Why do the poor deserve obamaphones?

[240 is Back]

I didn't pay attention, but a relative has one and her kid is using one... kid is texting all the time, I dont know what wifi capabilities it has.   i called her a 94%er and the little 9 year old looked at me confused.  Eh.

[avxo]

Like what?   If these fat greesy slobs and tax sponges were put to work doing something they wouldnt need a phone to do their drug deals and scams. 

I don't know about "Jack T. Cross" but this is an interesting question. If I were a "benevolent dictator" here's where I would start:

• Eliminate all foreign aid. Noboby gets a dime. I would only consider sending foreign aid in cases of disasters like the Fukushima Dai-Ichi situation, where expertise and/or technology was was is needed and then only in kind, not money.
• Eliminate the ability of Senators and Congressmen to decorate at taxpayer's expense. Taxpayers get fancy televisions, italian leather couches, and popcorn machines in their offices. All on the backs of the taxpayers. All offices would be equipped with standard-issue office furniture using a tender process.
• Implement free government housing - for legislators. If they don't like their 1-bedroom apartment with small office in the projects, they can pay for their own housing. Provide shuttle service. Government cars would be made available, but they would not be decked out Lexus or Cadillacs. Standard government issue. Personal use to be reimbursed out of pocket by the member of Congress.
• Reduce Congressional staff and consolidate the workforce. For example, it's ridiculous that the House and the Senate employ so many lawyers, many of which have, in essence, a full time job as advisors to a part-time committee. Lawyers in real life have multiple clients. Congressional lawyers can too.
• Examine and cut or trim wasteful defense contracts. A great example is the development of the F-35 Lightning II. The aircraft has emerged out of what is, in essence, a gigantic black hole of money. By trying to be all things to all people it came in late and over budget.
• Examine the NASA budget. I love NASA; I think it's one of the few parts of the Federal Government that work and work well. Sadly, decades of mismanagement and political posturing have wasted billions and left NASA as a shadow of its former self. I would try and trim some fat, and pass legislation that would make NASA's plans and budget allocations fixed for 10 year periods.
• End pork-barrel projects once and for all. Taxpayer money shouldn't be used as piggy bank to finance campaigns by letting politicians bring home the bacon.
• Examine the Department of Homeland Security. There is way too much duplication in that leviathan. Pay special attention to the travesty that is the TSA. Eliminate the ridiculous way TSA announces and procures devices, which allow DHS Secretaries to sign contracts without Congressional oversight to authorize the purchase of machines which sit, unpacked, in warehouses.
• Examine ridiculous government agency money-wasting techniques. There's no reason for the FCC to be sponsoring NASCAR drivers. Consider whether it makes fiscal sense for the Armed Forces to air commercials, at the taxpayers dime.
• Eliminate the penny (and perhaps the nickel). Every one produced costs the government more money than it's worth. Consider eliminating the $1 and $2 bills, replacing them with coins. Examine whether polymer notes make financial sense - they cost more to produce but could, potentially, last longer.

[Thick Nick]

I don't know about "Jack T. Cross" but this is an interesting question. If I were a "benevolent dictator" here's where I would start:

• Eliminate all foreign aid. Noboby gets a dime. I would only consider sending foreign aid in cases of disasters like the Fukushima Dai-Ichi situation, where expertise and/or technology was was is needed and then only in kind, not money.
• Eliminate the ability of Senators and Congressmen to decorate at taxpayer's expense. Taxpayers get fancy televisions, italian leather couches, and popcorn machines in their offices. All on the backs of the taxpayers. All offices would be equipped with standard-issue office furniture using a tender process.
• Implement free government housing - for legislators. If they don't like their 1-bedroom apartment with small office in the projects, they can pay for their own housing. Provide shuttle service. Government cars would be made available, but they would not be decked out Lexus or Cadillacs. Standard government issue. Personal use to be reimbursed out of pocket by the member of Congress.
• Reduce Congressional staff and consolidate the workforce. For example, it's ridiculous that the House and the Senate employ so many lawyers, many of which have, in essence, a full time job as advisors to a part-time committee. Lawyers in real life have multiple clients. Congressional lawyers can too.
• Examine and cut or trim wasteful defense contracts. A great example is the development of the F-35 Lightning II. The aircraft has emerged out of what is, in essence, a gigantic black hole of money. By trying to be all things to all people it came in late and over budget.
• Examine the NASA budget. I love NASA; I think it's one of the few parts of the Federal Government that work and work well. Sadly, decades of mismanagement and political posturing have wasted billions and left NASA as a shadow of its former self. I would try and trim some fat, and pass legislation that would make NASA's plans and budget allocations fixed for 10 year periods.
• End pork-barrel projects once and for all. Taxpayer money shouldn't be used as piggy bank to finance campaigns by letting politicians bring home the bacon.
• Examine the Department of Homeland Security. There is way too much duplication in that leviathan. Pay special attention to the travesty that is the TSA. Eliminate the ridiculous way TSA announces and procures devices, which allow DHS Secretaries to sign contracts without Congressional oversight to authorize the purchase of machines which sit, unpacked, in warehouses.
• Examine ridiculous government agency money-wasting techniques. There's no reason for the FCC to be sponsoring NASCAR drivers. Consider whether it makes fiscal sense for the Armed Forces to air commercials, at the taxpayers dime.
• Eliminate the penny (and perhaps the nickel). Every one produced costs the government more money than it's worth. Consider eliminating the $1 and $2 bills, replacing them with coins. Examine whether polymer notes make financial sense - they cost more to produce but could, potentially, last longer.

Close the borders...

Deport ALL illegals...

Make any type of welfare...ANY... dependent on working... you want food stamps? You now have to take the landscaping jobs vacated by the illegals...

Cap medical malpractice lawsuits and if you lose you pay all the expenses...would be the end of frivolous lawsuits jacking insurance costs which then jack our prices...

Allow cross state medical insurance competition...

Make medical insurance work like car insurance...you don't use insurance for a flat tire or buying gas... you use it for tragedies... same with medical you pay for a visit for a cold and have insurance for when you god forbid get cancer...

Bring our Military home and have them enforce our borders...no more intervention in foreign affairs...

Leave the UN and NATO and start a new alliance with Real allies... and god forbid you mess with any of them... then we will intervene...

Term limits for every single government position in the entire country...

No lawyers in Congress anymore... go back to having to hold a real job aside from politician so that you care about the votes you make...

End ALL lobbying...

Implement a system like no child left behind for fucking media outlets... the media not doing their jobs properly is the biggest problem we have in this country... true factual reporting of what thee shitheads in government are doing would end 99% of the nonsense...

[Thick Nick]

Permanently cut business taxes 50% across the board...get companies hiring again...

Abolish the IRS and use a 15% consumption tax ....anything you buy you pay 15%... no other taxes but this is on everything food clothes cars houses except medications. That way whores strippers drug dealers leeches etc are all paying taxes. And the rich would be paying more because no deductions...buy a yacht? 15%... buy a small fishing boat? 15%... This would be for individuals... Corporations would also have some tax system but like I said above way less then now...

Go back to the gold standard and abolish the Fed...if I HAD to pick just one of these things it would be this... the media thing second...

[tu_holmes]

Permanently cut business taxes 50% across the board...get companies hiring again...

Abolish the IRS and use a 15% consumption tax ....anything you buy you pay 15%... no other taxes but this is on everything food clothes cars houses except medications. That way whores strippers drug dealers leeches etc are all paying taxes. And the rich would be paying more because no deductions...buy a yacht? 15%... buy a small fishing boat? 15%... This would be for individuals... Corporations would also have some tax system but like I said above way less then now...

Go back to the gold standard and abolish the Fed...if I HAD to pick just one of these things it would be this... the media thing second...

That has NEVER worked... What part of this do people not understand?

The rest is fine... I'm good with it... but trickle down economics has NEVER worked.

[Coach is Back!]

That has NEVER worked... What part of this do people not understand?

The rest is fine... I'm good with it... but trickle down economics has NEVER worked.

Explain how this doesn't work. Btw, the us has the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

[avxo]

Explain how this doesn't work. Btw, the us has the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

It's true that the U.S. has a very high nominal corporate tax rate, although I am not sure if it's the highest. But the reality is that very few - if any - corporations actually pay that; because of a large number of credits and deductions available, along with a little creative accounting and some "tricks" that corporations routinely employ (e.g. keeping foreign-earned income overseas) the actual tax rate that most pay is much lower than what's on paper.

That's not to say that we shouldn't lower taxes across the board; we absolutely should.

[tu_holmes]

Explain how this doesn't work. Btw, the us has the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

Pretty simple... Companies do not hire because taxes are "low".

They hire because they need people.

If Bush tax cuts spurred economic growth, then we would not have had all of the layoffs in 2008, especially seeing as how the taxes for corporations are and have been at their lowest they have been for easily 30 years.

[avxo]

That has NEVER worked... What part of this do people not understand?

The rest is fine... I'm good with it... but trickle down economics has NEVER worked.

I'll leave the question of whether it has or hasn't worked to someone better educated on the subject. But even if it doesn't work, I'm all for cutting taxes even if only for purely selfish reasons.

Pretty simple... Companies do not hire because taxes are "low".

They hire because they need people.

I think that's an oversimplification. Companies are not unlike us in a sense - their decisions aren't always simplistic and almost always take into account more than one factor. It's reasonable for a company to need more workers but for it to be unable to afford to hire them. In that case, having to pay $200,000/year less in taxes might, very well, cause them to hire more people.

Ultimately, companies have some amount of money coming in. The more of that money they can keep, the more money they have available to use - whether using it means hiring, buying equipment, building infrastructure, investing in R&D, paying dividends or whathaveyou.

If Bush tax cuts spurred economic growth, then we would not have had all of the layoffs in 2008, especially seeing as how the taxes for corporations are and have been at their lowest they have been for easily 30 years.

Which taxes? The nominal or actual taxes?

[Jack T. Cross]

I didn't pay attention, but a relative has one and her kid is using one... kid is texting all the time, I dont know what wifi capabilities it has.   i called her a 94%er and the little 9 year old looked at me confused.  Eh.

lol...

[Jack T. Cross]

those who attempt to pin the poor as being the true culprits are only showing their inexperience in this world.

[Roger Bacon]

those who attempt to pin the poor as being the true culprits are only showing their inexperience in this world.

The poor certainly aren't the culprits, the government is. 

[Soul Crusher]

Skip to comments.

Democrats want hearing on 'Obama phone' program
The Hill ^ | 7 Mar 13 | Brendan Sasso
Posted on March 7, 2013 5:57:13 PM EST by SkyPilot

Three leading House Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats are calling for an oversight hearing on the Federal Communications Commission's Lifeline program, a phone subsidy for the poor that has been disparagingly referred to as the "Obama phone" program.

The program, which began long before President Obama took office, has been notorious for waste and abuse. The FCC enacted reforms last year aimed at trimming billions of dollars from the program, but recent reports indicate that people who are ineligible for the program are still receiving subsidies.

The program gained more attention last year when conservatives seized on a viral video of a woman saying she would vote for President Obama because he gave her a free phone. Republicans have claimed the program is a "massive entitlement" that is making people dependent on the government.

Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the committee's ranking member, Anna Eshoo (Calif.), the ranking member of the Communications and Technology subcommittee, and Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), the ranking member of the Oversight subcommittee, sent a letter on Thursday to their Republican counterparts, requesting a hearing to examine the Lifeline program and efforts to contain its costs.

They did not dispute the value of the program, writing that "universal access to communications services is a longstanding national policy goal."

"Since 1985, the Lifeline program has helped tens of millions of low-income Americans get and keep a telephone in their home," the Democrats wrote. But they blamed the Bush administration for making the program more wasteful. They wrote that the expansion of the program from landline service to cellular service, which occurred in 2005, "created new risks for waste, fraud, and abuse."

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...

[24KT]

Probably just a poor issue, not a race issue.

Don't get me wrong, nothing bad about helping people out.

But cell phones?  Think that's going a little far...regardless of what Congress or President started it.

That all depends on what the true motive is doesn't it? Now if you're looking to fine tune the ability to trace, track, and keep tabs on huge numbers of people 24/7... a free trackable cell phone could potentially be a way to do it.

[andreisdaman]

Skip to comments.

Democrats want hearing on 'Obama phone' program
The Hill ^ | 7 Mar 13 | Brendan Sasso
Posted on March 7, 2013 5:57:13 PM EST by SkyPilot

Three leading House Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats are calling for an oversight hearing on the Federal Communications Commission's Lifeline program, a phone subsidy for the poor that has been disparagingly referred to as the "Obama phone" program.

The program, which began long before President Obama took office, has been notorious for waste and abuse. The FCC enacted reforms last year aimed at trimming billions of dollars from the program, but recent reports indicate that people who are ineligible for the program are still receiving subsidies.

The program gained more attention last year when conservatives seized on a viral video of a woman saying she would vote for President Obama because he gave her a free phone. Republicans have claimed the program is a "massive entitlement" that is making people dependent on the government.

Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the committee's ranking member, Anna Eshoo (Calif.), the ranking member of the Communications and Technology subcommittee, and Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), the ranking member of the Oversight subcommittee, sent a letter on Thursday to their Republican counterparts, requesting a hearing to examine the Lifeline program and efforts to contain its costs.

They did not dispute the value of the program, writing that "universal access to communications services is a longstanding national policy goal."

"Since 1985, the Lifeline program has helped tens of millions of low-income Americans get and keep a telephone in their home," the Democrats wrote. But they blamed the Bush administration for making the program more wasteful. They wrote that the expansion of the program from landline service to cellular service, which occurred in 2005, "created new risks for waste, fraud, and abuse."

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...

well at least you published an article which backed up a previous assertion that I made on this subject...that the so-called "obamaphone" was actually the "Bushphone"....I agree that the program is probably rife with abuse.....it needs to be curtailed but I can understand its premise...you don't want an isolated population not being in communication with the general population ..it would just increase their inability to join the mainstream......for example having such a phone increases the ability of the poor to get a job since they would have a number where they could actually be contacted....I can undersatand that..but the program is being abused I believe.

[MCWAY]

Skip to comments.

Democrats want hearing on 'Obama phone' program
The Hill ^ | 7 Mar 13 | Brendan Sasso
Posted on March 7, 2013 5:57:13 PM EST by SkyPilot

Three leading House Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats are calling for an oversight hearing on the Federal Communications Commission's Lifeline program, a phone subsidy for the poor that has been disparagingly referred to as the "Obama phone" program.

The program, which began long before President Obama took office, has been notorious for waste and abuse. The FCC enacted reforms last year aimed at trimming billions of dollars from the program, but recent reports indicate that people who are ineligible for the program are still receiving subsidies.

The program gained more attention last year when conservatives seized on a viral video of a woman saying she would vote for President Obama because he gave her a free phone. Republicans have claimed the program is a "massive entitlement" that is making people dependent on the government.

Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the committee's ranking member, Anna Eshoo (Calif.), the ranking member of the Communications and Technology subcommittee, and Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), the ranking member of the Oversight subcommittee, sent a letter on Thursday to their Republican counterparts, requesting a hearing to examine the Lifeline program and efforts to contain its costs.

They did not dispute the value of the program, writing that "universal access to communications services is a longstanding national policy goal."

"Since 1985, the Lifeline program has helped tens of millions of low-income Americans get and keep a telephone in their home," the Democrats wrote. But they blamed the Bush administration for making the program more wasteful. They wrote that the expansion of the program from landline service to cellular service, which occurred in 2005, "created new risks for waste, fraud, and abuse."

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...

I thought there were no such things as Obama phones.

well at least you published an article which backed up a previous assertion that I made on this subject...that the so-called "obamaphone" was actually the "Bushphone"....I agree that the program is probably rife with abuse.....it needs to be curtailed but I can understand its premise...you don't want an isolated population not being in communication with the general population ..it would just increase their inability to join the mainstream......for example having such a phone increases the ability of the poor to get a job since they would have a number where they could actually be contacted....I can undersatand that..but the program is being abused I believe.

As if the poor can't get landlines  .

When I was broke, I didn't have a cell phone. In fact, because my credit was shot at the time, I had to resort that (and I don't know if it still exists today) "Reconex" service. It was basic local phone service, no long distance. I had to buy phone cards for that.

As for communicating with the general population, you can get e-mails accounts FOR FREE. I got my Yahoo account 15 years ago, after signing up for it at a local library.

[andreisdaman]

I thought there were no such things as Obama phones.




As if the poor can't get landlines  .

When I was broke, I didn't have a cell phone. In fact, because my credit was shot at the time, I had to resort that (and I don't know if it still exists today) "Reconex" service. It was basic local phone service, no long distance. I had to buy phone cards for that.

As for communicating with the general population, you can get e-mails accounts FOR FREE. I got my Yahoo account 15 years ago, after signing up for it at a local library.

believe it or not, landlines are awfully expensive......lots of taxes and fees added on.....but I see your point

[MCWAY]

believe it or not, landlines are awfully expensive......lots of taxes and fees added on.....but I see your point

Reconex wasn't. I think it was either $30 or $50 a month. Again, no long distance service came with it. I had to head to the convenience store up the street and buy a phone card.

But, there was another way I got long distance. I'm sure this doesn't exist anymore. It was called "Freeway" (I saw it on a news article late night).

Basically, you sign up for it online. The principle was that you watch broadcast TV for free, because of all the commercial. Well, all you have to do is listen to a 30-45 second commercial. And you get 2 minutes of long-distance talk time. You then get the option of hearing more about the what that commercial was selling and that product's website.

The more commercials you opt to hear, the more talk time you get, up to 120 minutes per month.

 

[Soul Crusher]

Obama phone advocates fight back, but call drops 

March 16, 2013 by Michael Dorstewitz 7 Comments


0

inShare

Email
Print
After the Federal Communication Commission reported this week that 41 percent of those receiving free mobile phones don’t meet the requirements — some because they’re dead — the proponents of the so-called “Obama phone” program are firing back. But they still miss the point.

Ever since GOP Rep. Tim Griffin of Arkansas announced early this week that Lifeline, a free phone service for low-income families that costs taxpayers $2 billion a year, was rife with fraud, conservative lawmakers and pundits alike have jumped on the bandwagon to bash it.

The program’s supporters are now fighting back.

“Allow me to set the record straight,” said Mignon Clyburn, a Democratic member of the Federal Communications Commission according to The Hill. “Without this program, 15 million low-income families would literally be choosing between feeding their children or going without a dial tone that potentially could save their lives and put them on a better economic path.”

Few people would doubt the program’s validity — but that’s not the point being made by Griffin.

The emergency need argument repeated by Clyburn, the daughter of liberal U.S. Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., was the same used in 1985 during the Reagan era to push for the program’s passage. But at that time, it was limited strictly to landlines — cellphones weren’t common then.

Twenty years later, during the George W. Bush administration, the FCC added mobile phones to the program, and since then, things have gotten increasingly out of hand.

U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., known for his periodic “Pork Reports” of government waste, said the program is “ballooning out of control” and has “morphed into a massive entitlement,” according to The Hill.

In much the same vein, conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh considers the program, as it’s instituted another push toward government dependency. With the apparent implication that “everyone deserves a cell phone,” it’s hard to argue with that assessment.

Clyburn eventually addressed the fraud issue Friday, announcing that the FCC trimmed $200 million last year. But that’s a far cry from 41 percent of a $2 billion program.

Perhaps it’s time once again to make Lifeline a landline-only program, or make it accessible to cellphones for emergency calls only. That, after all, is what the program was meant to address – emergencies.

Read more at The Hill, and watch Griffin appear “On the Record” with Greta Van Susteren.

[drkaje]

Great. Post.   I live in the Bronx and often feel like I am in the middle of the. Movie ZULU.   


the biggest issue is socialism and racism.   The rampant bs pumped into the. Ghetto is beyond anyones imagination. 

How is cost of living in the Bronx?