President Obama Mentions Apple-Backed School Broadband Initiative During State of the Union Address

[osx11]

Why is it the government's responsibility to do most of this? I agree that education is a purpose of government, however last time I checked I work to feed myself, I work to buy my clothes, I work to pay the mortgage, and I got my job on my own - I didn't need the government to "give me a meaningful [job] to do".

It is not the government's job to do these things. It is an individual's job to do these things. It is in a government's best interest to provide a temporary lifeline for those that fall on bad times, and to make sure that the capitalistic system cannot be taken advantage of by those in power (read: i'm in favor of advancing minimum wage so that those who do work hard can at least afford the above), but in the end, it is an individual's responsibility to provide the means by which they are to survive unless they do not have the physical or mental capacity to do so.

You just don't get it.

The things you say are straight out of the republican play book.

If you're happy with a country where far too many people are poorly educated and/or can't afford meaningful education, where people have poor jobs, where people can't afford housing, and where crime is prevalent unlike any industrialized nation.

I have questions for you: Is this really your opinion? Is this something that is truly rational and cohesive, in your mind? Or are you simply regurgitating what a large mass of the conservative population thinks they believe?

 

[JHankwitz]

Educate people, feed them, clothe them, put a roof over their heads, give them meaningful work to do, and then your fears of crime and war disappear.

Why would I bother to get an education if I know I will be given food, clothes, housing, and a meaningfull job?

 

[cocky jeremy]

Why is this important

Why do you think it isn't?

You just don't get it.

The things you say are straight out of the republican play book.

If you're happy with a country where far too many people are poorly educated and/or can't afford meaningful education, where people have poor jobs, where people can't afford housing, and where crime is prevalent unlike any industrialized nation.

I have questions for you: Is this really your opinion? Is this something that is truly rational and cohesive, in your mind? Or are you simply regurgitating what a large mass of the conservative population thinks they believe?

I'm the furthest thing from a Republican, and the guy is right. None of that is the government's job. People have to learn to take care of themselves. Quit depending on the government to do everything for you. That's how we got in this mess to begin with.

 

[longofest]

... If you're happy with a country where far too many people are poorly educated and/or can't afford meaningful education, where people have poor jobs, where people can't afford housing, and where crime is prevalent unlike any industrialized nation. ...

I don't feel you read my comments very well. I specifically made exceptions for education being something the government has responsibility for, and I said that I supported raising the minimum wage so that those who are hard working can afford to put food on the table, a roof over their heads, etc.

What I do not agree with is the notion that it is the government's responsibility to provide food, housing, etc, for the people. While it may be necessary for the government to set policies that allow for these things to be available/affordable, it is an individual responsibility to do what is necessary to obtain them. I do not agree with government handouts of food or housing for anything other than short term lifelines for people who have fallen on bad times or for people who are unable through physical or mental inability to provide for themselves.

The initial quote that I was responding to that I disagreed with (with the above caviats) was this:

Educate people, feed them, clothe them, put a roof over their heads, give them meaningful work to do, and then your fears of crime and war disappear.

I would suggest that this re-phrased quote would be a bit more on-target:

Educate people, provide them the opportunity to feed themselves, clothe themelves, put a roof over their heads, and do meaningful work to better their situation, and then your fears of crime and war disappear.

I still do not believe the fear of crime and war disappear. As long as there are humans on this planet, there will be crime, war, and fear. However, I can live with the notion that there would at least be less crime and less war.

For the record: I am not a republican, nor am I a democrat, nor am I a libertarian or a any other party. I am proudly independent.

 

[jamesnajera]

You just don't get it.

The things you say are straight out of the republican play book.

If you're happy with a country where far too many people are poorly educated and/or can't afford meaningful education, where people have poor jobs, where people can't afford housing, and where crime is prevalent unlike any industrialized nation.

I have questions for you: Is this really your opinion? Is this something that is truly rational and cohesive, in your mind? Or are you simply regurgitating what a large mass of the conservative population thinks they believe?

Concerning education, maybe the problem is not the education system, maybe it is the educators.
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/state&id=9409301

Concerning poor jobs, maybe it is not as simple as raising pay.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HrEJtn9LKRo&desktop_uri=/watch?v=HrEJtn9LKRo

Maybe capitalism does lower crime and help people and is better than just throwing money at a problem.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyol...-realizations-about-aid-capitalism-and-nerds/

Concerning Jobs, maybe stop paying attention to Unemployment (U3 reports) and start looking at U6. The US is not doing better with unemployment as stated last night (SOTU).
http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

These aren't just words from a republican play book, in fact I believe even a liberal once said "So my fellow Americans: Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy-Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961

 

[Chupa Chupa]

You don't think. You don't know though. And it's not a 1:1 synonym.

You can contribute to a program by making your services or products affordable or at an extreme low cost. That doesn't mean you are donating.

We simply don't know.

Look if you want to get into the weeds with this have fun. Anything can be interpreted as anything. But usually Occam's razor prevails; i.e., the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

And contributing is donating. Sure it's not 1:1 because each can be used in exclusive contexts. One can contribute ideas to a screenplay where it would be clumsy to say one "donated ideas." For one, a screenplay contributor might be compensated.

But in the context of a lengthy SOTU where writers have to be creative so the speech sounds elegant, contribute is smoother sounding than donate, just as "revenue enhancement" sounds better than "tax and fee increase," or "investment in infrastructure" sounds more laudable than "toll increase." Also the SOTU speeches are put under a microscope it would put any company and POTUS in a bad light if POTUS told the world that company was "contributing" XYZ in a charitable context when reality turned out to be less than that. Betting Apple understand that. Betting the WH understands that.

But even if Apple is only making a partial contribution it's still at a cost to Apple. So your quibbling over semantics is really pointless.

 

[Renzatic]

I'm the furthest thing from a Republican, and the guy is right. None of that is the government's job. People have to learn to take care of themselves. Quit depending on the government to do everything for you. That's how we got in this mess to begin with.

Hardly. Welfare and social benefit services make up roughly 10-15% of the federal budget. If they were to be cut entirely, it'd only make the smallest dent in our yearly expenditures, and certainly wouldn't do much of anything to pay off the deficit, or reign in uncontrolled spending.

And while I do agree that the goverment's job isn't to provide for everyone's needs directly, I have absolutely no problem with it offering programs or initiatives to help people eventually provide for themselves.

 

[Metatron]

Mr. Soetoro says and mentions many things. I do my best to disregard anything he says.

But why is this news? He should have mentioned how Apple was building computers in the US while talking about the slow return of American manufacturing sector.

I think he mentioned in the last SOTU, but it was just talk then...now it's happening.

 

[samcraig]

Look if you want to get into the weeds with this have fun. Anything can be interpreted as anything. But usually Occam's razor prevails; i.e., the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

And contributing is donating. Sure it's not 1:1 because each can be used in exclusive contexts. One can contribute ideas to a screenplay where it would be clumsy to say one "donated ideas." For one, a screenplay contributor might be compensated.

But in the context of a lengthy SOTU where writers have to be creative so the speech sounds elegant, contribute is smoother sounding than donate, just as "revenue enhancement" sounds better than "tax and fee increase," or "investment in infrastructure" sounds more laudable than "toll increase." Also the SOTU speeches are put under a microscope it would put any company and POTUS in a bad light if POTUS told the world that company was "contributing" XYZ in a charitable context when reality turned out to be less than that. Betting Apple understand that. Betting the WH understands that.

But even if Apple is only making a partial contribution it's still at a cost to Apple. So your quibbling over semantics is really pointless.

I'm quibbling? No - I just pointed out that the quote doesn't guarantee that Apple is donating. Which was a question raised in the thread.

And I would argue that a lot of posts on this forum - perhaps even a majority - are ultimately pointless. But it's a discussion forum. So everyone is entitled to post.

 

[osofast240sx]

Why do you think it isn't?



I'm the furthest thing from a Republican, and the guy is right. None of that is the government's job. People have to learn to take care of themselves. Quit depending on the government to do everything for you. That's how we got in this mess to begin with.

The the income tax system should be eliminated you can't have it both ways

 

[Thunderhawks]

You don't think. You don't know though. And it's not a 1:1 synonym.

You can contribute to a program by making your services or products affordable or at an extreme low cost. That doesn't mean you are donating.

We simply don't know.

Why is "backing or donating" even an issue whether Apple, MS or Google and how they are "backing" up this program?

At least they are doing something and maybe the dumbing down of America gets a push in the other direction?

With many peoples exaggerated wants and needs, both parents work and do not/cannot help their children with home work and learning, let alone teach them values and attitudes about learning, dedicated studying etc.

Most kids without parent involvement at the formative ages left alone will be on xbox with their friends, at the mall, watch TV, anything but studying.

The fact that they will pay later for not knowing anything eludes them at the young ages.

 

[samcraig]

Why is "backing or donating" even an issue whether Apple, MS or Google and how they are "backing" up this program?

At least they are doing something and maybe the dumbing down of America gets a push in the other direction?

It's not an issue. It was a question raised in the thread and I responded that we don't know. Why are people getting so defensive as if it matters either way. I think it's great that Apple is participating. Whether they are donating, offering incentive pricing or whatever. They are involved.

 

[Zombie Acorn]

Providing consuming devices to kids benefits the corporations more than the kids IMO. Without providing macs to schools through the 80s and 90s I doubt they would have hooked as many people on them.

So sure if Apple is going to provide heavy discounts let's buy some iPads to replace textbooks.

Having a tablet will do nothing if educators aren't well trained individuals though. Pay for performance would be a good step forward.

 

[IbisDoc]

Interesting but I doubt they are just giving them away. There must be something on the backend. Perhaps a tax incentive to bring some of that $$$ back?

I see what you did there, with your very subtle joke about marriage equality.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Providing consuming devices to kids benefits the corporations more than the kids IMO. Without providing macs to schools through the 80s and 90s I doubt they would have hooked as many people on them.

So sure if Apple is going to provide heavy discounts let's buy some iPads to replace textbooks.

Having a tablet will do nothing if educators aren't well trained individuals though. Pay for performance would be a good step forward.

No company does anything out of sheer altruism so let's dispense with that as a criticism. Company's have charitable trusts, encourage employees to do community work, etc. Yes, it's PR and even deeper, such as giving computers to schools, but it also provides others with something they didn't have and couldn't easily afford or do for themselves. Let's not batter companies because they might have ulterior motives.

When I was a kid in the 80s and the personal computer was just coming to the forefront the only access I had to computer was at school (TRS80) and department stores (when my mom was shopping I'd sneak into the electronics dept and type out BASIC commands on a Franklin or Sinclair.) My family was middle class, but $1000-2000 for a computer was out of the question. My dad even flipped when I wanted to spend my own $ to buy a $800 C64 (bargain priced at the time).

Of course computers are a lot less expensive now than back then but even still there are kids who's families can't afford even a $200 PC, or more likely a $50/month broadband subscription. School is their exposure to computers. School budgets are huge but usually mismanaged and electronics are back burner items to administrative staff salaries. So I think we should all appreciate computer companies donating hardware and support. Sure it might lock in kids to a brand or such, but without any computer skills no student is going to be a worthwhile employee these days.

 

[phillipduran]

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint.
When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist."
---Dom Hélder Câmara

We should have an education system that is properly funded because of a democratic will to take care of every child, rather than having to applaud the bread and circuses distraction of charity and philanthropy.

If the system were working correctly, we wouldn't need welfare, or any other kind of after the fact handout.

Educate people, feed them, clothe them, put a roof over their heads, give them meaningful work to do, and then your fears of crime and war disappear.

Get out of the peoples way and they can feed themselves, educate themselves, clothe themselves and find meaningful work to do, either for themselves or from a company that isn't burdened by taxes, health care and over regulation.

War and crime will never disappear. You need to be prepared to confront it at all times.

 

[osx11]

Government should be afraid of the people, not the other way around.

Think about it and you might reconsider some of your long-held beliefs in government.

 

[LagunaSol]

Educate people, feed them, clothe them, put a roof over their heads, give them meaningful work to do, and then your fears of crime and war disappear.

It works in Cuba!

(Note: no it doesn't.)

 

[Renzatic]

Get out of the peoples way and they can feed themselves, educate themselves, clothe themselves and find meaningful work to do, either for themselves or from a company that isn't burdened by taxes, health care and over regulation.

If I were to sum up my opinions on the matter as succinctly as possible, I'd say that it isn't the government's job to educate, cloth, or employee the populace. Rather, it's to create and maintain an environment where people can do these things themselves.

A good government, in my opinion, isn't one that's all encompassing, but one that provides a solid base, and makes sure everything is moving properly. It's not a provider, at least not directly. It's a manager. And to be a good manager, a government will need to levy taxes and set regulations to make sure everything is managed well.

 

[KdParker]

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint.
When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist."
---Dom Hélder Câmara

We should have an education system that is properly funded because of a democratic will to take care of every child, rather than having to applaud the bread and circuses distraction of charity and philanthropy.

If the system were working correctly, we wouldn't need welfare, or any other kind of after the fact handout.

Educate people, feed them, clothe them, put a roof over their heads, give them meaningful work to do, and then your fears of crime and war disappear.

Your statement sound good in principle, but it is based on the false premise that the education system is not properly funded due to 'the democratic will to take care of evey child'.

The education system has been underfunded and mismanaged long before leave no child behind.

The broadband initiative seems like one step to provide the oppurtunity for people to recieve education to improve their lives..

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Government should be afraid of the people, not the other way around.

Think about it and you might reconsider some of your long-held beliefs in government.

True. That is, in fact, the basis of the founding of the Revolutionary War and later the U.S. which few citizens really understand anymore. Sadly too few people are exposed to the words of the Declaration of Independence or Preamble of the U.S. Constitution, let alone the ideas debated in the Federalist Papers. Everything is dumbed down to mandated by law long weekends and benefits. The new "opium for the masses." Freedom is no longer enough.

 

[Boston007]

True. That is, in fact, the basis of the founding of the Revolutionary War and later the U.S. which few citizens really understand anymore. Sadly too few people are exposed to the words of the Declaration of Independence or Preamble of the U.S. Constitution, let alone the ideas debated in the Federalist Papers. Everything is dumbed down to mandated by law long weekends and benefits. The new "opium for the masses." Freedom is no longer enough.

Blame the JOKE education system in America.

 

[wiz329]

I'm not sure I understand why this is so important.

I'm an engineering grad student, and the only thing I've ever used high speed internet for (that's school related) is downloading 300 MB video lectures. Instead of having to wait an hour or so for it to download, I waited for a minute. But I could have easily filled that hour with other activities.

I'm all for bettering internet infrastructure and getting higher speeds to everyone, but let's be honest, this isn't really doing that much to better education for students.

 

[Rad99004]

I doubt that the rural areas will have anymore internet options when this is done.

As usual they will update existing infrastructure and call it good.

 

[wiz329]

You just don't get it.

The things you say are straight out of the republican play book.

If you're happy with a country where far too many people are poorly educated and/or can't afford meaningful education, where people have poor jobs, where people can't afford housing, and where crime is prevalent unlike any industrialized nation.

I have questions for you: Is this really your opinion? Is this something that is truly rational and cohesive, in your mind? Or are you simply regurgitating what a large mass of the conservative population thinks they believe?

Newsflash: everything anyone has said on here is out of some political persuasions "playbook". Just because it isn't "original" doesn't invalidate it.