"I had a former employee call me earlier today inquiring about a job, and at the end of the conversation he gave me his phone number. I asked the former employee if this was a new cell phone number and he told me yes this was his “Obama phone.” I asked him what an “Obama phone” was and he went on to say that welfare recipients are now eligible to receive (1) a FREE new phone and (2) approx 70 minutes of FREE minutes every month. I was a little skeptical so I Googled it and low and behold he was telling the truth."
The Lifeline program was around before Obama. I never looked into its history, but a wireless carrier I worked for participated. It is for certain people on specific gov't assistance programs including welfare, and it was simply a small dollar amount credit ($13, I believe). It was available for landline or cellular, but not both. The carrier had received significant money from .gov to build out it's wireless network in rural areas and was required to offer service in areas it normally would not due to low population.
This is definitely not an "Obama Phone"...he has nothing to do with the creation of the program or the funding. The Universal Service Fund pays for the minutes and TracFone gives free phones...this is just an update to the Lifeline program that provides basic telephone service for low-income households. Cell phones are becoming more of a necessity and less of a luxury in life now.
Nope. Doesn't mean I've "donated" any less though. I consider social problems like the welfare of those in need much more important than an unjust war that sent us into incredible levels of debt. If you are so worried about the US spending too much money, protest the war that was spending $1 billion a week (or maybe ask some oil companies for some of the profits our soldiers earned them), not a relatively cheap social program for those who have less than you.
This social program was something that was a small program that targed a specific group that became bloated. And if you want to feel good about yourself do it with your own money not everyone else's. And you don't get to decide how much money I spend depending on what I've got, it's none of your business. This is a separate issue from the government's duty to protect the country, you might not agree with the war, but it passed both houses of congress.
The SafeLink program is part of the Lifeline program created in 1989 under the Reagan Administration and gave free phone service to people so they could have access in cases of emergency.
After 9/11, Katrina, etc., the FCC worked to extend the program, under the Bush Administration. Their reasoning was, "Modern universal telephone service is necessary not only to ensure that the U.S. maintains a rapid, efficient, nationwide communications network, it is important for the purpose of national defense and to promote safety of life and property."
Seems Obama has redefined it's use in more socialistic terms . . .
I seem to remember that the intent of all this was that a 911 call would work from any line....whether you were paying for service or not. In other words you could have line installed...you can have a cell phone, as long as it has a charge, you could call 911..... Just goes to show how the spirit of legislation can be a good thing, but is amended into something wastefull.
How so? All they've done is to allow the same pool of eligible people from the Lifeline program that Reagan established, to use the subsidy for a cellular phone instead of a landline. Seems pretty sensible to me in this era where more than 20% of households no longer have a landline. You're really grasping here.
This is what I hate about government programs. It was supposed to serve a small, defined group of people who really needed it and then it just expands to one big giveaway. In 1989, cell phones weren't cheap. It's different now. This should have been done away awhile ago.
Not to put a damper on this socialism-hatefest or anything, but exactly how much does this program cost the government in total, and how do poor people expect to look for and get jobs when they have no form of communication available?
Thousands of people found jobs without having a phone. They arranged with someone to receive calls. So, to jump on the socialism-hatefest, I would say this has far more potential to be abused than used to get an actual job. After all, why pay for a phone yourself if you don't have to?
Why are you all so afraid of helping others in need? Have we really become so individualistic and greedy that we just blindly attack all government programs that try and help people difficult situations?
Americans are afraid of being "forced" to spend your hard-earned money on someone who doesn't deserve it, no? Terrified, I would say, based on this forum (although I never accused anybody of hating others in need, thanks for putting words in my mouth). It just seems hypocritical that they are ok with spending an amount of money exponentially greater on the war, then get all hyperventilated over a relatively small government program.
Fear is used by branding people with taboo names like "socialist" to try and discredit them. McCarthy was good at it, a great American hero, just like Glenn Beck today. You're in good company.
Why is it that America, who is the most generous nation in the world, is constantly demonized for wanting to choose which causes to support?
Small government program? The war cost about 500 billion dollars, the recent surge in government programs have cost 1.4 trillion dollars. That's almost three times as much. As for supporting the war, you must have missed all the protests and the low poll numbers the Bush administration had. But you can't fight city hall, they'll just ignore you. It seems that's as true for welfare programs as it is for warfare programs.
As for associating Glenn Beck with McCarthy, that's reaching man. Do you even read what you write before you post it? Has Beck called for interring people into camps? Does he claim to have a "secret" list of high ranking Communists in the government? No. He exposes them every night on TV and asks the other side to refute him. To date they haven't. Which leads one to suspect the other side cannot refute him because he's telling the truth.
Reaching? He called Obama racist, among the list of other exaggerated names used to try and scare people into not liking him. They are obviously not the same person with the same actions, it's their tactics that are the same. It's also very self-serving to call America the most generous nation in the world. On what exactly are you basing that?
The large amount of spending Obama has done has to do more with saving the economy than wasting money on useless programs, but that's another argument and economics isn't really a road I feel like going down. My point is just that it's depressing to see harmless social programs like this demonized so quickly and rashly, that's all.
Who called Obama racist? You went all vague on me.
Show me an example where large amounts of government spending have saved any economy. All that spending is just a way to buy votes, it isn't to save anything. The fact that you can say something like that just goes to prove that you don't know as much as you think you do.
You'll note he didn't go into that whole "Unconditional Surrender" abortion made policy by our Glorious Leader, FDR. Have you heard that story? A reporter blindsided him at a press conference concerning possible negotiation with dissident elements in Germany and he said later that he blanked. All he could remember was that they called Grant "Unconditional Surrender", so that's what he stammered. That stupid comment not only increased the duration of the European fighting, but also gave "Uncle Joe" Stalin a stick to beat us with, not that he didn't have enough agents in the West beating the tired drum of "Second Front Now".
Nice to see he's so blase about the most destructive war in the history of the world. The only thing I'll add is that we won that war despite the politicians.
OK we halfway won that war. Even Eisenhower said we should never have let the Russians have Berlin, he called it the greatest blunder of the war. Had the let Patton have his way we might have gotten all the way to Poland.
Um, you asked "Show me an example where large amounts of government spending have saved any economy." WWII did. So, the theory goes, it is the spending itself that gives the economy a boost. Case in point, our economy is recovering because of Obama's policies. Save your lectures about "Unconditional Surrender" and WWII history, which are irrelevant to this argument.
I didn't ask for WWII, but that doesn't change the fact that it helped our economy recover from depression. Now, not only is the economy recovering, but the money was spent on useful programs instead of guns.
WW II didn't save the economy. It forced people to save and when the war ended, people were free to invest in productive enterprise back then. Look up Montgomery Ward for an example of how some people thought the collapse of government spending after the war would spiral us into a new Great Depression.
If anything, the War had the unintended consequence of setting us up for a recovery, but is that really a feasible way to recover an economy?
And, as you conveniently left out, it forced the government to spend. Have you ever heard of the equation "C (consumption) + I (investment) + G (government spending) = GNP" which is taught in every freshman economics class?
The argument isn't over whether stimulus is needed. Virtually all economists agree that it is. The argument is over what's the best way to stimulate the economy--through government spending (Democrats) or through tax cuts (Republicans). Both are Keynesian arguments that the economy needs to be stimulated, and both increase the deficit.
My recollection is that Glenn Beck absurdly accused President Obama of hating white Americans or words to that effect.
"Show me an example where large amounts of government spending have saved any economy."
Open your eyes, it's happening right now. Keynesian economics long ago was adopted as the standard, most widely accepted theory of economic fluctuations and appropriate measures to keep them from getting out of control. You prattle on about economics as if you were an expert while preaching outmoded, discredited fringe theories as if they were the Gospel.
I applaud Reagan for a very good idea that clearly has lasted over 20 years. Proof he wasn't all bad at all (unless you are a strong fiscal conservative, in which case this just adds insult to injury).
I did. If you have a thought that all liberals think Reagan was worse than Hitler, that can be based on something you read/heard or it could be a figment of your imagination. Of course, you're entitled to believe whatever you want to believe, reality notwithstanding.
All of those people hating the program because its Obama's plan, just letting you know the program started before Obama's adminstration. So all this talk about this being example of his socialism doesnt really work because he has nothing to so with it.
If anyone is against the "waste" in Government it's me. But I have no problem with a program that helps people get back to work if in fact that is what these phones are used for and that purpose, and it should not be too hard to figure that out as it's pretty easy to see what numbers are called.
In my view Obama has done a lot of things that are leading us down the road to financial disaster at a much faster pace. He is not the cause of the disaster he is just accelerating the pace.
The root cause is money... and the people who control the money. Obama is just a mouthpiece for the Status Quo which is both Republican and Democratic.
In the past 30 years we have had a lot of Republicans and Democrats in office... but none of them did anything to "fix" the Central Bank which allowed for a massive debt build up and our current crisis.
You've got it just wrong. Obama has been applying conventional economic measures to prevent the economy from going into a very deep prolonged recession or depression. The massive debt build up had nothing to do with the Federal Reserve Bank. It was due to the Bush tax cuts for wealthy Americans, two wars and big spending programs supported by Bush and passed by the GOP controlled Congress--e.g. the prescription drug program added to Medicare in a way that benefited the pharmaceutical companies immensely and was completely un-funded.
i think career welfare recipients should be required to submit to drug tests, and chronically unemployed people should be required to do volunteer work like helping charities like Habitat for Humanity etc. because they could learn a trade while simultaneously helping their community.
Nope. I've been away for the holidays and haven't had the time to keep up with HubPages. (I've had a couple of 3-day bans but no 30-dayers.) I've heard rumors that our friend TK has been on a 30-day ban. Perhaps that's contributed to my absence from the forums. Ldtech's ignorance spreading in this thread sparked my interest.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091222/ap_ … 1lc2FsZXNzGot anymore you would like to add???See how far we can get concentrating on the positives of this administration thus far. He has done a really decent...
Impeachment of a President One would think that the impeachment of a president is not conducive in showing him support.”Give him a chance,” people say. President Obama, to be exact, has been in office...
Isn't interesting at the same time Jeff Sessions has said that he talked to Russia, Trump is accusing Obama of wire tapping him? And Trump has no evidence to support his claims. I believe this is another one...