once again shows you two have no clue. Try a little research instead of being FOX Noise talking heads.

http://www.factcheck...he-obama-phone/

Q: Has the Obama administration started a program to use "taxpayer money" to give free cell phones to welfare recipients?

A: No. Low-income households have been eligible for discounted telephone service for more than a decade. But the program is funded by telecom companies, not by taxes, and the president has nothing to do with it.

FULL QUESTION

Is this e-mail true?

I had a former employee call me earlier today inquiring about a job, and at the end of the conversation he gave me his phone number. I asked the former employee if this was a new cell phone number and he told me yes this was his "Obama phone."

⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full text ⬏

I asked him what an "Obama phone" was and he went on to say that welfare recipients are now eligible to receive (1) a FREE new phone and (2) approx 70 minutes of FREE minutes every month. I was a little skeptical so I Googled it and low and behold he was telling the truth. TAX PAYER MONEY IS BEING REDISTRIBUTED TO WELFARE RECIPIENTS FOR FREE CELL PHONES.. This program was started earlier this year. Enough is enough, the ship is sinking and it’s sinking fast. The very foundations that this country was built on are being shaken. The age-old concepts of God, family, and hard work have flown out the window and are being replaced with "Hope and Change" and "Change we can believe in." You can click on the link below to read more about the "Obama phone"…just have a barf bag ready. https://www.safelink...ublic/home.aspx Google: Safelink Wireless

FULL ANSWER

Welfare recipients, and others, can receive a free cell phone, but the program is not funded by the government or taxpayer money, as the e-mail alleges. And it’s hardly new.

How It Works

SafeLink Wireless, the program mentioned in the e-mail, does indeed offer a cell phone, about one hour’s worth of calling time per month, and other wireless services like voice mail to eligible low-income households. Applicants have to apply and prove that they are either receiving certain types of government benefits, such as Medicaid, or have household incomes at or below 135 percent of the poverty line. Using 2009 poverty guidelines, that’s $14,620 for an individual and a little under $30,000 for a family of four, with slightly higher amounts for Alaska and Hawaii.

SafeLink is run by a subsidiary of América Móvil, the world’s fourth largest wireless company in terms of subscribers, but it is not paid for directly by the company. Nor is it paid for with "tax payer money," as the e-mail claims. Rather, it is funded through the Universal Service Fund, which is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company, an independent, not-for-profit corporation set up by the Federal Communications Commission. The USF is sustained by contributions from telecommunications companies such as "long distance companies, local telephone companies, wireless telephone companies, paging companies, and payphone providers." The companies often charge customers to fund their contributions in the form of a universal service fee you might see on your monthly phone bill. The fund is then parceled out to companies, such as América Móvil, that create programs, such as SafeLink, to provide telecommunications service to rural areas and low-income households.

History

The SafeLink program has actually been offering cell phones to low-income households in some states since 2008, not beginning "earlier this year," as the e-mail claims. But the program is rooted in a deeper history.

When phone lines were first laid out in the late 19th century, they were not always inter-operable. That is to say the phone service created by one company to serve one town may not have been compatible with the phone service of another company serving a different town nearby. The telecom companies themselves saw the folly in this arrangement, and so in 1913, AT&T committed itself to resolving interconnection problems as part of the "Kingsbury Commitment."

That common goal of universal service became a goal of universal access to service when Congress passed The Telecommunications Act of 1934. The act created the FCC and also included in its preamble a promise "to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.” There was a fear, expressed by telecom companies themselves, that market forces alone might encourage companies to pass on providing service to hard-to-reach places. This would both hurt the people who wouldn’t have service as well as existing customers who wouldn’t be able to reach them. So the new FCC was tasked with promoting this principle of "universal service."

This informal practice was codified when the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) was created as part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act to "ensure all Americans, including low-income consumers and those who live in rural, insular, high cost areas, shall have affordable service and [to] help to connect eligible schools, libraries, and rural health care providers to the global telecommunications network." The USAC includes four programs to serve rural areas, high cost areas, rural health care providers, and schools and libraries. Since 1997, USAC has provided discounted land line service to low-income individuals. (A more limited program to offer assistance to low-income individuals was created a decade earlier; the telecommunications act expanded and formalized it.) According to Eric Iversen, USAC director of external relations, the Universal Service Fund more recently began funding programs that provide wireless service, such as the pre-paid cellular SafeLink program mentioned in the chain e-mail.

The president has no direct impact on the program, and one could hardly call these devices "Obama Phones," as the e-mail author does. This specific program, SafeLink, started under President George Bush, with grants from an independent company created under President Bill Clinton, which was a legacy of an act passed under President Franklin Roosevelt, which was influenced by an agreement reached between telecommunications companies and the administration of President Woodrow Wilson.

Wilson Phones, anyone?

– Justin Bank

I'll bet you a $1.00 to a doughnut that the tax payer is paying for it one way or another. These companys just don't do these things out of the goodness of their heart.. Its tax deductable in one way or the other.......dig deeper and you will find out.....

[GNSfishing]

The only reason that are obese is that they get free reins to choose what they buy with the food stamps. If the government controlled the products they purchase with our tax payer dollars, maybe there may not be a problem. Not to mention the all essential exercise factor that most do not get, since they get rewards for not working. HO HO's and Cheesy Poofs are more expensive per serving than rice and chicken, but as you state, they tend to buy them anyway.

Here awhile back I heard of a way to help the obese, take these motorized carts in these stores and put them on tracks which would bypass the chips, sodas, cakes, pies, ice cream, and candy areas and direct them by the fresh vegetables and healthy food areas only.

[ness]

Ain't stereotypes grand?

x2

[uptonfish]

During a period of insane boredom the other day I was listening to the Dave Ramsey show on the radio, and people were calling in to brag and scream with excitement about how they had become DEBT FREE (except for their house) while making 170k+/year....

And I was like.... Oh please, FO !

I mean seriously? You bring home 170k/year and you were stressed out over some credit card bills and a car payment ? WTH?

They said they had to eat rice and beans, and really sacrifice to pull this debt snowball off. I was speechless.

So you are pissed that someone else is happy that they are debt free????

[fishinwrench]

No man, I was just taken back that someone can't live comfortably on 14k/mo. without also running their credit cards to the limit.

Maybe I'm jealous, does that piss YOU off?