Obamaphone program cost 2.2 billion in 2012

[wygator]

Wonder how much of this goes on in other govt welfare programs? We can't afford this.

The U.S. government spent about $2.2 billion last year to provide phones to low-income Americans, but a Wall Street Journal review of the program shows that a large number of those who received the phones haven't proved they are eligible to receive them.
The Lifeline program—begun in 1984 to ensure that poor people aren't cut off from jobs, families and emergency services—is funded by charges that appear on the monthly bills of every landline and wireless-phone customer. Payouts under the program have shot up from $819 million in 2008, as more wireless carriers have persuaded regulators to let them offer the service.

Suspecting that many of the new subscribers were ineligible, the Federal Communications Commission tightened the rules last year and required carriers to verify that existing subscribers were eligible. The agency estimated 15% of users would be weeded out, but far more were dropped. A review of five top recipients of Lifeline support conducted by the FCC for the Journal showed that 41% of their more than six million subscribers either couldn't demonstrate their eligibility or didn't respond to requests for certification.

link (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323511804578296001368122888.html?m od=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection)

[mocgator]

Well I'm just shocked. How can this be??

I wonder if the same exact thing will happen with Obamacare???

[G8trGr8t]

Government didn't spend it, they took it from those of us that actually pay for our phones and gave it away and took some off the top for managing the program.

My simple local landline bill is $30 per month with 33% of that being taxes. Ridiculous. 33% tax.

Just more redistribution.

[wgbgator]

Never mind that it was the private carriers signing up people who might be ineligable while the gov't weeded out those that werent after tightening the rules when they became suspicious. But I'm sure the gov't was to blame, somehow. I'm sure you can think of something.

[wygator]

Government didn't spend it, they took it from those of us that actually pay for our phones and gave it away and took some off the top for managing the program.

My simple local landline bill is $30 per month with 33% of that being taxes. Ridiculous. 33% tax.

Just more redistribution.

That goes without saying. Government has NO MONEY to spend that it didn't take from someone. But they did spend it.

The obvious problem with government spending is the extra-constitutional programs that have been added and grown beyond all reason.

[rivergator]

you guys are still pretending Obama started this program?

[wygator]

From James Madison, father of the Constitution and one author of the Federalist Papers:

If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teachers in every State, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public Treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads. In short, every thing, from the highest object of State legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.

The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.

And finally, his clearest statement of all:

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.

[wygator]

you guys are still pretending Obama started this program?

The lady in the youtube video thinks so. Isn't that all that matters?

It has more than doubled under his watch:

Payouts under the program have shot up from $819 million in 2008, as more wireless carriers have persuaded regulators to let them offer the service.

[MichiGator2002]

you guys are still pretending Obama started this program?

It only matters that he didn't start it if you are treating ever expanding government spending on any bad idea a fait accompli. Liberals have no trouble riding Obama about Gitmo, by contrast, and Obama has ratified that policy as surely as he has this one.

[wgbgator]

LOL. Well, I guess we can expect an immenent Consitutional challenge to the law.

BTW, "subsidy" is not "charity."

[MichiGator2002]

On a related note...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQzF0MQIR8k

It's like life itself is now political satire.

[wygator]

LOL. Well, I guess we can expect an immenent Consitutional challenge to the law.

BTW, "subsidy" is not "charity."

Please explain. A transfer payment, whether all or part of an expense, is in this example a gift or charity.

[wgbgator]

Please explain. A transfer payment, whether all or part of an expense, is in this example a gift or charity.

I wouldnt consider subsidizing the cost of something to be a "gift" or "charity." I mean, my state subsidized education at UF wasnt something most people would consider a "gift" or "charity." It just made education more affordable and accessible by partially covering the cost. Moreover the state & employers benefit from a more educated work force (as did other private businesses like bars & food services while I was at school and some fractional dipsosable income), who will pay more in taxes than someone who doesnt have the education to get a high paying job. So, I don't see any act of disinterested charity, but an act of defraying costs to achieve some sort of beneficial end. So, not charity.

[wygator]

Never mind that it was the private carriers signing up people who might be ineligable while the gov't weeded out those that werent after tightening the rules when they became suspicious. But I'm sure the gov't was to blame, somehow. I'm sure you can think of something.

Never mind that practically every government benevolence program, no matter how well intended, usually has rampant fraud and abuse.

Even absent outright abuse, the cost of government providing any kind of service has much higher overhead than any private business or charitable organization that provides similar services to the needy.

[Lawdog88]

No drug deals were conducted using those phones.

Noimsayin ?

[Matthanuf06]

Typical socialist program. Tell me why they are getting cell phones and not land lines?

[wygator]

Typical socialist program. Tell me why they are getting cell phones and not land lines?

Because if they're homeless, they can still have a phone to try to get a job.

This is true, not hyperbole.

[g8orbill]

mere drop in the bucket to insure his re election-the takers will always vote for those giving stuff away

[wygator]

Typical socialist program. Tell me why they are getting cell phones and not land lines?

In addition, there was some reporting that the additional companies were added after 2008 election as political payback.

[wgbgator]

Typical socialist program. Tell me why they are getting cell phones and not land lines?

Probably the same reason I havent had a land line in 12 years.

[108]

you guys are still pretending Obama started this program?

yes, it fits their narrative well :cry:

[gatorev12]

Never mind that it was the private carriers signing up people who might be ineligable while the gov't weeded out those that werent after tightening the rules when they became suspicious. But I'm sure the gov't was to blame, somehow. I'm sure you can think of something.

Saying the government isn't at fault because they're incompetent isn't really a convincing argument.

[Matthanuf06]

Probably the same reason I havent had a land line in 12 years.

That reason is because you can afford the luxury of having a cell phone. These poor folks cannot afford it. Why do we have to pay for luxury goods?

Using this logic are we supposed to subsidize big flat screen televisions too? After all, who has a tube tv anymore?

[Matthanuf06]

Because if they're homeless, they can still have a phone to try to get a job.

This is true, not hyperbole.

Lol, how would they charge it?

[wgbgator]

That reason is because you can afford the luxury of having a cell phone. These poor folks cannot afford it. Why do we have to pay for luxury goods?

Using this logic are we supposed to subsidize big flat screen televisions too? After all, who has a tube tv anymore?

Actually when I did have a land line back in school, having a cell phone was a luxury. Because a cell phone was bulky, unreliable and less useful than a land line most of the time. Now, 12 years later its quite the opposite. Having a land line would be a luxury I don't need. I suspect that's true of anyone under the age of 50 (ie people who make up the bulk of the work force). Moreso people my age and younger, especially if you move frequently, or arent settled in one place, or even homeless.

[wgbgator]

Lol, how would they charge it?

You have not seen people charging their phones in public places? You need a home to charge electronic devices? :huh:

[wgbgator]

I mean, go to the third world. Its the same deal. Lots of mobile devices (typically disposable and/or pay go), not a lot of people living in homes with land lines.

[VAg8r1]

That reason is because you can afford the luxury of having a cell phone. These poor folks cannot afford it. Why do we have to pay for luxury goods?

Using this logic are we supposed to subsidize big flat screen televisions too? After all, who has a tube tv anymore?
Actually, the cost of basic (limited minutes, no text or data) cell phone service and landline service are comparable.

[baygator1]

mere drop in the bucket to insure his re election-the takers will always vote for those giving stuff away

Make it tangible, even if the individual value is nominal, and they'll get to the polls to ensure they keep getting it.

[wygator]

Actually, the cost of basic (limited minutes, no text or data) cell phone service and landline service are comparable.

Anyone know what kind of phones or services they are actually receiving in this program?

[Matthanuf06]

I mean, go to the third world. Its the same deal. Lots of mobile devices (typically disposable and/or pay go), not a lot of people living in homes with land lines.

So what? If they pay for it themselves then how is it applicable?

[Matthanuf06]

You have not seen people charging their phones in public places? You need a home to charge electronic devices? :huh:

No you don't need a home, but you aren't exactly supposed to mooch off of others power. And in places where you can, such as airports, homeless people aren't supposed to squat at.

[Matthanuf06]

Actually when I did have a land line back in school, having a cell phone was a luxury. Because a cell phone was bulky, unreliable and less useful than a land line most of the time. Now, 12 years later its quite the opposite. Having a land line would be a luxury I don't need. I suspect that's true of anyone under the age of 50 (ie people who make up the bulk of the work force). Moreso people my age and younger, especially if you move frequently, or arent settled in one place, or even homeless.

You still have it wrong. So what, cell phones are easier and more convenient so we all buy them. The doesn't mean they are necessary. Most young folks have nice TVs, that doesnt make them a needed good and not a luxury. If the goal is for the poor to have a phone to call 911 and to apply for jobs then the means should be the cheapest means necessary, which is an old cheap reusable landline.

[fredsanford]

Typical conservative fact-free meme:

1. Program started by Bush is now Obama's.
2. Attacked as wasteful government spending, but is actually funded by a levy on other phone customers.
3. Program was expanded to cell phones because landlines are going the way of the telegraph. This is also Obama's fault somehow.
4. Much like food stamps, program has expanded due to need based on the 2008 crash. Even though this happened under Bush, it is Obama's fault.

And of course, all this has a racist undercurrent due to a video of a black woman with a cell phone. That and the average age of a pub voter being closer to 70 and still thinking that a cell phone in 2013 is some kind of crazy luxury like satellite tv.

[wgbgator]

No you don't need a home, but you aren't exactly supposed to mooch off of others power. And in places where you can, such as airports, homeless people aren't supposed to squat at.

I guess you havent been to a public library or a bookstore in awhile. People live in their cars too, which have the ability to charge electronics. Really, not all homeless people are easily spotted, and anywhere where its normal to spend time "hanging out" is a good place to charge a phone.

[fredsanford]

I guess you havent been to a public libarary or a bookstore in awhile. People live in their cars too, which have the ability to charge electronics. Really, not all homeless people are easily spotted, and anywhere where its normal to spend time "hanging out" is a good place to charge a phone.

I saw a homeless guy outside of a 7-11 yesterday charging his flip phone via an outside power outlet.

[jimgata]

It would be a damn shame not to be able to call someone and tell them what you had for lunch.

[wygator]

Typical conservative fact-free meme:

1. Program started by Bush is now Obama's.
2. Attacked as wasteful government spending, but is actually funded by a levy on other phone customers.
3. Program was expanded to cell phones because landlines are going the way of the telegraph. This is also Obama's fault somehow.
4. Much like food stamps, program has expanded due to need based on the 2008 crash. Even though this happened under Bush, it is Obama's fault.

And of course, all this has a racist undercurrent due to a video of a black woman with a cell phone. That and the average age of a pub voter being closer to 70 and still thinking that a cell phone in 2013 is some kind of crazy luxury like satellite tv.

Fred, I don't have time to address all your points right now, but on 1 and 2:

1) Like the federal budget, Obama has basically doubled down on everything being done before.

2) The levy on other phone customers is a TAX. Government gets all of its money from taxes from individuals and corporations. What does the style of tax collection have to do with the original point which is that we can't afford the continuing increase of handouts?

[gatorman_07732]

Typical conservative fact-free meme:

1. Program started by Bush is now Obama's.
2. Attacked as wasteful government spending, but is actually funded by a levy on other phone customers.
3. Program was expanded to cell phones because landlines are going the way of the telegraph. This is also Obama's fault somehow.
4. Much like food stamps, program has expanded due to need based on the 2008 crash. Even though this happened under Bush, it is Obama's fault.

And of course, all this has a racist undercurrent due to a video of a black woman with a cell phone. That and the average age of a pub voter being closer to 70 and still thinking that a cell phone in 2013 is some kind of crazy luxury like satellite tv.

Why do you make the quantum leap that because Bush did something then conservatives supported it? Many conservatives spoke out when he turned out to be a big gov guy.

[VAg8r1]

If anyone is really interested in the facts
Since 1985, the Lifeline program has provided a discount on phone service for qualifying low-income consumers to ensure that all Americans have the opportunities and security that phone service brings, including being able to connect to jobs, family and emergency services. In 2005, Lifeline discounts were made available to qualifying low-income consumers on pre-paid wireless service plans in addition to traditional landline service. Lifeline is part of the Universal Service Fund.lifeline.gov (http://www.fcc.gov/lifeline)

Interesting how a program that predates the Obama administration by over 20 years is referred to as "Obamaphone". Yes, the program is supported by a tax on phone service. Personally, I have no problem paying a miniscule tax so that an 80-year old widow living entirely on social security can call 911 in the event of a medical emergency or providing a phone to a low-income unemployed individual so that he or she can be contacted by a prospective employer.

[wgbgator]

You still have it wrong. So what, cell phones are easier and more convenient so we all buy them. The doesn't mean they are necessary. Most young folks have nice TVs, that doesnt make them a needed good and not a luxury. If the goal is for the poor to have a phone to call 911 and to apply for jobs then the means should be the cheapest means necessary, which is an old cheap reusable landline.

Sorry, but in 2012, no one can say with a straight face that a basic mobile phone is a luxury item.

[gatorman_07732]

Well actually the most affordable would be a prepaid plan you can get for as low as $15/mo

[MichiGator2002]

Sorry, but in 2012, no one can say with a straight face that a basic mobile phone is a luxury item.

Actually, the fact that we've arrived at a point where people have had such a total perspective breakdown that they don't realize it is very much a luxury item, is part of the problem. It's like one of Neal Boortz' favorite anecdotes, of an AJ-C article where a woman is pictured, above an article in which she is complaining about home heating oil assistance, standing in front of her large flat-screen TV and multiple gaming consoles, i.e. a couple grand in frivolous personal electronics. People do not "need" the things they think they need, or if we're committed to providing, or enabling them to provide themselves, these things anyway, we should stop insulting them or ourselves by deeming it part of a "safety net". The safety net keeps you from dying on your way to the bottom. It may cut, chafe, possibly still even allow you to suffer injury. Maybe we need to illustrate it better as a social air bag in that way -- the point of any such legitimate thing as a social "safety net" should be basic survival; i.e. not cellphones.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Actually, the fact that we've arrived at a point where people have had such a total perspective breakdown that they don't realize it is very much a luxury item, is part of the problem.

I don't think so. Over time that which is a "luxury item" can often become a necessity in modern life.

Electricity was a "luxury item" in 1900.

[gatorman_07732]

I don't think so. Over time that which is a "luxury item" can often become a necessity in modern life.

Electricity was a "luxury item" in 1900.

And people are required to pay for it

[orangeblueorangeblue]

And people are required to pay for it

Sure. My point isn't that you should get it for free, but that there is a relative adjustment to what is considered a "necessity" over time as it applies to functioning within society.

[wgbgator]

Actually, the fact that we've arrived at a point where people have had such a total perspective breakdown that they don't realize it is very much a luxury item, is part of the problem. It's like one of Neal Boortz' favorite anecdotes, of an AJ-C article where a woman is pictured, above an article in which she is complaining about home heating oil assistance, standing in front of her large flat-screen TV and multiple gaming consoles, i.e. a couple grand in frivolous personal electronics. People do not "need" the things they think they need, or if we're committed to providing, or enabling them to provide themselves, these things anyway, we should stop insulting them or ourselves by deeming it part of a "safety net". The safety net keeps you from dying on your way to the bottom. It may cut, chafe, possibly still even allow you to suffer injury. Maybe we need to illustrate it better as a social air bag in that way -- the point of any such legitimate thing as a social "safety net" should be basic survival; i.e. not cellphones.

I don't deem it part of the "safety net." I do think phones and communication devices are pretty essential parts of modern life and being able to find employment in 2012, which are worthy of public subsidy in certain cases. This is applicable to cell phones for the poor as it for gov't funding of communication and wi-fi infrastructure.

[gatorman_07732]

Sure. My point isn't that you should get it for free, but that there is a relative adjustment to what is considered a "necessity" over time as it applies to functioning within society.

yes I agree, and if you are seriously trying to land a job then that means of communication is important. I would also think most any employer is going to want a way to get a hold of you.

[fredsanford]

Why do you make the quantum leap that because Bush did something then conservatives supported it? Many conservatives spoke out when he turned out to be a big gov guy.

I know that's the revisionist history. The reality is that pubs loved GWB with all their little hearts until he had no more political use.

Regardless, my point here is that Obama is getting tagged with being to blame for something that has been around forever.

[fredsanford]

Actually, the fact that we've arrived at a point where people have had such a total perspective breakdown that they don't realize it is very much a luxury item, is part of the problem. It's like one of Neal Boortz' favorite anecdotes, of an AJ-C article where a woman is pictured, above an article in which she is complaining about home heating oil assistance, standing in front of her large flat-screen TV and multiple gaming consoles, i.e. a couple grand in frivolous personal electronics. People do not "need" the things they think they need, or if we're committed to providing, or enabling them to provide themselves, these things anyway, we should stop insulting them or ourselves by deeming it part of a "safety net". The safety net keeps you from dying on your way to the bottom. It may cut, chafe, possibly still even allow you to suffer injury. Maybe we need to illustrate it better as a social air bag in that way -- the point of any such legitimate thing as a social "safety net" should be basic survival; i.e. not cellphones.

So now a phone=flat screen tvs and PS3s. Sigh...

Now, tell me just exactly how you expect someone to get a job if they don't have a phone they can be reached on?

[MichiGator2002]

So now a phone=flat screen tvs and PS3s. Sigh...

Now, tell me just exactly how you expect someone to get a job if they don't have a phone they can be reached on?

No, a phone = a phone, which is in and of itself enough. A cellular phone is a material luxury, period. In only an Nth of cases are we talking about someone who is completely, helplessly indigent, and even if we were -- their bigger problems would be smelling right and grooming to go into a place of business to pick up an application long before they had to worry about a phone.

So if we're just talking about the functionally clothed and sheltered unemployed, then their choices should be simple --

a) arrange through a friend or family a viable point of contact
b) reapportion whatever income or resources they do have and get the phone. If you have a Wii and want a government phone, sell the frakking Wii. If you have cable and a want a government phone, cancel the frakking cable.

[gatorman_07732]

I know that's the revisionist history. The reality is that pubs loved GWB with all their little hearts until he had no more political use.

Regardless, my point here is that Obama is getting tagged with being to blame for something that has been around forever.

No that is reality, I was very vocal against the bailouts he started and all of his big gov programs.

[DaveFla]

Plus, one of the beneficiaries of this program just happens to be a HUGE Obama financial supporter and frequent visitor to the White House.

Can YOU say quid pro quo?

[viningsgator]

What's the old saying? Two wrongs don't make it right. Just because GWB was a dope who spent too much shouldn't give the new dope license to double down. GWB spent too much so we can excuse BHO for virtually doubling everything?

[wygator]

If anyone is really interested in the facts
lifeline.gov (http://www.fcc.gov/lifeline)

Interesting how a program that predates the Obama administration by over 20 years is referred to as "Obamaphone". Yes, the program is supported by a tax on phone service. Personally, I have no problem paying a miniscule tax so that an 80-year old widow living entirely on social security can call 911 in the event of a medical emergency or providing a phone to a low-income unemployed individual so that he or she can be contacted by a prospective employer.

It's called Obamaphone because of the famous (infamous) video.

I wouldn't have much of a problem if these were the primary users. I would say give them the cheapest phone available with limited minutes per month, unlimited 911, of course. Somehow, I doubt your 80-year-old widow is the common user or that cheap, low minute phones are what are being provided.

Your link is interesting, too. The FCC tells us they saved $200 million on the program in 2012!!! What a hoot!

[fredsanford]

No, a phone = a phone, which is in and of itself enough. A cellular phone is a material luxury, period. In only an Nth of cases are we talking about someone who is completely, helplessly indigent, and even if we were -- their bigger problems would be smelling right and grooming to go into a place of business to pick up an application long before they had to worry about a phone.

So if we're just talking about the functionally clothed and sheltered unemployed, then their choices should be simple --

a) arrange through a friend or family a viable point of contact
b) reapportion whatever income or resources they do have and get the phone. If you have a Wii and want a government phone, sell the frakking Wii. If you have cable and a want a government phone, cancel the frakking cable.

Smoke signals would be great, too.

Oy.

[Matthanuf06]

Sorry, but in 2012, no one can say with a straight face that a basic mobile phone is a luxury item.

It certain isn't a necessity. Why isn't a land line good enough?

[Tasselhoff]

This is a red herring. We have much bigger and much more frighteni g things to worry about with this admin. Actually with this government period.

With that said, when times got tough for me I moved to tennessee to find a job. I bought a ten dollar touch tone phone for my apartment and a 15 dollar answering machine. Then went job hunting. Guess what. They both worked out just fine and I fou d a job in sic days. Then two months later I recieved a message on my answering ma hine and had amuch better job offer.
Cell phones are nice, they are easy, they are NOT a necessity.

[wygator]

This is a red herring. We have much bigger and much more frighteni g things to worry about with this admin. Actually with this government period.

With that said, when times got tough for me I moved to tennessee to find a job. I bought a ten dollar touch tone phone for my apartment and a 15 dollar answering machine. Then went job hunting. Guess what. They both worked out just fine and I fou d a job in sic days. Then two months later I recieved a message on my answering ma hine and had amuch better job offer.
Cell phones are nice, they are easy, they are NOT a necessity.

I acknowledge this isn't our biggest concern, but it is illustrative and symptomatic.

We wonder how the federal budget could grow so much in so few years and it is the rapid expansion of a lot of little programs like this. Individually they are small, but you know the saying. A few billion here, a few billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money!

[orangeblueorangeblue]

It certain isn't a necessity. Why isn't a land line good enough?

I'm not sure a land line is even necessarily cheaper anymore.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Honestly, I don't think there's much reason to do this, it seems like an iffy and expensive policy.

But if you're going to give away free phones/phone service, it would be pretty ludicrous to give away a land line.

I'd actually be more comfortable if - given the US government's vast infrastructure that's already in place - they provided a public option phone service at a steep discount.

[David Shepherd]

Link-Up (http://www.fcc.gov/guides/lifeline-and-link-affordable-telephone-service-income-eligible-consumers) assists consumers with the installation costs of phone service. The program pays up to $30 of the cost of installation and up to $200 in the form of a one year, interest-free loan for additional installation costs.

(http://www.lifeline.gov/)
Lifeline (http://www.lifeline.gov/) provides discounts on basic monthly service at a primary residence for qualified telephone customers. These discounts can be up to $10.00 per month, or more for certain Native Americans. Generally, to qualify, your income must be at or below 135% of the federal poverty guidelines (http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml) (these vary by location and size of family but for comparison, rings in at $22,350 for a family of four in the lower 48).


In some instances, coverage may include discounts for cell phone service instead of land lines at primary residences because realistically, cell phone service is less expensive in some areas than traditional service. Eligibility and type of program may vary from state to state – and this is why there is a flurry of confusion about the program being a product of the Obama administration. In Florida, for example, cell phone service was added to the existing program – in 2008, the year that Obama was elected to office. The conclusion from many folks was that it was a new federal program. It was not. It was an expansion of the existing program and implemented on a state by state basis.


The federal program wasn’t started by President Obama. It dates back to 1996, as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Act did a number of things, including increasing internet access to doctors and patients in rural hospitals (for consults with specialists); subsidizing internet and phone coverage for schools and libraries and providing free or subsidized coverage for families who can’t afford it so that they have links to emergency and government services. The Act was not taxpayer funded… exactly. Taxpayers do pay for coverage but not via federal income taxes. Instead, the Act “mandated the creation of the universal service fund (USF) into which all telecommunications providers are required to contribute a percentage of their interstate and international end-user telecommunications revenues.” So that little fee on your phone bill labeled USF? That’s what you’re paying for.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/09/28/crazy-for-obama-phones-but-are-they-for-real/

[T3goalie]

Government waste and corruption buying votes with OPM is = Pissing in the Wind by Jerry Jeff Walker...

[Matthanuf06]

I'm not sure a land line is even necessarily cheaper anymore.

Service isn't, but the actual phone should be.

And besides a landline over a cell should give them more incentive to work to afford that cell.

[vertigo0923]

rebuttal: please read. let's end this argument forever.

http://www.freegovernmentcellphones.net/faq/obama-phone

Is the government giving out free cell phones?

Yes. This part is true. They fund low end cell phones plans, and offset some of the cost of landline phones. The programs that authorize the phone distribution program are called Lifeline Assistance and Lifeline Link-Up. Lifeline Assistance helps pay monthly phone bills and Lifeline Link-Up helps pay the initial outlay for the phone and installation. The two programs are often lumped together and simply called Lifeline.

These Lifeline cell phones are delivered through relatively new, government-approved cell phone companies like Safelink Wireless, Assurance Wireless and Reachout Wireless, among others. These companies were spun of off larger prepaid cell phone companies to specialize in the Lifeline program.
Did Obama start the free phones program?

The cell phone distribution program did begin in 2008, the year Obama was elected president, but that is a coincidence. Let’s look more closely at the facts.
Notice that earlier we said Link-Up helps fund “installation.” What installation does a cell phone have? None. So why is installation part of Link-Up, which is under the Lifeline program umbrella? Because, the whole thing began back in 1996 when the Federal Communications Commission authorized the programs for landline phones. At that time it provided discounts on landline phones only, for obvious reasons.

To this day the government provides discounts on landline phones for financially disadvantaged people in the United States and U.S. territories. The Link-Up portion helps with the installation and the Lifeline Assistance part helps with the monthly bills, to the tune of roughly ten dollars a month.

So, the subsidization of phones began under President Clinton, and has continued under Presidents Bush and Obama.

[HALLGATOR]

I have cell phones but no land line anymore. Pay my taxes on it just like everyone else. I really don't like the tax but don't mind that it helps others have a phone. I wouldn't consider a phone a luxury either although I can see why others may think so.

[DieAGator]

I wonder if the same exact thing will happen with Obamacare???

That is Obama's original intention re Obamacare. Those who can't afford it will have it paid for them. Now they just have to decide who is included, who isn't.

[fredsanford]

It certain isn't a necessity. Why isn't a land line good enough?

You have to have a residence, for starters.

Bulletin: it's no longer 1974, FYI.

[Matthanuf06]

You have to have a residence, for starters.

Bulletin: it's no longer 1974, FYI.

I'm not sure of your point. The fact is we have more and more folks living a middle class style life off of the government tit. Sucking the government tit shouldn't be something good, it should be terrible. You should get enough so that you don't die. Not that you can live like a working family that puts in 80+ hours.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Service isn't, but the actual phone should be.

I don't even think this is true. The lower end cell phones can be purchased for $10-$15 from China. And those can run Android (and theoretically iOS if someone were really inclined).

How much to land line phones cost? About $10-$15, right?

[fredsanford]

I'm not sure of your point. The fact is we have more and more folks living a middle class style life off of the government tit. Sucking the government tit shouldn't be something good, it should be terrible. You should get enough so that you don't die. Not that you can live like a working family that puts in 80+ hours.

And if you want those people to get jobs, they need a way to be reached by an employer.

[gatorman_07732]

And if you want those people to get jobs, they need a way to be reached by an employer.

Plans have never been cheaper with all the pre-paid services out there now

[fredsanford]

Plans have never been cheaper with all the pre-paid services out there now

I'm not necessarily against killing this program or limiting it to the elderly indigent for landlines.

However, all of this discussion of how it should be limited to landlines in its current state is ludicrous and out-of-touch at worst.

[phatGator]

Government waste and corruption buying votes with OPM is = Pissing in the Wind by Jerry Jeff Walker...

Another Jerry Jeff Walker fan. Excellent!

[Matthanuf06]

And if you want those people to get jobs, they need a way to be reached by an employer.

You do realize landlines are phones right? They ring, you pick it up, and a prospective employer may be on the other end.

[Matthanuf06]

I don't even think this is true. The lower end cell phones can be purchased for $10-$15 from China. And those can run Android (and theoretically iOS if someone were really inclined).

How much to land line phones cost? About $10-$15, right?

I'd imagine landlines can be reused though.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

I'd imagine landlines can be reused though.

Huh?

[fredsanford]

You do realize landlines are phones right? They ring, you pick it up, and a prospective employer may be on the other end.

You have to:

1. Have a home
2. Be home when they call or potentially miss out.

Not an issue with a cell.

[Gatorrick22]

Well I'm just shocked. How can this be??

I wonder if the same exact thing will happen with Obamacare???

The ardent Leftists would say no it can't happen to Obama-care, even tough 46+ million people can't even pay for their own food!

The Leftists are long on breath but short on proof.

[RealGatorFan]

If anyone is really interested in the facts
lifeline.gov (http://www.fcc.gov/lifeline)

Interesting how a program that predates the Obama administration by over 20 years is referred to as "Obamaphone". Yes, the program is supported by a tax on phone service. Personally, I have no problem paying a miniscule tax so that an 80-year old widow living entirely on social security can call 911 in the event of a medical emergency or providing a phone to a low-income unemployed individual so that he or she can be contacted by a prospective employer.

I agree but 80yr old widows rarely use this service. I have seen 2 black women use this to full effect in my cub scout den. Flaunting the fact they have free phones, in fact, better phones than I have, yet I pay $500/month for family coverage. One of these women has been on unemployment on purpose because it's easier to stay on unemployment than getting a job (and she has a friggin degree in BusAdmin). This is the point most of us are trying to put at your feet - most people don't deserve entitlements of any kind. Those that do are the ones that don't want them.