Obamaphone program cost 2.2 billion in 2012

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

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]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

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]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

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]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

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]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

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]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

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]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

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]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

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]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

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]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

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]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

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]

Originally Posted by VAg8r1

If anyone is really interested in the facts
lifeline.gov

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]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

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]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

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.