STOP THIS TAX! | Americans for Prosperity (http://www.capwiz.com/americansforprosperity/issues/alert/?alertid=14757786&type=CU)


This has probably been posted by someone before, but just in case you didn't see it, please take the time to sign this.

It's a dumb time for a tax cut.

STOP THIS TAX! | Americans for Prosperity (http://www.capwiz.com/americansforprosperity/issues/alert/?alertid=14757786&type=CU)


This has probably been posted by someone before, but just in case you didn't see it, please take the time to sign this.

So what does the new tax pay for? All you linked was to some interest group but provided zero facts as far as what the tax will pay for. Do you even know? What if it covers the upgrading of all infrastructure or enhanced emergency services? Not saying it does, but what if? Or did you just see "new tax" and automatically said "OMG NO!"

People that sign things blindly, and attempt to lead others the same way, without researching what is actually going on is a large part of the problem with politics in this country. It is all shouting and talking points, but nothing behind anyone to back them up. So please...educate us on exactly what the tax is for before you come here asking people to sign something. Don't be another hallow headed activist that has no substance to what they have to say.

Americans for Prosperity: funded by Koch Brothers, multi-billionaires from Kansas. Not a grass-roots organization.

It doesn't matter to me who creates the petition or the means to get the message to legislators. It is the message itself that we need to get heard. I can't think of anything positive that can come from charging us all a phone tax. I doubt it is going to make my phone service any better. So until someone can prove to me that the phone tax is going to improve my phone service. I'm against it. Taxes can be charged, and you never see where the money goes. I think this one is an unnecessary tax. You can feel however you want.

So you admit that you have jumped to this conclusion without knowing what you're talking about?

Wonderful. You are so easy to manipulate.

If you think this tax is a good one, tell me why. I'm open to listening to your opinion.

If you think this tax is a good one, tell me why. I'm open to listening to your opinion.

I think this is fair...since you failed to address any previous question.

If you think this tax is a bad one, tell me why. I'm open to listening to your opinion.

I am not SoonerQueen. But additional costs to the American people is not what we need at the moment. The government needs to stop spending and stop taxiing until we can afford it. When the economy is strong where $3.50 is not a big deal added onto a bill, then I think it'll be different. That extra $40 bucks a year can be a lot to some right now, me included. That $40 could go to some extra uses than the government.

The problem I'm having is this...since apparently it is hard to comprehend.

First off - I'm not one to favor a new tax just like the next guy. However, if someone is going to come out and ask for signatures or whatever to stop a tax - at least have the common sense to research what it is you are fighting. If you (not you specifically SW) want people to share their opinion on why they support it, have the the decency to at least provide the same information on the other side.

All I see here is a sheep saying "OMG FIGHT THIS TAX!" but have absolutely ZERO knowledge in researching what it is. There is absolutely ZERO basis for the opinion to be formed on this except the fact it is a new tax. This is no different then the waves of mindless zombies that go into polls and pull the lever for all the R candidates or all the D candidates. If you come here wanting to debate or discuss and issue, but god have something to back it up with instead of just "here is this fight it...if you don't agree with it, its up to you to tell me why because I'm took lazy to look it up myself."

Do we need this tax? I don't know. I haven't seen anything factual about what this actually is for. Maybe it is to cover emergency services. If that is the case, then there may be something to it. Maybe it is for complete infrastructure upgrades, then that may lead to the question of why aren't the telcos doing it themselves.

We were presented with a topic by SQ but provided absolutely nothing factual around it. All I'm interested in is seeing more facts being posted instead of just shell threads meant to get attention but have zero substance.

The problem I'm having is this...since apparently it is hard to comprehend.

First off - I'm not one to favor a new tax just like the next guy. However, if someone is going to come out and ask for signatures or whatever to stop a tax - at least have the common sense to research what it is you are fighting. If you (not you specifically SW) want people to share their opinion on why they support it, have the the decency to at least provide the same information on the other side.

All I see here is a sheep saying "OMG FIGHT THIS TAX!" but have absolutely ZERO knowledge in researching what it is. There is absolutely ZERO basis for the opinion to be formed on this except the fact it is a new tax. This is no different then the waves of mindless zombies that go into polls and pull the lever for all the R candidates or all the D candidates. If you come here wanting to debate or discuss and issue, but god have something to back it up with instead of just "here is this fight it...if you don't agree with it, its up to you to tell me why because I'm took lazy to look it up myself."

Do we need this tax? I don't know. I haven't seen anything factual about what this actually is for. Maybe it is to cover emergency services. If that is the case, then there may be something to it. Maybe it is for complete infrastructure upgrades, then that may lead to the question of why aren't the telcos doing it themselves.

We were presented with a topic by SQ but provided absolutely nothing factual around it. All I'm interested in is seeing more facts being posted instead of just shell threads meant to get attention but have zero substance.

:congrats:

The problem I'm having is this...since apparently it is hard to comprehend.

First off - I'm not one to favor a new tax just like the next guy. However, if someone is going to come out and ask for signatures or whatever to stop a tax - at least have the common sense to research what it is you are fighting. If you (not you specifically SW) want people to share their opinion on why they support it, have the the decency to at least provide the same information on the other side.

All I see here is a sheep saying "OMG FIGHT THIS TAX!" but have absolutely ZERO knowledge in researching what it is. There is absolutely ZERO basis for the opinion to be formed on this except the fact it is a new tax. This is no different then the waves of mindless zombies that go into polls and pull the lever for all the R candidates or all the D candidates. If you come here wanting to debate or discuss and issue, but god have something to back it up with instead of just "here is this fight it...if you don't agree with it, its up to you to tell me why because I'm took lazy to look it up myself."

Do we need this tax? I don't know. I haven't seen anything factual about what this actually is for. Maybe it is to cover emergency services. If that is the case, then there may be something to it. Maybe it is for complete infrastructure upgrades, then that may lead to the question of why aren't the telcos doing it themselves.

We were presented with a topic by SQ but provided absolutely nothing factual around it. All I'm interested in is seeing more facts being posted instead of just shell threads meant to get attention but have zero substance.

I am neutral to this thread - I have not had the time to read it all. However, I think that is a fair post. I think Americans need to research their interests when voting, petitioning our government, etc.. I am done with the both sides issue, there is only one side: Americans.

So you admit that you have jumped to this conclusion without knowing what you're talking about?

Wonderful. You are so easy to manipulate.

That is about as rude as I've ever seen you post, without provocation, Mid. Why the hostility? She didn't deserve that response, IMO.

Has she admitted she doesn't know the purpose of the tax? Yes.

Is the website run by someone with an ulterior motive? Sure.

She read that website and jumped to an indefensible conclusion based upon it. That's called allowing yourself to be manipulated. I'm not being mean or spiteful, just calling balls and strikes.

Has she admitted she doesn't know the purpose of the tax? Yes.

Is the website run by someone with an ulterior motive? Sure.

She read that website and jumped to an indefensible conclusion based upon it. That's called allowing yourself to be manipulated. I'm not being mean or spiteful, just calling balls and strikes.

Admitted? She's on the witness stand now for posting that she was not in favor of a tax? And that is justification for


So you admit that you have jumped to this conclusion without knowing what you're talking about?

Wonderful. You are so easy to manipulate.

You were being a jerk and it wasn't called for. Save it for the guys who are looking for a fight.

SoonerQueen, is this what you are talkiing about?

http://www.occ.state.ok.us/Divisions/NEWS/2010/03a-10-10Statement-Murphy.pdf

I agree with Venture and Midtowner, both may fall over sideways due to that.

I agree with Venture and Midtowner, both may fall over sideways due to that.

I was sitting down. :-P lol :tiphat:

That is about as rude as I've ever seen you post, without provocation, Mid. Why the hostility? She didn't deserve that response, IMO.

Penny, this is what I was referring to. Thanks for posting the info from Dana Murphy's office. I just got off the phone with her, and this has been postponed until the first part of 2011. Gives us all plenty of time to read and study and decide how we feel about it.

Penny, this is what I was referring to. Thanks for posting the info from Dana Murphy's office. I just got off the phone with her, and this has been postponed until the first part of 2011. Gives us all plenty of time to read and study and decide how we feel about it.

Ah, so now you'll actually sit down and read what it actually is before passing judgement and encouraging others to do the same? Good to hear.

Admitted? She's on the witness stand now for posting that she was not in favor of a tax? And that is justification for

Inferential reasoning... it's fundamental.


I can't think of anything positive that can come from charging us all a phone tax. I doubt it is going to make my phone service any better. So until someone can prove to me that the phone tax is going to improve my phone service. I'm against it. Taxes can be charged, and you never see where the money goes. I think this one is an unnecessary tax. You can feel however you want.

So she can't think of "anything positive." This clearly implies she doesn't have a clue what this tax goes for. It could be for TTD services for the deaf for all she knows.

In reality, the tax isn't really a tax. It's a fee which is meant to compensate AT&T for its expected loss of revenue due to statewide toll-free calling. This aspect of the plan, however, is just the tip of the iceberg. The Corporation Commission is looking at a lot of options right now with regard to wireline telecommunications technology.

AT&T has a valid complaint insofar as it has to have rate changes approved by an arduous administrative process while the folks at Cox, the various VOIP carriers, etc., simply have to do whatever it takes within their own computer systems to change rates.

I'm sure tied up in all of this, you have access fees paid to cell phone carriers (which we all pay, but the cost thereof is built into our plans); the aforementioned statewide long distance; rates; and just about everything imaginable within the scope of AT&T's wireline business including and likely up to deregulation.

I'm always very skeptical when AT&T and The Corporation Commission are mentioned in the same sentence as the former has been caught in the past paying bribes to Commissioners (people went to prison over this).

At the end of the day, it's an extra $2-$3/month/line we're talking about. Not a huge deal.

It isn't that big of a deal, but I'd be paying a fee for something I already have. I pay for 4 cell phone lines and one land line. We have statewide long distance on all five already. That would be 15.95 a month.

It isn't that big of a deal, but I'd be paying a fee for something I already have. I pay for 4 cell phone lines and one land line. We have statewide long distance on all five already. That would be 15.95 a month.

You pay for 4 cell phones and a land line, and you are worried about a 2 or 3 dollar fee?