Subsidizing telephones for poor folk began in 1985. The program was expanded to cell phones in 2005.
Class, of the parties that have held the White House since 1861, which party did not hold the White House in both 1985 and 2005?
Class, was the current President of the United States the president in 1985 and/or 2005?
Let's not always see the same hands, people.
Spanks, But No Spanks
1 hour ago
12 comments:
To be fair, under Reagan, the program just put basic landline service in the homes of those who could show need. The idea was to allow them access to 911 services, and I could accept that. It wasn't until Obama got hold of the program and threw bones to his backers who own cellular companies that suddenly every joker who even claimed poverty suddenly got free cellphones and now they ever get internet on those phones, which we pay for. And the program has been horribly abused to the extent that some households and even some individuals now have multiple Obamaphones and the rest of us pay for it. I object to this and think that we need to go back to providing one landmine phone to any house occupied by a senior citizen or truly disabled person on a fixed income. No more free cell phones for twenty year old baby mommas and their dope boy shack-ups.
Cell phones were added to the plan in 2005, when Obama was a freshman Senator and Bush was President at the time. Broadband is not currently allowed on Lifeline phones and the monthly allowance is for an hour of time at the rate of $9/month.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/
http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/23/technology/innovationnation/obama-broadband-lifeline-obamaphone/
GFY at #2
Why did you have to bring facts into a perfectly good RWNJ rant? It's like you don't care for their feelings.
I don't know who came up with the idea of calling them "Obama phones" but it was brilliant. It convinced people, even some who got the "free" phone under Bush, that this all came President Obama. I know three people who have "Obama phones" and all three are in desperate circumstances through no fault of their own. However, none of them get internet on those Mexican phones! I guess it depends which end of "abuse" concerns you most - a few hundred thousand dollars, maybe even a million or two,spent on poor people who don't quite qualify or billions spent on corporations who don't qualify at all.
And these folks can purchase additional minutes, so the phone isn't being used as intended, for getting a job and for emergencies....but as a subsidized luxury. And yes, you CAN get smartphones with data for surfing/Facebook/etc as part of the "Obamaphone" program.
The original idea was to provide a landline for 9-11 services and a way for a prospective employer to reach you. Then it was a limited cell phone....the Barry expanded the program so he could make Carlos Slim rich(er)...
B,
1) The phones in use are voice and sms. The only "data" is ams. While there have been proposals for internet access, they haven't been passed.
2) It is cheaper to provide a cell phone than a landline.
3) The program expanded in late 2008, under (drumroll, please) G.W.Bush.
4) The requirements are based upon state criteria for assistance.
5) One phone per household.
6) U.S. Mailing address required (one per, as noted above) and P.O.Boxes not acceptable.
So, Murphy, you want to change to program to a more expensive land-line requirement? But this program is run by the phone companies...private business...it's that a Republican wet-dream? The company collects a universal access fee and spends it to pay for these phones...no big government in the way...the private sector doing it...what's wrong? Is it that women can get the phones? Is that's what's really bothering the R's?
Ideally, I'd rather not pay for anyone's phone at all. But even though landline service is technically more expensive, putting one and one only into the house of a truly needy person would curb the rampant abuse we see now where pretty much anyone in any inner city who wants one or more of these free phones can get them just for the asking, which is what's going on currently. There have been plenty of news stories on this, so let's not pretend that there isn't a real problem when it comes to verifying who is getting these.
Here--this reporter got three of them, no trouble:
http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-cell-phones-abuse-galore-reporter-nets-3-free-lifeline-phones-to-prove-it
Murphy's Law, I can find inefficiencies, problems and exploitation in every large program. The military, for instance. All police and fire departments. Every commercial endeavor.
Should we use the same solution with those organizations that you want for the obamaphone program?
Ideally, you don't want to pay for phones and roads and health and clean air and clean water and many other things... but you've chosen to live in a civilized country. Paying for civilization is the cost of that.
Wait--you're saying that if we don't give welfare recipients free cell phones, civilization will end?
And you're comparing free phones for layabouts to the military, police and fire departments?
You will acknowledge that some things are essential for the common good (military, police and fire) while others are mere conveniences for particular voting blocs, right? And "Ghetto Bell" cellphones are covered completely by the latter label.
So, what? Only white landowners should qualify for anything that uses tax money? You could try Somalia, I hear that taxes are really low there.
-Doug in Oakland
Hey Murphy's Law, take your racist code words and crawl back under your rock. The vast majority of people in the USA on welfare are WHITE!!!!
Anon 4:48, Play nice.
Post a Comment