Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Irongrip400 on May 28, 2012, 06:14:29 AM
-
What is the reason, besides buying votes? Do these people realize that they are just making people less likely to go out and work? When these people all decide to quit their jobs, or just not work, who is left to foot the bill for everything else? The working man? I would like a leftist view on these welfare programs, sell me on this please.
-
What is the reason, besides buying votes? Do these people realize that they are just making people less likely to go out and work? When these people all decide to quit their jobs, or just not work, who is left to foot the bill for everything else? The working man? I would like a leftist view on these welfare programs, sell me on this please.
What's an Obamaphone? I don't think I've heard the term before.
-
What's an Obamaphone? I don't think I've heard the term before.
Free govt cell phones. Sorry for the colloquialism.
-
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp
-
i bet they all light up on election day with text reminders to vote Obama so you can keep your damn phone ;)
-
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp
Ok, I read it, what I want to ask is why do welfare recipients deserve a phone. I call it an obamaphone because it happened under his watch, and it seems he is a little more inclined to "help" the poor. Anyway, do you think people should get a free phone?
-
Ok, I read it, what I want to ask is why do welfare recipients deserve a phone. I call it an obamaphone because it happened under his watch, and it seems he is a little more inclined to "help" the poor. Anyway, do you think people should get a free phone?
Apparently, you did not read it... It happened under Ronald Reagan's watch.
That's what the article says.
-
Ok, I read it, what I want to ask is why do welfare recipients deserve a phone. I call it an obamaphone because it happened under his watch, and it seems he is a little more inclined to "help" the poor.
I think it's fairly obvious from the snopes article that Obama had nothing to do with it. Calling it Obamaphone and making Obama responsible seems a bit disingenous. I've never understood the penchant that people have for attributing to Obama things which demonstrably aren't his fault. It's not as if he doesn't have enough things that he should be held accountable for and which actually do have his fingerprints on them.
Anyway, do you think people should get a free phone?
That depends on who's giving the phone. Do I think that people should be entitled to a free phone courtesy of the government? No.
Apparently, you did not read it... It happened under Ronald Reagan's watch.
That's what the article says.
Not quite - the programs under Reagan were for wireline phone service. Not that the wire (or lack thereof) is a big differentiator.
-
Apparently, you did not read it... It happened under Ronald Reagan's watch.
That's what the article says.
Spin it anyway you want, I never saw commercials for it until a few years ago. Especially with the commercial where the black woman talks about her phone being cut off and she exclaims "it's my cousins fault". It's Lmost like whoever did the marketing was patronizing blacks. Again, I just question the policies of a government that keeps on giving handouts without anything in return. I'm sorry, but my wife and I do okay, and I see what is paid in taxes and it pisses me off that there are programs that take my money and give it to those who do nothing but be born and breed. 2010, the last year I was single I paid $43,000 in taxes, now how is that fair that I pay so much, and others get free phones etc. I will now retract my obamaphone euphamism and call it what it is, a welfare phone.
-
Spin it anyway you want, I never saw commercials for it until a few years ago. Especially with the commercial where the black woman talks about her phone being cut off and she exclaims "it's my cousins fault". It's Lmost like whoever did the marketing was patronizing blacks. Again, I just question the policies of a government that keeps on giving handouts without anything in return. I'm sorry, but my wife and I do okay, and I see what is paid in taxes and it pisses me off that there are programs that take my money and give it to those who do nothing but be born and breed. 2010, the last year I was single I paid $43,000 in taxes, now how is that fair that I pay so much, and others get free phones etc. I will now retract my obamaphone euphamism and call it what it is, a welfare phone.
That's a fair enough statement.
I don't see how there is any right to a phone what so ever... Phone companies already allow for emergency services on ANY Cell phone. (Land Lines as well)
Even one you can buy for a penny.
-
Spin it anyway you want, I never saw commercials for it until a few years ago. Especially with the commercial where the black woman talks about her phone being cut off and she exclaims "it's my cousins fault". It's Lmost like whoever did the marketing was patronizing blacks. Again, I just question the policies of a government that keeps on giving handouts without anything in return. I'm sorry, but my wife and I do okay, and I see what is paid in taxes and it pisses me off that there are programs that take my money and give it to those who do nothing but be born and breed. 2010, the last year I was single I paid $43,000 in taxes, now how is that fair that I pay so much, and others get free phones etc. I will now retract my obamaphone euphamism and call it what it is, a welfare phone.
A landline...maybe for like emergency stuff.
A cell phone...absolutely not! Landlines work just fine.
-
A landline...maybe for like emergency stuff.
A cell phone...absolutely not! Landlines work just fine.
Agreed, why our government is subsidizing cell phones is beyond me. More evidence of how we can trim fat.
-
Agreed, why our government is subsidizing cell phones is beyond me. More evidence of how we can trim fat.
we actually had a great discussion on how govt issued phones can help inspire commerce, save lives, and CONNECT people - thus leading to increased productivity & tax payer dollars coming in.
I dont like the govt subsidizing things, but there are a LOT of things (like ball washing programs) that I'd slash before I'd cut communication devices. They're so cheap and deliver SO much productivity and better use of time for americans.
-
So they can deal drugs more efficiently
pretty sure everyone of them phones are tapped! Nice try Obama...
-
pretty sure everyone of them phones are tapped! Nice try Obama...
that's an interesting proposition - free phones, but law enforcement has ability to monitor them and use them against you in trial.
if you're just using them for emergencies, for needing a ride, for flirting, for job interviews, then you have nothing to worry about, right? ;)
If you don't like it and don't agree with the terms, then pay for your own #$&@#^$&^# cell phone.
-
^^^ true enough about the terms and not liking them.
-
So they can deal drugs more efficiently
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
we actually had a great discussion on how govt issued phones can help inspire commerce, save lives, and CONNECT people - thus leading to increased productivity & tax payer dollars coming in.
I dont like the govt subsidizing things, but there are a LOT of things (like ball washing programs) that I'd slash before I'd cut communication devices. They're so cheap and deliver SO much productivity and better use of time for americans.
Saving lives = fine.
Connect people = not the governments job.
Inspire commerce = any proof or studies that there's any real impact?
-
Saving lives = fine.
Connect people = not the governments job.
Inspire commerce = any proof or studies that there's any real impact?
They inspire commerce through drug deals.
Lots of tax revenue and money flowing back into the economy from drug dealers.
-
They inspire commerce through drug deals.
Lots of tax revenue and money flowing back into the economy from drug dealers.
:D
-
Have they stopped beating up random passers by of different races and taking their phones or something? Arent poor black neighborhoods the most racist places in the usa? Non aggresive other races cannot even walk into those neighborhoods without being subjected to violence. Yes, lets give this group more free things. ::)
Racist.
-
Have they stopped beating up random passers by of different races and taking their phones or something? Arent poor black neighborhoods the most racist places in the usa? Non aggresive other races cannot even walk into those neighborhoods without being subjected to violence. Yes, lets give this group more free things. ::)
Dude = truth.
-
Dude = truth.
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.
-
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.
The do gooders always have a new NEED for the loafers.
-
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.
-
I live in the Bronx and often feel like I am in the middle of the. Movie ZULU.
Why do you feel that way?
-
Why do you feel that way?
take a guess.
-
What is the reason, besides buying votes? Do these people realize that they are just making people less likely to go out and work? When these people all decide to quit their jobs, or just not work, who is left to foot the bill for everything else? The working man? I would like a leftist view on these welfare programs, sell me on this please.
sorry....good try to try and blame Obama...but those cellphones were available starting in the Bush years.....they can be gotten by the poor through medicaid....
gotta stop trying to pin everything on Obama dude.........
-
i bet they all light up on election day with text reminders to vote Obama so you can keep your damn phone ;)
I know this is sarcasm 240, but don't feed into this nonsense.....
-
Apparently, you did not read it... It happened under Ronald Reagan's watch.
That's what the article says.
time to say "oops"
-
I know this is sarcasm 240, but don't feed into this nonsense.....
I'm sure your bi ass has an Obama phone too.
-
Nobody tries to take away angry militant blacks freedom of speech when they say they want to do this and that to whitey. They also say a lot of white people do (insert negative stereotype). The ghetto black culture is hypocritical and a thousand more racist than i could ever be. Fuck cell phones. Gives those mother fuckers sime books. And some fucking responsiblity. Snd some humble fuckin pie. Fuck fell phones. Get a damn purpose with your life. Fuck a cell phone. Fucking total bullshit
The average responsible black person who pays his bills must be appalled by thugs like Obama andre Benny etc.
-
Now that youre done calling me the dreaded "R" word. Can you dispute that those areas are the most racist areas in the usa? Are there anywhere else where violencetowards other races is so openly embraced and tolerated?
Its so funny to hear you people whip out the word racist. The word racist means you believe peoples abilitys and other characteristics are based in their race. It also means that you subscibe to a racial hierarchy in terms of place in the world. I don neithe of thise things. There are plenty of blacks who are far far better men than i. I also believe that people of different races can and do achieve things that defy there racial stereotypes. However, what i said abou poor black neighborhoods is true. And you all know it. I hope this puts to bed that i am a racist. My world view doesnt value a person based on skin color. But, i can fucking comment on the poor black ghetto cultire if i want to. That doesnt make me a racist. Anyone who tells you that wants to take your individual freedom o speech from you and they should be detested thoroughly.
Bromosexual - I agree with you. I was being sarcastic, you know, cause if you say anything negative about black culture youre automatically a racist, no matter how true it is.
I thought you would pick up the sarcasm, cause I was laying it down pretttyyy thick.
-
Spin it anyway you want, I never saw commercials for it until a few years ago. Especially with the commercial where the black woman talks about her phone being cut off and she exclaims "it's my cousins fault". It's Lmost like whoever did the marketing was patronizing blacks. Again, I just question the policies of a government that keeps on giving handouts without anything in return. I'm sorry, but my wife and I do okay, and I see what is paid in taxes and it pisses me off that there are programs that take my money and give it to those who do nothing but be born and breed. 2010, the last year I was single I paid $43,000 in taxes, now how is that fair that I pay so much, and others get free phones etc. I will now retract my obamaphone euphamism and call it what it is, a welfare phone.
again you make a very big assumption that "blacks" are benefiting from this..I can almost guarantee you that as with ALL government programs, whites are the biggest users in terms of sheer numbers..I am sure this is true with this program as well
I know the point you are trying to get at....another attempt at an anti-black thread....but it blew up in your face
-
They inspire commerce through drug deals.
Lots of tax revenue and money flowing back into the economy from drug dealers.
you are absolutely right...all those poor whites using these phones to make meth deals...good job for pointing this out
-
you are absolutely right...all those poor whites using these phones to make meth deals...good job for pointing this out
Good point, almost forgot about the white trash.
Mexican dealers with their coke. (Although most are illegals, so they probably wont be a problem)
Blacks and their crack, and weed.
All people that dont need phones.
Id be willing to bet the amount of blacks getting in the program will far outweigh the whiskey tango, though. (Percentage wise, youre quick to point out sheer numbers, but the fact is percentage wise its not so much as you try to make it out.)
-
Now that youre done calling me the dreaded "R" word. Can you dispute that those areas are the most racist areas in the usa? Are there anywhere else where violencetowards other races is so openly embraced and tolerated?
Its so funny to hear you people whip out the word racist. The word racist means you believe peoples abilitys and other characteristics are based in their race. It also means that you subscibe to a racial hierarchy in terms of place in the world. I don neithe of thise things. There are plenty of blacks who are far far better men than i. I also believe that people of different races can and do achieve things that defy there racial stereotypes. However, what i said abou poor black neighborhoods is true. And you all know it. I hope this puts to bed that i am a racist. My world view doesnt value a person based on skin color. But, i can fucking comment on the poor black ghetto cultire if i want to. That doesnt make me a racist. Anyone who tells you that wants to take your individual freedom o speech from you and they should be detested thoroughly.
Dude...get off your soap box...who cares???..its getbig
-
I'm sure your bi ass has an Obama phone too.
I'm sure its hard for you to get reception from your mother's basement
-
You know what poor people need more than a cell phone?
accountability
Hope you mean all those millions and millions of poor whites as well
-
The average responsible black person who pays his bills must be appalled by thugs like Obama andre Benny etc.
pretty cold in that basement?
-
Bromosexual - I agree with you.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
pretty cold in that basement?
Lol. Bro. Don't you see the cliff you are heading off w Ghettobama?
-
Home • Ask FactCheck • The Obama Phone? The Obama Phone?
Posted on October 29, 2009 , Updated on Nov. 5, 2009
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 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?
-
I'm sure its hard for you to get reception from your mother's basement
Says the dude who just responded to no less than 5 posts. And, the point isn't that it is all blacks, fuck all of the poor "everybody is against me" culture. If you are poor, 99 out of 100 times, it's your fault. I know, there are exceptions, but you know what , sorry about your luck. I made $137,000 in 2010, paid $43,000 in taxes as a single male. You know how sick it makes me to see these fucking bums take my money? And I got married last year, and my wife makes more than me, you know how bad that felt to pay that nut we paid last year? Pretty fucking bad. I guess what it is, is that most people who make in the 40-60k range think what I make is probably too much, or that I have enough. You know what? I don't, I always want more, and that's what capaitalism is about. I just can't stand to see someone get something they don't deserve, because I busted my fucking ass to at 30 get what I have. I chose to go to college, get a job, wait to have kids and get married, and in general, have good sense. Why does the working stiff always have to foot the bill for the lazy slob. Black or white. Serious, I would like an answer, not jumping in your shit, I just want to know what is your view.
-
Ghettobama expanded this program beyond anything ever imagined.
Me? Thunk every ghetto savage and animal belongs on a work camp for rations at best.
-
Says the dude who just responded to no less than 5 posts. And, the point isn't that it is all blacks, fuck all of the poor "everybody is against me" culture. If you are poor, 99 out of 100 times, it's your fault. I know, there are exceptions, but you know what , sorry about your luck. I made $137,000 in 2010, paid $43,000 in taxes as a single male. You know how sick it makes me to see these fucking bums take my money? And I got married last year, and my wife makes more than me, you know how bad that felt to pay that nut we paid last year? Pretty fucking bad. I guess what it is, is that most people who make in the 40-60k range think what I make is probably too much, or that I have enough. You know what? I don't, I always want more, and that's what capaitalism is about. I just can't stand to see someone get something they don't deserve, because I busted my fucking ass to at 30 get what I have. I chose to go to college, get a job, wait to have kids and get married, and in general, have good sense. Why does the working stiff always have to foot the bill for the lazy slob. Black or white. Serious, I would like an answer, not jumping in your shit, I just want to know what is your view.
Haves and haves not bro.
People that dont, or cant, will always demand from those that can. Especially in this day and age - people have this sense that theyre entitled to an upper-middle class income fuckin' "just because".
Not to mention many of the "have nots" have this "fuck those that can" attitude.
Its jealousy. Notice the only ones that cry about financial equality are those that barely had to work for what they have - actors, entertainers, etc. And theyre almost always whites, the bleeding hearts. When was the last time you saw an uber-rich black athlete out lobbying like the bleeding heart actors that have never stepped a foot into an urban neighborhood? (I have spent a lot of time in urban neighborhoods when I was a junkie, so dont go there Andre)
Even Robert Downey Jr changed his tune once he spent some time in jail for his drug habit. Dude said something like "I feel ostracised by my constituents now, because I dont share their views anymore - You simply cant come out of the drug world/jail and still be a liberal." (After seeing the choices those people make and how they live their lives.) There is always a choice or opportunity to become successful. Staying broke and a failure is a fucking choice for the most part.
-
Says the dude who just responded to no less than 5 posts. And, the point isn't that it is all blacks, fuck all of the poor "everybody is against me" culture. If you are poor, 99 out of 100 times, it's your fault. I know, there are exceptions, but you know what , sorry about your luck. I made $137,000 in 2010, paid $43,000 in taxes as a single male. You know how sick it makes me to see these fucking bums take my money? And I got married last year, and my wife makes more than me, you know how bad that felt to pay that nut we paid last year? Pretty fucking bad. I guess what it is, is that most people who make in the 40-60k range think what I make is probably too much, or that I have enough. You know what? I don't, I always want more, and that's what capaitalism is about. I just can't stand to see someone get something they don't deserve, because I busted my fucking ass to at 30 get what I have. I chose to go to college, get a job, wait to have kids and get married, and in general, have good sense. Why does the working stiff always have to foot the bill for the lazy slob. Black or white. Serious, I would like an answer, not jumping in your shit, I just want to know what is your view.
you say black or white but thats not what you were saying before....every time someone starts one of these threads talking about the poor and how they get all of this assistance the thread inevitably goes in the direction of a black rant....its just so funny that whites refuse to acknowledge their own poor which number in the tens of millions...they, like you, prefer to stick their heads in the sand and criticize blacks without acknowledging that whites get a lot of help from the gov't as well....
then when this is pointed out we get the inevitable percentage argument....Its a real wonder why you guys are so obsessed with black people period....you guys get on here and talk about everything black....our socio-economic status..our big dicks...how we steal white women.....lay off already!..its really embarassing that whites here on getbig resort to this..you don't see blacks starting threads about whites..we could care less about your lives...live and let live....its always the down and out whites on here who start these threads gripping about blacks..and obsessing about how big our dicks are and how much money the gov't supposedly gives us......it really gets boring
-
Ghettobama expanded this program beyond anything ever imagined.
Me? Thunk every ghetto savage and animal belongs on a work camp for rations at best.
Seeing as how you never worked in the telecom industry....let me explain something to you.
1. The phone program was actually started by Woodrow Wilson....its decades old
2. The government doesn't pay for the phones.....the telecom companies do.
3. Its switched to a wireless program because its much cheaper than wireline
4. You're a crazy...seek help
-
you say black or white but thats not what you were saying before....every time someone starts one of these threads talking about the poor and how they get all of this assistance the thread inevitably goes in the direction of a black rant....its just so funny that whites refuse to acknowledge their own poor which number in the tens of millions...they, like you, prefer to stick their heads in the sand and criticize blacks without acknowledging that whites get a lot of help from the gov't as well....
then when this is pointed out we get the inevitable percentage argument....Its a real wonder why you guys are so obsessed with black people period....you guys get on here and talk about everything black....our socio-economic status..our big dicks...how we steal white women.....lay off already!..its really embarassing that whites here on getbig resort to this..you don't see blacks starting threads about whites..we could care less about your lives...live and let live....its always the down and out whites on here who start these threads gripping about blacks..and obsessing about how big our dicks are and how much money the gov't supposedly gives us......it really gets boring
If it bores you, why reply? And, it wasn't an anti black thread, but I did bring up how the commercials I saw regarding the program were geared towards blacks. If I was a black man, that shit would piss me off that "whitey" was giving me a fucking hand out, like I couldn't do it myself. But, that's for another discussion. Like I stated, black or white, NO ONE deserves a free ride. And, notice how I didn't include Asians or Latin Americans, because they aren't the problem. I will admit that there are a shit ton on white trash, and it makes my stomach turn, as I'm sure ghetto blacks make yours. There is no problem with being ethnocentric, it's hard not to harbor some sort of innate pride, so if it may seem like I'm singling out blacks, I'm not trying to, just making a few observations and asking for EVERYONE'S input. And these threads may have a racial undertone, but it's hard not to when you have Jesse and al still driving wedges between the two cultures. So, that being said , would you like to answer the question at hand, and the one I asked in my last post directed at you? Like I said, no ill will towards you, I generally want to know peoples thoughts on the welfare state.
-
Seeing as how you never worked in the telecom industry....let me explain something to you.
1. The phone program was actually started by Woodrow Wilson....its decades old
2. The government doesn't pay for the phones.....the telecom companies do.
3. Its switched to a wireless program because its much cheaper than wireline
4. You're a crazy...seek help
Thread closed
-
Thread closed
Wrong - i bumped the other thread. Read it
-
If it bores you, why reply? And, it wasn't an anti black thread, but I did bring up how the commercials I saw regarding the program were geared towards blacks. If I was a black man, that shit would piss me off that "whitey" was giving me a fucking hand out, like I couldn't do it myself. But, that's for another discussion. Like I stated, black or white, NO ONE deserves a free ride. And, notice how I didn't include Asians or Latin Americans, because they aren't the problem. I will admit that there are a shit ton on white trash, and it makes my stomach turn, as I'm sure ghetto blacks make yours. There is no problem with being ethnocentric, it's hard not to harbor some sort of innate pride, so if it may seem like I'm singling out blacks, I'm not trying to, just making a few observations and asking for EVERYONE'S input. And these threads may have a racial undertone, but it's hard not to when you have Jesse and al still driving wedges between the two cultures. So, that being said , would you like to answer the question at hand, and the one I asked in my last post directed at you? Like I said, no ill will towards you, I generally want to know peoples thoughts on the welfare state.
I guess any black commercial with a black spokesperson is "geared" toward blacks?..LOL...and I guess you have never been in a "ghetto" because the Ghetto as people put it is filled with blacks and hispanic Americans living side by side...mexicans, puerto ricans, etc....so when you say they aren't part of the problem, well...yes they are..they get as much gov't assistance as blacks..I just find it weird that these threads go toward a black rant all the time...also remember that a lot of rich whites are getting "government help" as well.....lots of subsidies totalling billions upon billions of dollars in tax breaks, and direct subsidies like all the millionaire farmers get...The rich are living off of government just as badly as the poor....but no one says anything......but if these millionaires were black........watch out...because everyone hates it when a black guy gets a handout yet whites have their palms up all the time as well
-
2. The government doesn't pay for the phones.....the telecom companies do.
Actually no. It's paid for by the consumers.
-
I guess any black commercial with a black spokesperson is "geared" toward blacks?..LOL...and I guess you have never been in a "ghetto" because the Ghetto as people put it is filled with blacks and hispanic Americans living side by side...mexicans, puerto ricans, etc....so when you say they aren't part of the problem, well...yes they are..they get as much gov't assistance as blacks..I just find it weird that these threads go toward a black rant all the time...also remember that a lot of rich whites are getting "government help" as well.....lots of subsidies totalling billions upon billions of dollars in tax breaks, and direct subsidies like all the millionaire farmers get...The rich are living off of government just as badly as the poor....but no one says anything......but if these millionaires were black........watch out...because everyone hates it when a black guy gets a handout yet whites have their palms up all the time as well
I don't mind government assistance if you are putting in to the system, and not a lifelong leech. And you can say what you want about it being geared towards blacks because it has a black spokesperson, but it's true. It's the way it is brought about, with the lady saying "it's my cuzinz fault" as she shakes her head like a snake. That is defiantly geared towards the black community. Hey, I got no problem with gearing your advertisements toward your demographic, that's what they are for. It's like the Spanish McDonald's commercials, I have no beef with that. But, back to your beef with the rich getting government handouts, I do believe there needs to be a watchful eye on that sort of thing, but if you are a guy who generates jobs and revenue that gets put back into the economy, then you should get a break somewhere.
-
Taxpayers foot bill for free [low income] government cell phones [$1+ billion per year!]
WLS - Chicago ^ | June 12, 2012 | Ben Bradley
Posted on June 12, 2012 8:17:25 PM EDT by kevcol
New questions have emerged about a government program that has given away millions of free cell phones and service to people with low incomes and those in rural areas.
The money comes from the federal "Universal Service Charge" on your phone bill. It has its roots way back in the 1930s. The goal was to make sure people in rural areas and the poor had access to telephone service. In the 1990s, it expanded to include wireless phones.
Since then, the numbers have exploded. The cost of the program is now more than $1 billion dollars a year. The FCC, along with some Democrats and Republicans, are trying to reign it in.
.
.
On an abandoned lot on the West Side of Chicago, a sign on a bright green tent advertises a deal too good for many to resist.
"My daughter told me about it. It's a government phone," said Jeanetta Anderson.
When asked if she had to pay anything for it, Anderson said no.
She's right. This is one case where "free" really means free -- at least, for the people receiving the phones.
When asked who pays for the program, cell phone user Michael Brown said, "The government or the taxpayers. Someone. I don't pay for it. Like I said, I can't afford it. It helps me."
.
.
An FCC spokesperson said: "Since 1985, [the wireless service program] has helped low-income consumers find jobs, contact friends and family, and call 911 in emergencies, and we will not allow fraud and abuse to destroy this valuable program for the nation's most vulnerable citizens."
(Excerpt) Read more at abclocal.go.com ...
-
Actually no. It's paid for by the consumers.
No, its paid by the telecom companies profits which does come from the consumers naturally but there is no fee or bill. The reason they do that is so that they can make money from people who would normally not have a phone....they only get about 100 minutes and afterwards they are charged overage fees.
Think about it....you give some a cell phone that cost 50 cents to manufacture and you earn profit usually within the first month.
Now, there may be another program out there but not the general one advertised on TV
-
No, its paid by the telecom companies profits which does come from the consumers naturally but there is no fee or bill.
First of all, there is a fee. The USF fee partially covers this, and it's listed on your bill. But even if it wasn't, are you seriously arguing that the consumers don't pay for this because there's no line item in the bill? That's ridiculous. And out of curiosity why would companies NOT want to list it in a line item, when it be used to reduce their net profit, and thus reduce they have to pay tax on?
Think about it....you give some a cell phone that cost 50 cents to manufacture and you earn profit usually within the first month.
Huh? What does this have to do with anything?
-
First of all, there is a fee. The USF fee partially covers this, and it's listed on your bill. But even if it wasn't, are you seriously arguing that the consumers don't pay for this because there's no line item in the bill? That's ridiculous. And out of curiosity why would companies NOT want to list it in a line item, when it be used to reduce their net profit, and thus reduce they have to pay tax on?
Huh? What does this have to do with anything?
As I stated, there are a couple of different "free phone programs". The actual government sponsored phone is for the really, really, really poor and you have to jump through hoops to get it while the common one is for the most part a scheme from the telecom companies under the guise of a special government program which just isn't the case.
Those are the phones you see people getting from those tents with bright labels on it. However, with that being said, the government phone program has been around since the 1940's....why is it Obama's program all of a sudden??? Makes no sense
-
which getbiggers post on the poli board on their obamaphone?
-
As I stated, there are a couple of different "free phone programs". The actual government sponsored phone is for the really, really, really poor and you have to jump through hoops to get it while the common one is for the most part a scheme from the telecom companies under the guise of a special government program which just isn't the case.
I don't think you understand how this particular program that's at issue works.
Those are the phones you see people getting from those tents with bright labels on it. However, with that being said, the government phone program has been around since the 1940's....why is it Obama's program all of a sudden??? Makes no sense
I never said it was. As a matter of fact, if you look back, you will see a post of mine raising this very point.
-
Reports Of Fraud, Abuse Surround Federal Free Phone Program
CBS Minnesota ^ | July 19, 2012 | Liz Collin
MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) — A federal program is giving away thousands of free cell phones and minutes in Minnesota, and you’re paying for it.
Helping low-income people connect to services they need, the program gives free phones with hundreds of free minutes each month to people in need to land jobs, make appointments and stay in touch with family.
But the program has come under fire for its $1 billion price tag and reports of fraud.
.
.
Odell Hilson sold his phone for $20 because he needed the money. He didn’t remember which company gave it to him, but he didn’t seem to care that taxpayers picked up the tab.
“They would be upset, because they figure they were paying for it and if that’s the case, then that’s not my problem,” Hilson said
.
.
Still, Arkansas Congressman Tim Griffin doesn’t think the safeguards go far enough.
He believes most phones aren’t being used to help find jobs, and they’re costing the country far too much. The republican has introduced a bill in Washington to get rid of the cell phones and only cover landline costs.
“The federal government doesn’t need to be providing people with cell phones,” Griffin said.
(Excerpt) Read more at minnesota.cbslocal.com ...
-
What is the reason, besides buying votes? Do these people realize that they are just making people less likely to go out and work? When these people all decide to quit their jobs, or just not work, who is left to foot the bill for everything else? The working man? I would like a leftist view on these welfare programs, sell me on this please.
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
which getbiggers post on the poli board on their obamaphone?
I'd be very surprised if these phones included any internet ability whatsoever. They probably aren't even text enabled.
-
I'd be very surprised if these phones included any internet ability whatsoever. They probably aren't even text enabled.
So? Why the fuck should these welfare thugs get free phones?
-
Better question is why anyone who doesn't work is entitled to health care. Healthcare is offered by employers to make sure you are healthy and productive workers... Providing the company some sort or labor or skill that they need in exchange. So if your sitting on your ass at home... No matter what the reason... And providing no services, labor, or skill to anyone, you deserve health care exactly why?
In the past, those in real need of help got it from thier community via charity, family help, or neighbors help. Some where it switched from getting help from the community into demanding it from the tax payer. If you don't work you don't deserve health care, no matter the race, where you live, etc. That's one where I'd like to hear a coherent argument for...why you are entitled to healthcare if you are not working for anyone.
(And before anyone tries to spin it... I am in favor of healthcare for veterans, those with real disabilities, etc. just not the lazy bastards like OWS etc... if you can protest... Go get a job for your health care you damn losers. )
-
So? Why the fuck should these welfare thugs get free phones?
Agreeing with 240's statement, there are a fuck of a lot of things I'd cut before cutting this.
-
Agreeing with 240's statement, there are a fuck of a lot of things I'd cut before cutting this.
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'd be very surprised if these phones included any internet ability whatsoever. They probably aren't even text enabled.
they're actually nice lol
-
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 totally agree about the WPA. It would solve so many problems, it's amazing to think about.
-
they're actually nice lol
Honestly, bro. What's an example?
-
I totally agree about the WPA. It would solve so many problems, it's amazing to think about.
Could you imagine the people being told they have to do public works projects before they got anymore shit from the government
-
Could you imagine the people being told they have to do public works projects before they got anymore shit from the government
They would at first riot and break things in a fit of rage, but after a week or so they would settle down and get in line.
-
::)
Straw and the rest of the liberal stooges on this website want productive Americans to pay their fair share so that pieces of trash like the baboon in the above video clip can sit on their fat asses, collect welfare checks and talk on a a taxpayer funded free cell phone.
In other news, I am outraged that Trader Joe's now accepts food stamps. Noticeably, the TJ located in my area has transformed from a nice place to buy groceries into Uganda. I mean what the fuck?! Since when does being poor and unemployed give you cart blanche to eat fucking steak and lobster on the tax payers dime? Where the fuck does it end?
And there's the rub-- it doesn't end. These liberal cockroaches want to make everything a "right" for the inherently useless-- financed and funded of course by people who are self sufficient and pay taxes.
-
::)
Straw and the rest of the liberal stooges on this website want productive Americans to pay their fair share so that pieces of trash like the baboon in the above video clip can sit on their fat asses, collect welfare checks and talk on a a taxpayer funded free cell phone.
In other news, I am outraged that Trader Joe's now accepts food stamps. Noticeably, the TJ located in my area has transformed from a nice place to buy groceries into Uganda. I mean what the fuck?! Since when does being poor and unemployed give you cart blanche to eat fucking steak and lobster on the tax payers dime? Where the fuck does it end?
And there's the rub-- it doesn't end. These liberal cockroaches want to make everything a "right" for the inherently useless-- financed and funded of course by people who are self sufficient and pay taxes.
The middle class dipshits like Straw Man think they're part of the ruling class the democrats have set up and know that they have to keep these deadbeats on the plantation in order to stay in power. Guys like him are just too fucking stupid to realize they're part of that plantation class and not among the elites.
-
Could you imagine the people being told they have to do public works projects before they got anymore shit from the government
They already have been doing that for years here in NY city
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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...:)
-
those who attempt to pin the poor as being the true culprits are only showing their inexperience in this world.
-
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.
-
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 ...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?