>>>>>>I must be the only one here who doesn't understand what was in the article (ain't the first time, won't be the last).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The converter will be from digital back to analog. The purpose of the subsidy is so that people who don't want (or can't afford) to spring for a new television set just to be able to watch digital formats will still have access to over the air TV once the government mandated conversion to digital format is in effect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In essence, the bill mitigates the cost to the populace of a program the government is requiring.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What have I missed?????
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That's the way I read it. So why should we (taxpayers) pay for it?
>>>>
>>>>>I don't watch much TV. I don't own a digital TV nor I plan to buy on anytime soon.
>>>>Without the converter you won't be able to watch any.
>>>>
>>>>>Why should anyboy get public money (subsidy) to get a overter so they can watch Oprah?
>>>>
>>>>In this case, because a government mandated conversion from analog to digital signals will make their old sets inoperable. They can watch Oprah now.
>>>>
>>>>In other words, the government has caused a cost to a class of people and will be using some of the revenues from the sale of the newly available frequencies to alleviate the costs of their mandates.
>>>
>>>I can't speak for the U.S. but certainly here, we get no subsidy for government mandates. When the government mandated that all homes must have carbon monoxide detectors, I had to go out an buy my own for somewhere around $100.00 as did everyone else. And that is hardly an isolated incident. Is this the first time that the U.S. government has mandated some change that has cost citizens money? If not, do they always subsidize the changes? If not, what's special about this one?
>>
>>At the risk of sounding elitist, the costs fall disproportionately on those whose primary source of entertainment is over-the-air TV and who are least able to pay the costs associated with the new government policy. Whether that alone is sufficient justification for the subsidy program is clearly subject to debate - and the no's might have the better of the arguement.
>>
>>The other special characteristic is that there is a source of revenue to pay for the subsidy. There may be better uses for the money (although in today's world any expenditure will probably raise objections from one quarter or another), but to characterize it as a glaring example of a government boondoggle is, I think, a significant overbid.
>>
>>And I think my feelings are colored by my reaction to the hyperbole of the original post
>>
>>Why do we have to pay out of federal monies for people to watch soap operas in digital format? If they want it tso badly, let them pay for it!
>>
>>This is 180 degrees off. The reality is that the subsidy is for those that don't want (or can't afford) to convert. Had the original arguement been posed something on the order of "Why should we pay out federal monies to Luddites who are unwilling to move to modern technology?" I would have been less reactive. Had the move to digital technology been a result of industry decisions rather than government mandate I'd certainly have agreed. But, again, the combination of mandated change and revenue source puts me on the side of thinking this is a legitimate expenditure.
>>
>>And I thought these guys were professed "fiscal conservatives", yet they have created the biggest deficit in history. More spending, more corruption. When will this end?
>>
>>Again, maybe I over-reacted, but to equate this proposed bill with the kind of pork-barrel skullduggery for which this administration is justly infamous (I shudder to think of the same group who administers the spending in Iraq having oversight of the rebuilding efforts in the Gulf Coast area) smacks of saying that any Republican spending proposal is "more spending, more corruption."
>
>Well, If I understood the report, the box to convert is about $50.00 US. I know that's a lot of money to some, but most folks should be able to save up $50.00 over a period of months if they really need TV that badly - after all, they did somehow manage to buy a TV. Until they save it up, radio is free. Libraries are free. I'm sure they could find other forms of entertainment that are free.
>
>I realise that asking people to listen to the radio and read books is almost considered heresy these days, but I do object to governments subsidising what is essentially a luxury. Especially when "those who are least able to afford it" would be far better off having prescriptions and other forms of health care, or education better subsidised by the government.
>
>The idea that the government should actively encourage people to mindlessly stare at a box with moving pictures is either downright pitiful, or machiavellian.

Alan,

I believe you'll find that Welfare considers a TV a "necessity". Can make a lot of sense in that instance too!

cheers