Return to the Hot Topics Forum

 o
Obama Cell Phones

Posted by jerzeegirl 9 (My Page) on
Fri, Nov 16, 12 at 20:01

Demi said:

I PERSONALLY know of people with multiple "Obama cell phones" and about how they're sold around here and exchanged.

Really? Are you talking about the Lifeline phone service program. Here is an article in Snopes that debunks the Obama cell phone meme.

Also interesting is that the program started under Ronald Reagan, expanded under Clinton and the cell phone component was started under Bush's administration. The Obama administration is trying to make the program more efficient and save money.

The program is not directly subsidized by taxpayers but is paid for by the Universal Service Fund through a fee assessed against telecommunications service providers who may or may not pass the costs on to their customers.

In other words, demi, there is no such thing as an "Obama phone" and who knows what you are talking about.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

But, but, but.........she "PERSONALLY" knows of these people with "OBAMA cell phones".


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Oooh, light dawns. She means the Lifeline assistance program! I got that back in 2004 when I was battling a medical emergency and had to temporarily leave my job. It's a discount on your monthly fee if you fit a number of income-related requirements, and is limited in scope and duration.

But I confess I never got Obama fingernails, whatever those are. Heck. Did I miss out?


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

It its apparent to me that some must live in communities with a disproportionate amount of "takers". If that is the case then perhaps they need to look at what the local government is doing and stop blaming the federal government for the fact they are unable to build a socially responsible community.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

I've heard them called welfare phones and government phones, but never Obama phones until the Obama phone video went viral.

Here is a link that might be useful: Obama Phone


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

demi said:
Nothing I said was nasty.

Really? You mean like all these quotes from that one post...

But enough pocket change for booze, drugs, fingernails, fast food and gasoline.

I was able to excel in my career without requiring union backup for losers and slackers.

But since you mentioned it, jerzeegirl, it's obvious that some DO drink and post.

Not intentional, Frank, you must be paranoid.

DO you understand that you aren't important enough for me to bother to send "messages" to?

-------------------------------------------------------

I PERSONALLY know of people with multiple "Obama cell phones" and about how they're sold around here and exchanged.

You talk about what you know, but you have no knowledge of what I know and don't know.

Uh huh, sure you do. You know people that have something that doesn't exist. Yup, sure. Too bad you've hurt your credibility too much recently for anything you say to be believable.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

PEOPLE call them "Obama phones."

The ONES THAT HAVE THEM.

Multiple phones.

There is no such thing as wanting any credibility with people that spend their time harassing posters for what they post and how they post.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

demi: It's not about what the phones are called it is about what you are implying. You are implying that the Obama Administration is providing cell phones to welfare recipients for free on the taxpayer's dime and they are using these phones as some sort of currency. If you read about the Lifeline program, none of what you imply is true.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

There is no such thing as wanting any credibility with people that spend their time harassing posters for what they post and how they post.

It's not harassing. It's correcting your incorrect information. Repeating things that have been proven to be false is lying.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Posted by jerzeegirl 9 (My Page) on
Fri, Nov 16, 12 at 22:43

demi: It's not about what the phones are called it is about what you are implying. You are implying that the Obama Administration is providing cell phones to welfare recipients for free on the taxpayer's dime and they are using these phones as some sort of currency. If you read about the Lifeline program, none of what you imply is true.

*

I'm not implying anything, jerzeegirl.

I am aware of when the program has started and how it has changed. I am aware of the abuse of the program.

I am aware that many people that have multiple phones under this program when they don't need them, call them "Obamaphones."

Markjames posted the video of only ONE of the people that call them "Obamaphones."

THOSE are the facts.

Just more giveaways on someone else's dime.

It's clear to me it doesn't matter whose dime it is, as long as people get what they want if someone else will pay for it.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

"I am aware of when the program has started and how it has changed. I am aware of the abuse of the program."

No, you weren't. You had NO clue. That is why it took you so long to reply. It is funny, however, to imagine what your reply will be when you are caught looking silly.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

This is a discount program that saves people $9 a month in phone charges. It is not a "giveaway". The cell phone program is $33 and the land line program is $20 (for Verizon). The program exist to ensure that everyone will have a phone and be connected - a worthy goal. There can be just one per household. Lifeline applicants must provide two proofs of ID and certify under penalty of perjury that they participate in an eligible program.

This is clearly a highly regulated program and no one is getting away with anything.

These phones are not a giveaway and there is no way you can call that a fact. You are just making it up as you go along.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

No, frank....it may have taken demi a while to reply because she has a life...and she was living it.

You..no homework to grade tonight?


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

"You..no homework to grade tonight?"

Actually, I took a personal day today. IL deer season opened.

"it may have taken demi a while to reply because she has a life."

Well, luckily she has a couple of spokespeople to explain herself.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Frank, your suggestions about my personal life is just pathetic and weird, not to mention out of line.

Did it occur to you, as jmc01 said, that I have a life?

I guess not.

Apparently there are people that post and sit around here and wait for someone to post back. Shudder.

I left at 7:45 this morning and was gone most of the day until mid afternoon and still had many things to do, and did not check this forum until later this evening.

As someone suggested last week, I must be thinking of something to say because they posted at such and such time (had it down to the minute) and I hadn't come back to post.

These insipid remarks like the one you just made about me personally, tell me way more than I want to know about you.

Similar remarks are just a waste of time to read--people aren't content to let others have their say and either take issue with the content or ignore it--they have to make personal, hateful remarks and taunts.

I'm better than that.

None of these remarks diminish my quality of life or my happiness one bit, regardless of the intent to do so.

Ta.
Ta.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

"Apparently there are people that post and sit around here and wait for someone to post back"

That statement certainly fits your posting habits more than mine.

You should think about getting a job.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

I never got Obama fingernails, whatever those are.

There are three models; the sharia socialist blood-red nails, the Kenyan anti-colonist shell pink nails (aka Mau Mau nails), and the Weather Underground bomb-factory brilliant-blue nails. I think Dinesh D'Souza might have explained this in one of his screeds. If not, he should have as it's information vitally important to the survival of the U.S.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Funny ...this topic was brought up because our local bigot right wing nut ball does a commentary a few times a week on the local CBS TV station. Last night he was lambasting Obama phones and tonight there was the rebuttal someone emailed in that this program was started by Bush. So Demi, how come it's not called Bushphone? Why isn't the Affordable health care bill called that instead of Obamacare ? Was it called Romneycare in MA? NO.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

There are three models; the sharia socialist blood-red nails, the Kenyan anti-colonist shell pink nails (aka Mau Mau nails), and the Weather Underground bomb-factory brilliant-blue nails. I think Dinesh D'Souza might have explained this in one of his screeds. If not, he should have as it's information vitally important to the survival of the U.S.

I'm so relieved they come in different colors. I was worried how to color coordinate one color with everything I own. How thoughtful of whoever created them.

Kate


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

I see nothing has changed around here during my absence.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

I know several residents in the elderly housing development near my work that receive free cell phones and imagine that if I personally know several, there are tens of thousands that I don't know.

Even though these folks have substantially discounted land lines, they are entitled to the free cell service. IMO, these cell phones are a luxury item and should not be subsidized by tax money. Not unless this country has money to burn.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

The problem isn't who started the program but who the recipients of the phones believe gave them the phones. The recipients believe that Obama created the program so they call them Obamaphones. Those are the people who need to be educated about the source of the phone, not the posters here.

Some of my clients have free cell phones that the called Obamaphones last year during tax season. So the term has been around long before the video that went viral.

Get over it. The term is used freely whether or not it is correct. Obama is getting credit for something he didn't do.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

If I'm understanding this thread correctly...and I must admit to feeling it necessary to SOB several posts, the phones are subsidized by the phone companies and their subscribers not by the tax payer.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

My kids and their friends who use the iPhones poke fun at the simple cell phones by calling them Obamaphones.

Funny.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Chase, the telecommunications providers charge a user fee and that's what goes to subsidize the phones. They have been imposing this fee since the Reagan administration. The companies who provide this service all have different plans and some may offer 250 minutes for free or at a discount. This is no different from a phone company offering free minutest to a "regular" client. They are obviously hoping that the client will need more than 250 minutes a month and sign up for a better plan.

By the way my DH and I must have "Obamaphones" since we pay $17.50 together and each get 80 minutes. I don't like talking on a cell phone so mine is really just for emergencies.

Also, by the way, if you don't want a fancy phone the phone companies have promotions where you can get them free or at a very reduced cost. There are even some organizations that collect old cell phones and give them away to the needy since any phone that turns on and can receive a signal is supposed to be capable of making a 911 call.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Get over it. The term is used freely whether or not it is correct. Obama is getting credit for something he didn't do.

*

Exactly, Jlhug.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

We have donated many cell phones to those programs. Why have them taking up space in my house when they might be able to help someone stay in touch with loved ones in an emergency?


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

So if I understand all the back and forth this is a worthwhile programme and not some sort of "gift" to "takers" ?


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Those cellphones are a "promotion" (marketing) by the cell phone companies. They are NOT Obama phones.

Geez People, what's wrong with you?

WHY are you tying a simple business ploy to a party?
What is wrong with the angry Rep party?


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

NO, it's not entirely a worthwhile program when some of the people receiving the phones joke about having too many and are trying to give them away to other people because they have an "I-phone."

It's a waste of someone else's money, and an "entitlement attitude" that goes to people that you can and should get something for free, even if you don't need it.

Yes, a man said that to a friend of mine three weeks ago and he told me about it at the time.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Yes, a man said that to a friend of mine three weeks ago and he told me about it at the time.

A random man tells your friend something who tell it to you and you believe it? What makes that man a credible source? I think you are skating on thin ice with this one, demi.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

NO, it's not entirely a worthwhile program when some of the people receiving the phones joke about having too many and are trying to give them away to other people because they have an "I-phone."

Why don't you read the Snopes article that I linked and then you will know this statement cannot be true.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

He's not random.

He's my boyfriend, and he is a contractor.

It's the truth.

I don't care whether you believe it or not.

I'm not only always on thin ice with you jerzeegirl, but from day one you've spent an inordinate amount of time attempting to cut the ice around me.

Does it feel as good now as it did in the beginning?


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

I don't understand how it works then.

A cell phone is of no value without a network connection. So these people with discount phones from the telcos buy an I phone, pay full price for a network contention and sell their subsidized phone to someone but continue to pay the network charges themselves? If not how do they get the phone and network connection transferred to someone elses name....

I'm confused.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Well why don't you come down here and meet some of the people that have more than one free cell phone?

Who are you going to believe?

Snopes or people that abuse the system?
Snopes or people that get phones and give them or sell them to others?

Oh, that could never happen, could it?

Apparently some of you have no idea of the extent of the fraud that occurs from "well meaning" programs.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

I don't understand how it works then.

A cell phone is of no value without a network connection. So these people with discount phones from the telcos buy an I phone, pay full price for a network contention and sell their subsidized phone to someone but continue to pay the network charges themselves? If not how do they get the phone and network connection transferred to someone elses name....

I'm confused.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Demi, you said a MAN said that to a friend of yours. Assuming the "friend of yours" is your boyfriend, then who is the MAN who is the source of your information? Is he an expert in "Obamaphones".


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

NO, it's not entirely a worthwhile program ...

a man said that to a friend of mine...

Based on one example - hearsay at that - an entire program is condemned.

For those complaining about the cost of the program, here in HT and elsewhere in the right-wing echo chamber, any comments on the latest problems with Lockheed Martin's troubled ultra-expense F-22 jets? I wouldn't any put of you in charge of budgeting priorities when cell phones receive criticism, and corporate wasting of Pentagon funds receives no mention, let alone a dedicated thread. Another Day, Another $678 Million Stealth Jet Wrecked

The Air Force admitted losing two of its 184 -- make that 182 -- top-of-the-line F-22 Raptor stealth fighters on Thursday. It was one of the worst days yet in what's turning out to be a bad year for the pricey, radar-evading jet built by Lockheed Martin...

The recent crashes are only the latest bad news for the cutting-edge F-22, which currently ranks as the Air Force's most accident-prone fighter. The last of the Raptors rolled out of the Marietta, Georgia, factor in December and flew into a veritable firestorm of controversy.

The Air Force twice grounded all or some of the fleet over concerns about the Raptor's apparently faulty oxygen system, which might have contributed to a fatal crash in 2010. Two F-22 pilots even mutinied, refusing to fly the speedy, high-flying jet until the Air Force worked out its problems. Months of investigation costing millions of dollars failed to definitively solve the jet's oxygen woes...

Sometimes HT reminds me of one of Parkinson's laws: The less important a subject, the more time spent discussing it. At a company meeting the most discussed item will be the type and cost of the coffee machine for the lunch room.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

The program that was started under President Reagan for landlines has changed, and changed considerably since Obama became president.

Fox 45 report PJTattler:

"in Maryland alone � one little state, mind you � the number of these free phones has ballooned from 6,000 in 2008 to 231,000 in 2011. That tracks with how and when the program ballooned up in Ohio and Illinois too."

Also, this representative addressed the problem with multiple phones and fraud:

Free Cell Phone Fraud

Think fraud in this program doesn't happen?

Think again:

More Free Government Cell Phone Fraud

Here's more information on the abuses of this program:

By John Sexton 14 Jun 2012 Breitbart:


"You're probably familiar with the food stamp program which grew from $35 billion in 2008 to $75 billion last year. But did you know that getting food stamps also makes you eligible for a free government cell phone?

A program called Lifeline provides free phones and free monthly minutes to anyone on food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, Head Start, and several other government programs. And just like food stamps, Lifeline (aka "phone stamps") has been growing by leaps and bounds since 2008, at significant cost to taxpayers.

Lifeline was started in the mid-'80s to reduce the cost of phone service to rural and needy customers. The program's costs are covered by a tax included on every monthly phone bill called the Universal Service Charge. The program eventually grew to include discounted cell service but took off in 2009, partly because TracFone announced a new program whereby eligible individuals could get a free phone and free monthly minutes. As a result, participation in the program (and costs) skyrocketed:

Program participation was stable from 2005 to 2008, from 6.9 million to 7.1 million participants, but increased to 8.6 million in 2009. Likewise, support payments were relatively stable from 2005 to 2008, from $802 million to $823 million annually, before increasing to approximately $1 billion in 2009.

The rapid growth of the program has continued since then. In 2011, the FCC estimated the cost (page 153) of the program would be $2.1 billion and said it would reach $3.3 billion by 2014 absent major reforms. The FCC also found that part of the problem with the program was rampant fraud:

[O]ur ongoing oversight has revealed that a substantial number of subscribers are receiving duplicative Lifeline support, which includes individuals receiving two or more Lifeline benefits from ETCs as well as two or more individuals in a household receiving benefits from multiple ETCs.

How bad is the fraud? A survey conducted by the FCC across 17 states and territories found that, on average, 9% of phone recipients were ineligible (page 243). In some states like Alabama, New Hampshire, and West Virginia, the ineligibility rate was 18-19%. And all of that is based on a survey to which 27% of users refused to respond to questions.

In order to combat this problem, the FCC recommending the creation of a national database to keep track of multiple users. The project was expected to cost $7.5-$10 million to set up, though this is much less than the amount the government is expected to save by cutting duplicate lines.

And the freebies won't end with basic calling service. As part of the effort to extend broadband, the FCC has been discussing making broadband service part of the Lifeline program. In other words, taxpayers could soon be paying for smartphone features on these free government phones.

The real question is why American consumers should be providing free cell phones and free monthly talk time to 10 million people in the first place. As you can see in this video report from a Chicago ABC affiliate, some people signing up for these free phones are doing so to replace cell phones they already have (and have to pay for). If the goal is really to connect individuals to essential services such as fire and police, FCC rules already mandate that carriers transmit those calls along with detailed location information regardless of whether an individual has service with a carrier or not. Given our debt and our deficits, it is time to consider hanging up on this booming, fraud-ridden Lifeline to taxpayer's wallets."


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Can you find a different source than FOx?


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Even though these folks have substantially discounted land lines, they are entitled to the free cell service. IMO, these cell phones are a luxury item and should not be subsidized by tax money. Not unless this country has money to burn.

Many of our relatives and their friends have these phones.

They burn through the free minutes in the first day or two, so they're more of a novelty than a useful tool.

Their households all have multiple pre-paid Android phones and/or digital phone through Roadrunner or other VOIP phones, so these phones aren't necessary.

Although Assurance Wireless offers the best deal - Unlimited Talk/Text/Web for an additional $30 per month, they pay substantially more for other pre-paid plans since they don't like the limited selection of phones offered by the free/discounted carriers.

I believe some prepaid Virgin Mobile phones can be used with the Assurance Wireless plan.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

From your article:
taxpayers could soon be paying for smartphone features on these free government phones"

This is patently false, even according to the information in the selfsame article! The phones are NOT "government phones", they are "telephone company phones" and their expense does NOT COME FROM TAXES.

Demi, why would you rely on a media outlet that reports obvious untruth like this?


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

CP: I never got Obama fingernails, whatever those are.

N: There are three models; the sharia socialist blood-red nails, the Kenyan anti-colonist shell pink nails (aka Mau Mau nails), and the Weather Underground bomb-factory brilliant-blue nails. I think Dinesh D'Souza might have explained this in one of his screeds. If not, he should have as it's information vitally important to the survival of the U.S.

Nancy, I actually lol'd, something I seldom do. :-D


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

"Even though these folks have substantially discounted land lines, they are entitled to the free cell service. IMO, these cell phones are a luxury item and should not be subsidized by tax money. Not unless this country has money to burn."

According to the official description of the plan on the FCC website that is not true.

Lifeline provides discounts on monthly telephone service (wireline or wireless) for eligible consumers. These discounts average $9.25 per month, and may be more depending on the state. Federal rules prohibit eligible low-income consumers from receiving more than ONE Lifeline service per household. That is, eligible low-income consumers may receive a Lifeline discount on either a wireline or a wireless service, but may not receive a Lifeline discount on both services at the same time. "

Here is a link that might be useful: FCC Site outlining Lifeline eligibility


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Posted by jerzeegirl 9 (My Page) on
Sat, Nov 17, 12 at 9:45

Can you find a different source than FOx?

*

That was the first one that came up.

No doubt because other "news" organizations don't think this is a priority.

I don't care what the source of information is if the information is correct.

If you object to what I found too bad. Do your own work.

Can you prove that what I posted as far as facts is not, jerzeegirl?

The Federal Communications Commission provided the information.

Those facts don't lose validity because of Fox.

Good Grief, how ridiculous, this "assumption" that liberals think they have established nothing is valid if it comes from Fox.

Do your own work, prove the Federal Trade Commission is lying, I don't care.

I was attempting to provide information that fraud DOES OCCUR with this cell phone program and the rampant growth of this program since 2008, and with rampant growth, more rampant fraud and cost to people that actually foot the bill.

If you want to dicker about who publishes the information, go ahead.

You'll have to dicker with yourself.

I have better and more important things to do.

I don't know why I try.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

The problem is that FOX has been known to skew things time and time again. I wouldn't trust a thing they say and that is based on their record not my prejudice.

The FCC site describes the plan and their description does not jive with FOX's description. Given the FCC oversees the program I'm going to trust their information rather than FOX but others are free to make a different judgement.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Demi is just playing the game of "Outrage of the Day"--based on dubious info. and even more dubious interpretations promoted by some T-party/rightwing online source which spreads like wildfire until all the rightwingers howl in outrage together. Lotta noise, little substance.

If we look back at the Snopes links provided in the OP, near the very bottom (it does help if one reads to the bottom of the article), Snopes notes that there are a number of "shady" online PRIVATE COMPANIES--ONE IS ACTUALLY NAMED "OBAMAPHONE.NET"--THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GOVERNMENT. These non-government shady companies market "free phones" but what they are actually selling is the phone SERVICE, although Snopes refers to the "fly-by-night" services they offer. I'm not sure what that means, but evidently you don't get much service or only short-time service to go with your free phone, assuming you decide to buy the cheap short-time service so you can call on your free phone.

So it seems there is such a thing as an "Obamaphone"--except it is a product offered NOT by the government, but by a shady, fly-by-night online company with the name "Obamaphone.net." The recipients of those free phones (along with demi and her "friend") have the mistaken notion those are free government phones paid for by the tax-payers. Nope, they are free phones offered by the shady private company that pays for those phones itself as part of a marketing gimmick.

Fooled by the fly-by-nighters! Bought any bridges lately also?

Probably these fly-by-night companies do need to be more closely regulated (as do many other kinds of fly-by-night operations), but your mud-slinging at Obama isn't going to stick there. Go after the shady private "entrepreneurs" if you honestly want to help out the poor people being ripped off by private businesses.

So much for this "Outrage of the Day." I'm on pins and needles wondering what stimulus tomorrow's "Outrage of the Day" will offer to my jaded nerves which depend on a daily dose of outrage to get them functioning again, ya know.

Kate


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

  • Posted by ENMc none (My Page) on
    Sat, Nov 17, 12 at 10:49

"I PERSONALLY know of people with multiple "Obama cell phones" and about how they're sold around here and exchanged."

Knows of

It's true. Her boyfriend had someone tell him this, and then the boyfriend told her....so it must be true.

E


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

It's all based around that video Markjames posted above - its got all the elements to feed the frenzy - semi-literate black woman screeching about free stuff.

6.8 million views.

and, of course, its not racist at all to fwd: fwd:fwd: fwd: fwd: this along to your friends. Because its the way all black people act.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

We know many extremely streetwise multi-generation welfare recipients that are professionals of converting benefits to cash, goods or services, but they don't see much value in the phones and minutes.

I think the highly competitive pre-paid phone market has diminished the value of lesser plans.

Most welfare recipients we know are extremely heavy texters and facebook mobile users, so they need unlimited text minutes and Android phones.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

I don't care what the source of information is if the information is correct.

A valid point. Except, the information is not correct. Do you even care that it's not correct, or because you think it makes Obama look bad, you're willing to run with it?

Did you even read the information you posted? Doesn't sound like. And, then did you even read circuspeanut's post that explains one thing that should have tipped you off to the information not being correct?

Posted by circuspeanut 5 (My Page) on Sat, Nov 17, 12 at 10:00

From your article:
taxpayers could soon be paying for smartphone features on these free government phones"
This is patently false, even according to the information in the selfsame article! The phones are NOT "government phones", they are "telephone company phones" and their expense does NOT COME FROM TAXES.

Demi, why would you rely on a media outlet that reports obvious untruth like this?

Sheesh, you look foolish.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

I'll pass on the Outrage du Jour with fried Stereotype... just bring me a glass of water with lemon, and the steamed vegetable plate, please... thank you.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

I'm not foolish.

Arguing about semantics is what is foolish.

The fact is, government ideas to give freebies have become out of control.

The fact is, people are getting free phones paid for by other people that have no choice in paying for them if they want phones themselves.

The freebies, along with the fraud and misuse, are all part of the culture of redistribution, which Barack Obama champions and which gets him votes.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Facts matter,,,,

Demi Facts = what Demi wants/need to believe
Facts = Truth


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Now we understand the "logic" of the outrage de jour.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

"The freebies, along with the fraud and misuse, are all part of the culture of redistribution, which Barack Obama champions and which gets him votes. "

Categorically untrue but no point arguing with that mentality. No point at all.. but at least the majority of thinking people know it isn't true and see those that do think this way for what they are.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

If people don't believe fraud is rampant in government programs and entitlements, they need a good pair of glasses.

Ask any experienced attorney who handles WC or SSD cases how many applicants are obviously and blatently trying to play the system...my estimate is 6.5 out of 10. You know how long the process takes and what those 3.5 people have to go through to weed them from the fraudsters? And most of the time, it doesn't work.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

No one said that fraud wasn't prevalent....it's prevalent on Wall Street too, amongst those who evade their taxes and in private business as well.

The fraud that exists outside of the entitlement programmes cost everyone a whole bunch more than the welfare queen does.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

So let's do nothing cause everyone is doing it?


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

I guess that's the message !

Its okay to have threads about Wall Street fraud but not other fraud.

Go figure~


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

No not at all!

It should be dealt with wherever it occurs. In fact your President has done more to combat fraud than any other administration but rather than give him credit for anything there is a need for some to say that fraud is a culture Obama creates....like it's new!


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Further, it bugs me a little bit that people take advantage of the system and it costs me money. It bugs me greatly that people take advantage of the system and it costs those that legitimately need the help time, resources and money.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

lavenderlver, this is not about government fraud and the amount of fraud. It is about the Obama cell phone.

If you want to put those glasses on for a few hours and look at fraud and abuse in totality you might want to start with the housing, banking, corporate, Stock Market, oil companies government funds abuse and compare of where the biggest amount of Tax payer dollars are lost.

We can talk about how people would much prefer to make sure a 2 year old did not have a free lunch so government can waste tax dollars in favor of corporations.

This cell phone that is not a taxpayer responsibility is just another "Obama bad" take my money outrage of the day.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

That's a fair thing to be bugged about. Bugs the heck out of me too but I don't assume that is what most everyone with a cell phone in LA is doing...and I know you don't either.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Are you still operating under the delusion that the free cellphones are govt freebies to welfare recipients? Or are you deliberately changing the subject to welfare fraud in order to distract attention away from your incorrect assertions about freebie govt "obamaphones"?

I say, if we can't eliminate ALL FRAUD immediately, let's go after the big money fraudsters first--and that isn't the welfare "queen."

Kate


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Who are you speaking to Kate?
If me, you need to reread what I've written because delibrately or not, you've totally misinterpreted what I've written.

True that Chase :)


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

lavender, you and demi are arguing the fraud is everywhere. demi thinks that is the reason we should go after welfare fraud, but not Wall Street Fraud. Most of the thread, however, is about demi incorrectly arguing that the freebie "obamaphones" for poor people is a government program and the poor people are defrauding the government, which is to say, the taxpayers, which is to say, demi.

I merely pointed out that this thread about so-called government freebie "obamaphones" is based on incorrect information, and for you and demi to suddenly switch the topic to everybody is a fraudster therefore let's go after the poor people first is disengenuous, to say the least. Aside from that being an example of misplaced values, it is, more importantly as far as this thread goes, a trick to deflect attention away from all the incorrect information demi has been spewing on this thread about "obamaphones."

Is that clear? Did you read the earlier threads?

Kate


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

I think there are different programs offering free or reduced cost phones to the financially disadvantaged. Each one has different amounts of support and different restrictions. That makes this confusing. The program most often referred to here was created by the Federal government. Even though it is paid for with a charge on everyone's cell phone or land line bill, people still look at it as a government program.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Posted by dublinbay z6 KS (My Page) on
Sat, Nov 17, 12 at 13:03

lavender, you and demi are arguing the fraud is everywhere. demi thinks that is the reason we should go after welfare fraud, but not Wall Street fraud.

*

You know, it has been almost impossible and it certainly is futile to have a rational discussion with posters like you, Kate.

I didn't even bother to read the rest of your post after your first sentence.

That is an outright lie--I have said MANY times that fraud of any kind, including Wall Street and financial fraud, should be found, prosecuted if applicable, and regulations should be put in place to stop it and hold people accountable--any type of fraud.

You intentionally have lied about me because I do most certainly NOT believe we should not go after Wall Street Fraud.

Now, you and others can ask why I and others sometimes mention welfare and social entitlement program fraud more, and I could conversely ask you why you and others seem to mention corporate fraud more.

It's a matter of what's on our minds and I've never said you don't care about welfare fraud just because you don't bring it up as much as you do corporate fraud.

But you sure don't mind lying about me and misrepresenting me, do you?

This is why I didn't bother to read your posts.

Some of you people aren't interested in listening to someone else's opinion, you're only interested in trashing other posters.

I can not for the life of me understand why anyone would want to do that.

If you don't have a retort or don't agree, then disagree with the content or just let it stand, like many other opinions are allowed to stand here without lying about poster's stances, mischaracterizing what they have stated, calling them names and impugning the integrity of posters just because you don't agree with them.

It's not even an argument and it's very disappointing to find no cogent response to an opinion, only fabrications, lies, personal insults and mischaracterizations of other posters.

I don't know those kinds of people in my life.
I am astounded that so many are active on this one forum.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

"...you and demi to suddenly switch the topic to everybody is a fraudster therefore let's go after the poor people first is disengenuous, to say the least. Aside from that being an example of misplaced values,..."

Really? I stated that? After you reread my post of 12:35, we can 'talk'. Needless to say, you are very offbase with your assertions, please be more careful or at least accurate in the future.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Needless to say, you are very offbase with your assertions, please be more careful or at least accurate in the future.

*

Good luck with that, Lavenderlver--as you can see from my post above yours, accuracy is not Kate's forte.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

demifloyd, I know! I had to reread upthread a couple of times because I didn't recall either of us posting such things...

p.s. We didn't.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Now, you and others can ask why I and others sometimes mention welfare and social entitlement program fraud more, and I could conversely ask you why you and others seem to mention corporate fraud more.

My reason is I care about the 2 year old that may need a free lunch more than the corporation needed my money. Also, the corporate fraud is a much larger tax payer ticket cost than that free lunch or free phone.

So given a choice of where fraud falls I would feel better if the error was to the benefit of that child

It's a matter of what's on our minds and I've never said you don't care about welfare fraud just because you don't bring it up as much as you do corporate fraud.

My mind is more on track of compassion for people and not corporations. That is where my mind, heart and feelings go toward.

I explained my reasons. What are your reasons that you bring up welfare, and underprivileged citizens more?


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

If you don't have a retort or don't agree, then disagree with the content or just let it stand, like many other opinions are allowed to stand here without lying about poster's stances

This was and isn't about your opinion. It is and was about you posting false facts. Plain and simple. Over and over and over again. You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts. What is so hard to understand?

I'm not foolish.

Really? Then stop posting foolish things.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Because of the future--dependency begets dependency.

Years ago, people learned to get by on their own.

Now we have an entitlement culture in which people have subsidized housing, free meals for their children at school, free innoculations, free food, free medical care, free cell phones--except that it's not free, it's at the cost of the people that are responsible--the people that not only work to pay for these personal items themselves, but have to work to pay for other people, too.

Of course people that are temporarily down on their luck, or permanently disabled should receive these benefits, but the out of control entitlement culture has weakened our nation into generations of people that sleep until noon, live in a household where few if any hold or job or have ever held a job or even looked for a job, where because of that they see no need to study or stay in school or learn skills to get a job--because their basic needs are met.

Many of these young people get up late in the day, shove a pistol in their pants, meet up with their friends and go to sell drugs, carjack innocent people, rape old ladies, rob businesses and individuals, and murder. It has happened multiple times in my community in the past week.

Many of these people do not realize their potential and enjoy their lifestyle. They tend to produce more people with the same mindset--that they cannot, or should not have to work to support themselves, that others owe them something, if they don't have everything they want it someone else's fault and not theirs, and they deserve it.

We are now an instant gratification and constant entitlement culture which I believe weakens our nation in individual and collective strength of character and the lessons of sacrifice and persistence.

This assault on the virtues of character, hard work and persistence and self reliance has obviously weakened our nation in cultural and class warfare factions.

While our nation becomes a group of people that think they're entitled to what others have and dismiss the truth that if they had the strength of character to work as hard or make the same sacrifices others do they could have what the wanted themselves, others are at the ready waiting to take over a nation of weak, spoiled, self centered people that will relinquish their rights for their immediate needs because they have become accustomed to accepting their weaknesses as victimhood.

I believe that this will be the ultimate downfall of our nation when the real tests come--we will not be prepared because of weak character.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

marquest, maybe I'm confused, or maybe noone is listening.

I brought up social service fraud because this type of fraud causes those who truly need it to either not get it, get it after extended delays and/or lose out on valuble resources including necessary services. The big fraudsters and their victims usually have the ways and means to fend for themselves...the people that need welfare don't.

We are approaching the same problem with different arguments!


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

All these experts on poor people.

Who post pictures of their fabulous homes on the web for all to see.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Sorry marquest, I now realize your last post was directed towrds demifloyd.

Why David, poor people can't have fabulous homes? Mine's a combination of family hand-me-downs, refurbished cast- offs and yard sale finds, but it's pretty fabulous if I do say so myself. Paint, hard work and resourcefulness is cheap.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Still trying to change the subject after your errors about "obamaphones" was revealed? Why can't you stay on subject?

On another thread, we can argue about your new topic of individual welfare fraud vs corporate welfare fraud--though the poor person's fraud is a drop in the bucket compared to corporate fraud (but the individual poor person is an easier target). But let's save that for another day, another thread.

I think we have established on this thread that "obama cell phones" provided free by the government is a myth, and anyone who keeps repeating it is telling a lie (now that they know better). So I guess we can end this thread now.

Once more Truth has prevailed!

kate


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Besides David, one doesn't have to be poor, to know about poor. Circumstances change.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Demi do you believe that what you describe is representative of America as a whole? What percentage of people are as you describe vs hard working responsible, contributing members of society?


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Kate, Lifeline is a government program funded by a tax/charge that is added to everyone's cell phone bill. Various cell phone providers participate in the Lifeline program.

Here is a link that might be useful: Lifeline affordable phones - FCC website


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Posted by lavenderlver none (My Page) on
Sat, Nov 17, 12 at 14:25

Besides David, one doesn't have to be poor, to know about poor. Circumstances change.

*

Yes, so true lavenderlver.

Many people are born into meager means and succeed, at least to the point that they are not resentful of what others have.

What does having a "fabulous house" have to do with noting the fact people that are taking advantage of entitlement programs and perpetuating poverty and crime?


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

lavenderlver, yep that is me. I worked hard for what I have, with hard work, smart investments. Nothing was handed to me, I was not born to money, did not marry for money (stupid me) cute and as shapely as I am I did not use my body to get what I got. Makes me feel good to say..... I was not anybody's kept woman bragging of how much I have.

I was lucky to not need public assistance but I am aware that people do need help and I will not be one that find pleasure kicking them for a few pennies and corporations get much more of my tax dollars.

The difference is because I have helped people and know first hand of the good people out there that need help are not scum or beggers. You either support the help or not there is no "what about the cheats" Cheaters are in every walk of life. To find a life of Heaven you have to have lived a life that makes you deserve that place when you die is what I was taught. Until then I live in the world of cheaters rich and poor. Should we kick the poor more?

It is beneath me to go that low to try to make myself feel good. It is like kicking a homeless person and talking about how dirty he looks.

NOW BACK TO OBAMA FREE PHONES.

Still trying to change the subject after your errors about "obamaphones" was revealed? Why can't you stay on subject?


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Talk to the lady on the video about what she means by "Obama" phones.

Play semantics all you want.

Your taunting does not change the facts that corruption and fraud are rampant in this program, which has escalated because of attitudes like the woman in the video touting Obama and phones.

Posted by marquest z5 PA (My Page) on
Sat, Nov 17, 12 at 14:55

lavenderlver, yep that is me. I worked hard for what I have, with hard work, smart investments. Nothing was handed to me, I was not born to money, did not marry for money (stupid me) cute and as shapely as I am I did not use my body to get what I got. Makes me feel good to say..... I was not anybody's kept woman bragging of how much I have.

*

Frankly, I don't think anyone is stupid for not marrying for money, although people that aren't capable of making their own money and people that require material possessions to be happy should consider it, I suppose.

I wouldn't know anything about that--my husband didn't have much at all when I married him--only a common job he obtained all on his own, talent, smarts, and a work ethic that would put the majority of the citizens of this country to shame.

I want to know who has "bragged how much they have."

Tell me, oh "shapely woman" that didn't sell out! ROTF!


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Nothing I said was nasty.

followed by

Tell me, oh "shapely woman" that didn't sell out! ROTF!

It's those true colors again...


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Hey--Marquest touted herself as a "shapely woman," --just addressing her as she went out of her way to describe herself.

What could be wrong with that?

Aside from Marquest's nasty insinuations, on her worst day, you put her to shame.

The pathetic thing is, you are always dogging me, personally here.
It's truly creepy.

Jodik move over I think I have a fan club!


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Its kinda like how poor people are such experts on rich people.

Just like rich people know about poor people by Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: Utubes passed around by bigots.

They're experts on all those hard working rich people from watching Housewives of Orange County.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

If you grow up among poor people and watch how they remain poor, and see the choices they make versus the choices you make in life, you begin to see a pattern of why they remain poor.

They remain poor not so much because of raw talent or intellectual capacity, but primarily because of short sighted self indulgence and lack of long term determination, lack of self sacrifice, and lack of planning.

That's from experience and growing up with the poor, and seeing how they're still poor fifty years later.

Those that aren't still poor did not practice short sighted self indulgence, they planned, they sacrificed and took personal responsibility for the decisions they made in life.

They rolled with the punches that life gives to everyone and adapted as needed to continue with their goals.

Not everyone arrives with the same advantages in life, but we all have ample opportunity not to be poor as long as we're not severely mentally challenged. Even physically challenged people don't have to be poor if they don't want to be.

Only in this country is self proclaimed victimhood considered a virtue.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Hey--Marquest touted herself as a "shapely woman," --just addressing her as she went out of her way to describe herself.
What could be wrong with that?

In a nasty and condescending way. Like you always do. But then claim you don't. And when someone points it out to you, it's always someone else's fault. How about some of that personal responsibility you're always talking about? But, then for you, it's do as I say, not as I do.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones


Just past this on the subway!
In 4 years how many times Demi have your felt attacked on this same kind of subject?
Curious did you grow up among poor people?


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

They remain poor not so much because of raw talent or intellectual capacity, but primarily because of short sighted self indulgence and lack of long term determination, lack of self sacrifice, and lack of planning.

You can say this all you want if it makes you feel better, but it's simply not true.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Curious did you grow up among poor people?

*

I grew up around some people that were so poor they didn't always have shoes to wear to school.

I grew up around people that never had store bought clothes.

I grew up around people that did not have indoor plumbing.

Those kids were my friends, and still are my friends.

The kids whose family had some money were my friends, and still are my friends, too.

Back then there wasn't class warfare or resentment, and even today when visiting with these people, there still isn't.

*

Why do you think there are so many more homeless young people this year?

I thought Hope and Change was going to change that, not make it worse.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Hey, you don't want to subsidize Lifeline phones, Demi? Don't have a cell phone at all, like me. It's a choice that's in your hands.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

"All these experts on poor people.
Who post pictures of their fabulous homes on the web for all to see."

I saw something very recently regarding this thought... but that was the premise... that people who have total material comfort and haven't, or don't, want for a thing are always such experts on those who live in poverty.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

I noted that in one of the sentences in my post.

But just because I have a cell phone should not dictate that I should have to pay for cell phone service for someone else.

I think we should have a choice in whether we want to subsidize someone else.

It's like being forced to buy groceries for someone else every time you buy groceries.

No doubt that will be next.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

But just because I have a cell phone should not dictate that I should have to pay for cell phone service for someone else.

But it does mean you do because you accepted the premise by buying and using a cell phone. You pay for it through a monthly fee to the cell phone company (although I have read that not all companies pass the fee to their customers).

I know you are hallucinating welfare cheats with perfectly manicured fingernails, but you have totally forgotten that the people who are really in need of these cell phones are the elderly, shut-ins on social security or disability who need them for emergencies or to stay connected to friends and/or family. Is there any way you can look into your heart and understand that there a many needy people out there through no fault of their own?


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

It's just that EDD can't stand to hear Eastern Kentucky accents that he grew up with & that he often makes disparaging blanket statements about dumb southerners (it's almost pathological)
"I thought Hope and Change was going to change that, not make it worse."
The hope is to wipe the economic programs & positions promulgated by folks like you out of the way. Those 16,000 kids will have health care at least and if their gay (there a huge homeless gay youth population in NY) they'll know that an enemy of there wast voted in by happy thinkers who promote lip service tolerance while voting continually for the forces of intolerance & economic elitism.
Demi there s now way around it I despise everything you represent in your posts again & again I despise it.
Smug comes to mind, as well as deluded!


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

I know you are hallucinating welfare cheats with perfectly manicured fingernails, but you have totally forgotten that the people who are really in need of these cell phones are the elderly, shut-ins on social security or disability who need them for emergencies or to stay connected to friends and/or family. Is there any way you can look into your heart and understand that there a many needy people out there through no fault of their own?

*

No hallucinations.

It's a very common practice here.


Absolutely, I believe in helping the people you mentioned.

The rub comes in that when I give the money myself, I can make sure it goes to the people that actually need it and not those that are undeserving scammers of the system.

People--like elected officials--are notoriously careless when giving away the money of other people.

If it actually comes out of their pockets, they're more careful.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

"Reading Your Phone Bill
(and all those little charges)
If you have not yet read ABTolls.com's disclaimer information, please do so before continuing.

It seems as though there are a ton of added charges, taxes, fees (and any other name you can think of for charging you money) on our long distance bills. So first, let us start with a simple statement:

PLEASE READ YOUR BILL

...USF (Aka: Universal Service Fund Charge or Universal Service Charge, Carrier Universal Service Charge, Federal Universal Service Fund Surcharge) This charge started on January 1, 1998 as part of the FCC overhaul of telephone fees. All companies that provide telephone service between states pay a set percentage of their previous year's billings. The charge is designed to ensure affordable access to telecommunications services for telephone customers with low incomes, telephone customers who live in areas where the cost of providing telephone service is extremely high, libraries, schools, and rural health care providers. Although all companies providing interstate telephone service are charged the same percentage of their billings, companies are allowed to recharge you for this in any way they see fit, and each company uses a different method to charge this carrier specific fee. It is normally not presented to you in such a way that you would think it is a competitive pricing issue. But it is! Some companies do not charge this fee at all, some charge a carrier specific flat fee, others charge a percentage of your interstate and international usage, while others charge a percentage of your entire bill. We offer full details of the amazing differences in this rate on the Fees Comparison page. Although the charge the companies pay is in essence a tax, the fee on your bill is carrier specific, and is NOT a set tax. The telephone company keeps any difference between the USF fees they collect and the charge they pay to the Universal Service Fund."

So what this says to me: "The charge is designed to ensure affordable access to telecommunications services for telephone customers with low incomes", is that if you have a phone bill, you subsidize some other groups, including low income telephone users.

Sometimes the utilities seem like the government, but they're not, yet.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

"Demi there s now way around it I despise everything you represent in your posts again & again I despise it.
Smug comes to mind, as well as deluded!"

*

Now there's a shock!

Not.

You have stated you despise things/people/positions before.

The ironic thing is you need people that think like me to attain your personal utopia of society.

Therein is the rub....

Smug--occasionally.
Not nearly as much as many that post here.

Deluded--not at all.

Despise away as you wish.
It matters not to me.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

See that did'n't hurt at all... you just accepted it!
That you respond to those you consider attacking you all the time proves you do care. My fist encounter with one of your posts a few years back you were telling the poster you had better thing to do with your time & that you didn't care. I was a lurker then & I have read this response and your lengthy denials again and again.
Your want to be the person you imagine yourself to be & some posters hold up mirrors that just irk the ca ca out of you!
That there are welfare & corporate & all manner of cheats in the world is a given.
I'm reading a defense of oil this week & the offense of the (UNDESERVING POOR)
As far as my reading goes little has changed in your world view since I got here.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

You are entitled to your opinion, Labrea.

Note that in all the years I've been here I have not pronounced judgment on you for your opinions, and in fact do not judge you at all.

As one of my employers used to say, "Not My Job."


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

  • Posted by ENMc none (My Page) on
    Sat, Nov 17, 12 at 18:22

Curious did you grow up among poor people?

*******************

> I grew up around some people that were so poor they didn't always have shoes to wear to school. <

> I grew up around people that never had store bought clothes. <

> I grew up around people that did not have indoor plumbing.<

Notice around

not among.

Just like "she knows of people". Not the same, at all, as "she knows people".

Hey, just how small is Louisiana, anyway? ;)

E


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Not nearly as small as you.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

The rub comes in that when I give the money myself, I can make sure it goes to the people that actually need it and not those that are undeserving scammers of the system.

But you don't know that demi. There are no not-for-profits without overhead costs For example, the Red Cross got criticized for booking rooms at a posh Soho hotel during Sandy. You can't always control even the money you donate to what you think are worthy causes. That's way there needs to be a safety net.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Obama cell phones ? Mikayla and the president react to that phrase - I take it they are NOT impressed ! Hey fellow Mets fan jillinnj how about R.A. Dickey winning the Cy Young ? WOOT WOOOO ! Now the flawed ownership needs to re-sign him for a few years ASAP !

Photobucket


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Hey fellow Mets fan jillinnj how about R.A. Dickey winning the Cy Young ? WOOT WOOOO ! Now the flawed ownership needs to re-sign him for a few years ASAP !

Yippeee!!!!! We were doing the happy dance in this house. Word is they did or are about to offer him a 2 year extension for $20 mil. I do hope they can work out a deal and sign him to an extension. And I hope whatever magic he's caught doesn't disappear.

On the other hand, I wouldn't count on our flawed ownership for much of anything. Although I wasn't happy about letting Jose go and that didn't hurt us. Proved me wrong there.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

I've read R.A.'s book Wherever I Wind Up and his story is a true Cinderella rags to riches tale . Watching batters flail away and miss this season and sometimes walk away with a smile reminded me of the old baseball movie with the wood repellent chemical - It Happens Every Spring . A pox on Met ownership if they decide to trade him !


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Thanks God for baseball fans; giving us a break from another ugly thread. And thanks to elvis for posting the language of the USF and related programs printed on long distance phone bills.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

You haven't lived until you've read the phone bill.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

I have been gone just got back in and did a quick look did not read every post but I did see my shapely woman in quotes. I knew that would get Demi going. I knew when I posted it would get her going.

I did not read the the rest. Blah, Blah, I know the drill..... Demi knows best. Poor people are bad, lazy want my money. Oh I really want to help people. Just not with my money. Those poor people want all of Corporate money too. Those poor people do not want anything but other people's money. I know because I did Okay. blah blah blah blah. Did I miss anything Demi?

You remind me of Romney it is why he did not win. You serve a purpose to remind the lurkers there really are people out there that believe poor people are all lazy and just looking to take other people's money.

America is great because for every Romney and Demi there are 10 Americans that care and do have Hope and want Change for the better and will never live their life in a box of me, myself and I.

That is my mean for the day. I am sure you will say I am wrong, hateful and mean and blah blah. That is Okay it will not be the first time. I been called other names on HT and it does not bother me. I call them as I see them.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

If you have a friend or acquaintance that spends some time in jail or prison and they call collect read the bill. The charges are very high and they keep charging every month as an independent entity through your billing services. Seems this is true in all the incarceration units and you have to file a protest with your phone company to get them to stop.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Yes - the incredible, state-sanctioned scam of prison telephones. Incarcerated? Want to speak to your children? Hope you have a lot of money.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

I don't quite understand the logic behind making prisoners pay more to phone. You would think that prisons would want to encourage inmates to speak to their families so they can connect with the outside world.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones


Matching link: Phone calls, $5 a minute

"Obama Phones" is just another lie, created by the Benghazi-lie crowd. Then again, we know that.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

"Is there any way you can look into your heart and understand that there a many needy people out there through no fault of their own?"

In too many cases... no, Jerzee. I don't see it happening.

You know how it is... 'what's mine is mine, and what's yours will be mine one day, too... shut up and be happy with the crumbs I drop for you... unless you want them to stop dropping.'


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

"Obama Phones" is just another lie, created by the Benghazi-lie crowd.

Who will never, ever admit they are wrong. No matter how much evidence they are shown to prove they are wrong. Which just makes them look so foolish. And desperate.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

I think it's more of a "mud on the wall" approach; if the smear sticks, it will continue. If not, on to the next manufactured outrage du jour.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Tiresome, isn't it, Nancy and jillinnj?


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Make no mistake--they are lying on purpose.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Yes, marshall, so very tiring.

But, nancy, it's not sticking yet they won't stop. I guess they're so upset by the election they just cannot help themselves.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Since apparently they are wrong yet again and it's NOT sticking despite their best efforts, they will regroup, get their Fox outrage dujour and start a new topic never ever apologizing for the lies they perpetuated.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

it's not sticking yet they won't stop

It will be on to the next "outrage" in a week or so - except for those with birther-like determination. After raving about the insights gained from Dinesh D'Souza's tripe, that fabulist is now 'so last election cycle', and not cited anymore.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Jil, I think you may have missed the subtlety of Marshall's post.

If I misread your post Marshall, I apologize.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

I don't quite understand the logic behind making prisoners pay more to phone.

Perhaps the phone service was privatized. That always costs more.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Chase, please advise: how might you have misread my post? And which of my posts are in contention?


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Marshall your post Sunday at 13:22 ....and Jil's response at 13:34

I read the ? as a gentle nudge to suggest that perhaps we can all be a bit tiresome.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Good on YOU, chase! Give the woman a hearty round of applause.

Remember I am an old grouchy male (according to my fans on HT) and have less tolerance for the bickering repartee among the females posting on HT. Such a fearful venue that I often skip reading whole threads.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

From the OP:

"The program is not directly subsidized by taxpayers but is paid for by the Universal Service Fund through a fee assessed against telecommunications service providers who may or may not pass the costs on to their customers.

So, if we could just get someone on the Supreme Court to declare that this "assessed fee" is actually a tax, then we'll all agree?

I'd like to give Demi a thumbs up on this particular thread. For so many reasons and on so many levels, in this case, Demi, my hat's off to you.

Hay


 o
Universal....

"The Universal Service Fund (USF) was created by the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1997 to meet Congressional universal service goals as mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The 1996 Act states that all providers of telecommunications services should contribute to federal universal service in some equitable and nondiscriminatory manner; there should be specific, predictable, and sufficient Federal and State mechanisms to preserve and advance universal service; all...."

That's as far as I read. Let me know if I missed anything. I think I get the idea. I think we have a good case for the Supreme Court to declare that it's indeed a tax. Let's take it to them, get it declared, and go eat some turkey with cranberry relish.

Hay


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Making communication channels open to all Americans who, after all, in the long run, "own" the airspace--seems to me that principle has a long, well-established tradition in our country.

Kate


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

"Making communication channels open to all Americans who, after all, in the long run, "own" the airspace--seems to me that principle has a long, well-established tradition in our country."

Huh?

That's what this is all about, the right to use airspace?

I must have missed something.

Oh, well. Not the first time.

Hay


 o
Hey!!!!

I have the right to use the roads.....

I want me an Obamacar. You keep the "e".

Hay


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

The concept of universal service is a very long established tradition in the telecommunications industry. It has it's roots in the days when telcos held a monopoly on telecommunications. It had more to do with ensuring the telcos provided service to the unprofitable "boonies" than it did with affordability.

Although the FCC mandated the concept of universal service they did not mandate that the costs be passed on to the consumer. That choice rests with the carriers. In Canada the cost of universal service is born in the monthly rates charged for land lines. There is no "extra" charge".

Canada does not have any programme that provided telephone service at a reduced rate to poor Canadians. As mentioned in a thread a while back, we don't provide lots of things like food stamps, school lunches , reduce costs phones etc. People in need are provided with funds , based on their situation, and it's their business/problem to manage the money. I believe this approach is not only cheaper to administer but it forces those receiving the funds to establish priorities and manage the money.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Canada does not have any programme that provided telephone service at a reduced rate to poor Canadians. As mentioned in a thread a while back, we don't provide lots of things like food stamps, school lunches , reduce costs phones etc. People in need are provided with funds , based on their situation, and it's their business/problem to manage the money. I believe this approach is not only cheaper to administer but it forces those receiving the funds to establish priorities and manage the money.

*

I wish.

That will never happen in this country because it fosters personal responsibility.

There are those in power that WANT people to WANT the government to do everything for them and relieve them of the burden of having to practice personal responsibility, even when they are given someone else's money.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

"Although the FCC mandated the concept of universal service they did not mandate that the costs be passed on to the consumer. That choice rests with the carriers."

Choice???

I guess so.

They could choose to not charge their customers for any of their costs, I guess.

You want to stay in business? Your choice.

I've got work to do. Bye.

Building me a new garage for my Obamacar!!!

Hay


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

those in power that WANT people to WANT the government to do everything for them

I doubt that this is the goal of anyone in power.

Kate


 o
I agree

I'm with Obama on this one.

Hay


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

That is you opinion and you are entitled to it but I don't believe it is true.

What would the motivation be? And before you say it's because they buy votes it simply is not borne out by the facts.

The States with the largest percent of people on welfare type programmes are traditionally Republican States.

Additionally, it is well understood that socioeconomic issues play a large part in voter turnout, things like education, transportation etc. Large numbers of this demographic simply don't vote.

I know the "gift" mentality is a backbone of the conservative argument but I believe it to be bogus.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Not sure why "universal" service applies to CELL phones. I thought it was just to keep land line service available to all areas.

Hay, you are on a roll!


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Mon, Nov 19, 12 at 13:32

I know the "gift" mentality is a backbone of the conservative argument but I believe it to be bogus.

"I just think it's nuts, I mean, first of all, it's insulting." (Gingrich)


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Romney made no friends with his gifts remark. He was mostly jumped on by republicans who were quite offended by that stupid remark. Which just goes to prove that Romney really IS from another planet.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Romney really IS from another planet.

He is not on that other planet alone,j ust read this post. There is a society of nuts.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Oh! Now I get it. My cell phone company kept leaving messages - something about the government not paying for phones. Guess my company is a major service provider for these phones. (US Cellular)


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

"If we want people to like us we have to like them first." - Bobby Jindal

"Quit despising the American people." - George Will


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Next thing we know Trump will be advocating for the Republicans to intone Kumbaya.


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

"If we want people to like us we have to like them first." - Bobby Jindal

Seriously. Who loves good little girls and boys more than Santa Clause?


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

"If we want people to like us we have to like them first." - Bobby Jindal

Very nice. I didn't know Jindal was an authority on likeability. This sounds like something he may have said to his children about how to get along with others. How do you "like" someone? I'd like to think I can tell whether someone likes me, but maybe not. Chemistry sometimes happens, and that's magic.

Sometimes being extra nice to another brings out the bully, or creeps the recipient out.

I would substitute "respect" for "like".


 o
RE: Obama Cell Phones

Jindal is a loser.

It may take 2016 to convince him of that, though.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: This thread has reached the upper limit for the number follow-ups allowed (150). If you would like to continue this discussion, please begin a new thread using the form on the main forum page.


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here