Free Phones Costing Taxpayers $2.1 Billion Per Year

[red states rule]

So the handouts continue while Obama and Dems (and some RINO's) call for higher taxes on those of us lucky enough to have a job in the Obama economy

Anyone see what is wrong with this picture?

One guy puts his phone to good use here and I wonder if we are paying for his moment of glee



http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2012/Economy/homeless-cell-phone.jpg






You're probably familiar with the food stamp program which grew from $35 billion in 2008 (http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/17/news/economy/obama_food_stamps/index.htm)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 (http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/phonebills/samplePhonebill.html#Carrier%20Universal%20Service %20Charge:). 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 (http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/312708.pdf):
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.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/13/Spending-Off-the-Hook-Free-Phones-Costing-Taxpayers-2-1-Billion-Per-Year

[Nell's Room]

A free phone is a good idea. The homeless don't have money to make a phone call from a pay phone, and the mobile allows them to call for help in an emergency.

[fj1200]

"Free" costs money? No way!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

A free phone is a good idea. The homeless don't have money to make a phone call from a pay phone, and the mobile allows them to call for help in an emergency.

Just imagine how much easier a free cell phone makes ordering takeout. A friend told me that homeless people are not the only ones getting free cell phones. As usual it's a freebie and corruption began almost from the start. Nothing new about that but wasting billions while millions are suffering nationwide sems a great folly. Somehow such folly Obama prefers to ignore while living the life of a King. However the King's subjects are restless and irritated going towards damn mad! The "let them eat cake" is not going to go over any better now than it did the first time it was cried. Yes, I know it was falsely attributed but the saying, the principle and the rejection still hold true today.

[Missileman]

A free phone is a good idea. The homeless don't have money to make a phone call from a pay phone, and the mobile allows them to call for help in an emergency.

A free phone for emergencies is a GREAT idea!

You can dial 911 from any payphone without any money. So, there are already "free" emergency phones all over the place if a homeless person needs to call for help.

BTW, where in hell would a homeless person recharge a cell phone?

[logroller]

Pay phone; what's that?

So this is income based right? I'm just curious if the number of people who experienced a loss of income is the reason for the increase in benefits paid. Unless, you think phone service is unnecessarily subsidized, period. I once had lifeline and it was NOT free; it was like 1/4-1/2 the cost. Say a guy is out of work and is filling out applications, what number does he put down for contact? A friend or a neighbor? Hard enough to get a call back.

Though I am curious what criteria is used to determine a landline vs cell phone. I read the press release from the FCC and apparently there was a lot of fraud going on, where multiple providers were billing for the same subscriber. I have noticed a lot fraud investigation since Obama has been in office. The IRS audited me in 2010 (cleared, btw) and every year since i was audited for FAFSA. I think the IRS red flagged me, but that's fine. I think they should verify.

[Thunderknuckles]

We covered this one before in a prior thread some time ago. Too lazy to look it up but my position hasn't changed. No cellphones!

[Abbey Marie]

We covered this one before in a prior thread some time ago. Too lazy to look it up but my position hasn't changed. No cellphones!

Yup, I remember- I posted the thread.

[jimnyc]

A cell phone is a luxury, not a necessity. We got along with emergencies for a LONG time prior to their existence. And like stated already, pay phones DO call 911 for free, as do home phones, and businesses.... There is NO "need" to give away free phones whatsoever.

[logroller]

A cell phone is a luxury, not a necessity. We got along with emergencies for a LONG time prior to their existence. And like stated already, pay phones DO call 911 for free, as do home phones, and businesses.... There is NO "need" to give away free phones whatsoever.

At one time, electricity was luxury-- times change, and often because of govt. subsidy. Theyre gonna subsidize broadband next.

[jimnyc]

At one time, electricity was luxury-- times change, and often because of govt. subsidy. Theyre gonna subsidize broadband next.

True, true - but are you advocating that we grant free electricity and internet access to the homeless as well? I think what they should do, is setup shelters and help them find jobs. Keep giving them free shit and why will they bother getting off of their asses?

[logroller]

True, true - but are you advocating that we grant free electricity and internet access to the homeless as well? I think what they should do, is setup shelters and help them find jobs. Keep giving them free shit and why will they bother getting off of their asses?

Free? No. I'm not sure it is zero cost FWIW. I believe it's reduced price; could be wrong, but I was on lifeline and it wasnt free. I'm not advocating anything but getting the facts straight before drawing conclusions. The fact people are out of work, and whether or not the jobless will take advantage of such programs for their own betterment is a legitimate critique. Indeed, defining what the expectations actually are would be a great debate. Focusing on the ill effects serves only to undermine the legislated purpose-- an interconnected society.

[jimnyc]

Free? No. I'm not sure it is zero cost FWIW. I believe it's reduced price; could be wrong, but I was on lifeline and it wasnt free. I'm not advocating anything but getting the facts straight before drawing conclusions. The fact people are out of work, and whether or not the jobless will take advantage of such programs for their own betterment is a legitimate critique. Indeed, defining what the expectations actually are would be a great debate. Focusing on the ill effects serves only to undermine the legislated purpose-- an interconnected society.

C'mon man, stop that shit. I can't debate you if you write shit I can't understand! Dumb it down when talking to me! LOL

But even at a reduced rate - why? I don't think the government should be dealing in free phones or reduced phones. Let people work for the luxuries. I'm tired of the continual and free hand outs. Shit, even the illegals get more shit handed to them than I do! I think assistance should for the most part go towards things that people pay into, like unemployment and such. Get rid of the welfare shit and make people WORK for what they are about to receive. We get a shitload of more work done that way, and indigent people get money. It's a win win. BUT, while I think some would take advantage of it, watch how quickly the numbers drop if one needs to work to get their "free ride". Same with other programs designed to play Robin Hood with. We have needs and they need money.

But sure as shit, whether homeless or indigent, no one NEEDS a cell phone. We have millions of people that don't have cell phones right now, and they work, or already have money - and guess what, they are surviving!

And I don't focus on ill effects to undermine, but without acknowledging these things, they'll never get fixed.

[red states rule]

I will never understand how anyone can think ANYTHING in life is FREE. Somewhere, someone is paying for these damn handouts and getting ripped off by the waste and fraud that can be found in EVERY government program

How the hell are cell phones now a needed item for homeless people? What is next a Select Comfort bed so they wake up refreshed when they go job hunting?

[logroller]

N
C'mon man, stop that shit. I can't debate you if you write shit I can't understand! Dumb it down when talking to me! LOL

But even at a reduced rate - why? I don't think the government should be dealing in free phones or reduced phones. Let people work for the luxuries. I'm tired of the continual and free hand outs. Shit, even the illegals get more shit handed to them than I do! I think assistance should for the most part go towards things that people pay into, like unemployment and such. Get rid of the welfare shit and make people WORK for what they are about to receive. We get a shitload of more work done that way, and indigent people get money. It's a win win. BUT, while I think some would take advantage of it, watch how quickly the numbers drop if one needs to work to get their "free ride". Same with other programs designed to play Robin Hood with. We have needs and they need money.

But sure as shit, whether homeless or indigent, no one NEEDS a cell phone. We have millions of people that don't have cell phones right now, and they work, or already have money - and guess what, they are surviving!

And I don't focus on ill effects to undermine, but without acknowledging these things, they'll never get fixed.
Is that you "dumbing" it down, or up? I get what you are saying, I really do. It certainly polls well. I just want you to consider all the things that government has had a hand in promoting for the betterment of society; that's it. Do you think the citizens of his country would be better off if things like electricity, radio, television, computers, the Internet and cellular phones were luxuries? I believe those things define modem society. America has been at the forefront of development for over a century because of government support for those things. Freedom alone doesnt make those things happen. we live in a society which actively promotes the spread of ideas. Modern communications is how that's done. Communication is good for society. Not all communication, mind you, but how can We censor only the bad. Look around here Jim, You take the good with the bad. All of those things i mentioned have made us a more connected and productive society. The use of these products need not be productive in every instance to make sense. It's the overall benefit the resource provides. don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

[logroller]

I will never understand how anyone can think ANYTHING in life is FREE. Somewhere, someone is paying for these damn handouts and getting ripped off by the waste and fraud that can be found in EVERY government program

How the hell are cell phones now a needed item for homeless people? What is next a Select Comfort bed so they wake up refreshed when they go job hunting?
I don't understand how people can think a hundred bucks for cell service and broadband come anywhere near the cost of developing the service. sure telecoms spends billions themselves; but that's nothing compared with what We spent. If you left it to the market alone we'd still be paying ma bell.

[red states rule]

I don't understand how people can think a hundred bucks for cell service and broadband come anywhere near the cost of developing the service. sure telecoms spends billions themselves; but that's nothing compared with what We spent. If you left it to the market alone we'd still be paying ma bell.

LR, it is not their money that is being spent - it is OUR money. You can spend yuor money anyway you want. But I am fed up with government pissing thru taxpayer money of crap like this and then turn aropund and demand more of our money for more crap programs ike this

We are quickly becoming a taker society with the takers about to outnumber the producers who are going broke paying the bills

[jimnyc]

N
Is that you "dumbing" it down, or up? I get what you are saying, I really do. It certainly polls well. I just want you to consider all the things that government has had a hand in promoting for the betterment of society; that's it. Do you think the citizens of his country would be better off if things like electricity, radio, television, computers, the Internet and cellular phones were luxuries? I believe those things define modem society. America has been at the forefront of development for over a century because of government support for those things. Freedom alone doesnt make those things happen. we live in a society which actively promotes the spread of ideas. Modern communications is how that's done. Communication is good for society. Not all communication, mind you, but how can We censor only the bad. Look around here Jim, You take the good with the bad. All of those things i mentioned have made us a more connected and productive society. The use of these products need not be productive in every instance to make sense. It's the overall benefit the resource provides. don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

I'm solely speaking of the cost issue and freebies like this shouldn't be just given away.

Look at all the similar things over the past 100 years that have come out, that may have went from luxury to an everyday commodity. Have we been giving this shit away all along? No we haven't. But today, we live in a land of entitlement where people EXPECT things for free, and more and more of it.

If you want government to help spread the word and help the people - let them hand out directions to all these people to where and go to work and make money. Give them directions to where they can go and buy these phones. The more free shit that's given out the more that is expected.

But like everyone says, nothing is truly free. If someone is paying for this, then so should the people benefiting. There is no reason why the people benefiting from freebies shouldn't have to do a little community service or similar to EARN what they get. Even food. Come to a shelter and want bedding and food? Fine, then sign on the dotted line and we have some work for you. I just really don't see a benefit in propping up those who don't want to do for themselves.

[logroller]

LR, it is not their money that is being spent - it is OUR money. You can spend yuor money anyway you want. But I am fed up with government pissing thru taxpayer money of crap like this and then turn aropund and demand more of our money for more crap programs ike this

We are quickly becoming a taker society with the takers about to outnumber the producers who are going broke paying the bills
Ok. Go spend your own money on developing a cell service. Because the one I use is here because of public monies.

[jimnyc]

I don't understand how people can think a hundred bucks for cell service and broadband come anywhere near the cost of developing the service. sure telecoms spends billions themselves; but that's nothing compared with what We spent. If you left it to the market alone we'd still be paying ma bell.

But even if it cost 60 trillion to develop the technology - why should others get freebies, well, for free? Whether the service is worth $100 or ten cents, those getting the service should either pay for it, or work it off.

[logroller]

But even if it cost 60 trillion to develop the technology - why should others get freebies, well, for free? Whether the service is worth $100 or ten cents, those getting the service should either pay for it, or work it off.

Like I said, I don't think they are free, they're subsidized. I do think some payment should be necessary. Quite frankly, the service you and I pay for is/has been heavily subsidized already.

[jimnyc]

Like I said, I don't think they are free, they're subsidized. I do think some payment should be necessary. Quite frankly, the service you and I pay for is/has been heavily subsidized already.

I dunno, I'm just tired of seeing so many people literally living off of government handouts. Now I might have to see the local homeless guy texting with his drinking buddies. I think anytime someone gets a "handout", they should return the hand in the form of money or some sort of labor. Imagine the work that could be done to our communities if those receiving handouts were simply asked to help clean up the neighborhoods. But some think even that is too much to ask. Or do drug testing for the welfare recipients, ensure they aren't buying crack and such with our money. I know I'm off on a tangent, but I've been pissed about this issue for years. People will never stop sitting around making money off of others unless we give them incentive AND take away some of their "addiction".

[Missileman]

I don't understand how people can think a hundred bucks for cell service and broadband come anywhere near the cost of developing the service. sure telecoms spends billions themselves; but that's nothing compared with what We spent. If you left it to the market alone we'd still be paying ma bell.

That doesn't mean Ma Bell wouldn't be offering cell service and broadband though.

[fj1200]

N
Is that you "dumbing" it down, or up? I get what you are saying, I really do. It certainly polls well. I just want you to consider all the things that government has had a hand in promoting for the betterment of society; that's it. Do you think the citizens of his country would be better off if things like electricity, radio, television, computers, the Internet and cellular phones were luxuries? I believe those things define modem society. America has been at the forefront of development for over a century because of government support for those things. Freedom alone doesnt make those things happen. we live in a society which actively promotes the spread of ideas. Modern communications is how that's done. Communication is good for society. Not all communication, mind you, but how can We censor only the bad. Look around here Jim, You take the good with the bad. All of those things i mentioned have made us a more connected and productive society. The use of these products need not be productive in every instance to make sense. It's the overall benefit the resource provides. don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

Freedom and the markets do. Almost all advancements start out as luxuries and they slowly make it to the mainstream. Thank God for early adopters, I'm not one, who buy the new stuff almost regardless of the cost but it is they that get the ball rolling for the new products to get better and cheaper so that they can become ubiquitous features of modern society.


I don't understand how people can think a hundred bucks for cell service and broadband come anywhere near the cost of developing the service. sure telecoms spends billions themselves; but that's nothing compared with what We spent. If you left it to the market alone we'd still be paying ma bell.

Ma Bell was a publicly granted monopoly. The market does not apply.


Like I said, I don't think they are free, they're subsidized. I do think some payment should be necessary. Quite frankly, the service you and I pay for is/has been heavily subsidized already.

Of what would you be speaking?

[logroller]

Freedom and the markets do. Almost all advancements start out as luxuries and they slowly make it to the mainstream. Thank God for early adopters, I'm not one, who buy the new stuff almost regardless of the cost but it is they that get the ball rolling for the new products to get better and cheaper so that they can become ubiquitous features of modern society.



Ma Bell was a publicly granted monopoly. The market does not apply.



Of what would you be speaking?
Those early adopters= government.
Youre right in ma bell. I regretted that example. Truth is, if left to the markets we wouldn't have telephone systems.
Why did government grant the public monopoly? Because it would be cost prohibitive to develop the infrastructure otherwise.

The reasoning for government subsidizing the development of such things is easily supportable. The question which remains is, when does the government need to stop doing so?
Taking the OP for example--Is the landline system still a necessary technology?

[red states rule]

Ok. Go spend your own money on developing a cell service. Because the one I use is here because of public monies.

So you support government picking winners and losers in the free market? I remember a member of Bush 41's cabinet being savaged by the liberal media for refusing to "invest" taxpayer moeny when HD TV was being developed

He said, and correctly so, it is not the governments business to get involved. Whenever the government gets involved in the private sector they screw it up

[Nell's Room]

"Free" costs money? No way!

How many 'free' things do you take advantage of without even knowing it? And I find it repulsing that Americans do not wish to assist their own people, just because they are too stingy to open their wallets.

[Nell's Room]

A free phone for emergencies is a GREAT idea!

You can dial 911 from any payphone without any money. So, there are already "free" emergency phones all over the place if a homeless person needs to call for help.

BTW, where in hell would a homeless person recharge a cell phone?

What happens if there IS no pay phone in sight? The person call use the phone to call from help, without moving around and potentially increasing the danger to themselves. But I wouldn't expect Americans to understand that. I get the sense that Americans care only for themselves, and do not wish to assist the less fortunate, especially if it means they have to pay for it.

[red states rule]

What happens if there IS no pay phone in sight? The person call use the phone to call from help, without moving around and potentially increasing the danger to themselves. But I wouldn't expect Americans to understand that. I get the sense that Americans care only for themselves, and do not wish to assist the less fortunate, especially if it means they have to pay for it.

It is amazing to see how generous with other people's money

What the hell did the homless do BEFORE cell phones were invented?

[red states rule]

How many 'free' things do you take advantage of without even knowing it? And I find it repulsing that Americans do not wish to assist their own people, just because they are too stingy to open their wallets.

Gee, whoi gives a shit about how YOU feel about America?

[Nell's Room]

It is amazing to see how generous with other people's money

What the hell did the homless do BEFORE cell phones were invented?

I am more generous than you, it would seem! :)


Gee, whoi gives a shit about how YOU feel about America?

You should. What foreigners think of the US should be very important to America. This is your image, if other countries dislike America, then that isn't a good thing.

[red states rule]

I am more generous than you, it would seem! :)



You should. What foreigners think of the US should be very important to America. This is your image, if other countries dislike America, then that isn't a good thing.


#1 you know nothing about me or how much I donate to charity so check your massive liberal ego at the door. It is common for libs to brag about how much they give but in most cases they give very little (i.e. Al Gore)

#2, if your pathetic island nation ever gets in trouble and needs help I assure you your leaders will pick up the phone and dial area code 202

America has liberated more poeple and nations then any other country in the history of the world. So save your lectures for someone who actually cares about what you have to say

[Nell's Room]

#1 you know nothing about me or how much I donate to charity so check your massive liberal ego at the door. It is common for libs to brag about how much they give but in most cases they give very little (i.e. Al Gore)

#2, if your pathetic island nation ever gets in trouble and needs help I assure you your leaders will pick up the phone and dial area code 202

America has liberated more poeple and nations then any other country in the history of the world. So save your lectures for someone who actually cares about what you have to say

1. I don't know how much you donate to charity and I do not really care. This is not the issue. We are talking about taxpayer funded cell phones here, which I believe are a good idea.

2. My government might well call on the US but that doesn't mean the majority of Australians would oppose this move. As for liberating countries, that is what you call it when you start a war, and justify it by insisting it was a 'liberation'. We know that is bullcrap.

[red states rule]

1. I don't know how much you donate to charity and I do not really care. This is not the issue. We are talking about taxpayer funded cell phones here, which I believe are a good idea.

2. My government might well call on the US but that doesn't mean the majority of Australians would oppose this move. As for liberating countries, that is what you call it when you start a war, and justify it by insisting it was a 'liberation'. We know that is bullcrap.

Hey hotshot you bellowed how much more generous you are then I am. Does that mean you do not think twice to spend your parents moeny on a "worthy" cause?

As far as your fellow Australians - fuck em if they do not want help if they are under attack or suffer say an earthquake. I could not care less about snobby pricks like you who think they are so much better then others. We saved the world in WWII and people like you forget that fact

[Nell's Room]

You 'saved' the world by murdering tens of thousands of innocent people. Don't give me that fucking shit about how you 'saved' us. The war was nearly over, you lot interfered, dropped a bomb and have then spent the last 70 years or so rubbing it in.

But that is a topic for another thread. We are seriously off topic here!

[red states rule]

You 'saved' the world by murdering tens of thousands of innocent people. Don't give me that fucking shit about how you 'saved' us. The war was nearly over, you lot interfered, dropped a bomb and have then spent the last 70 years or so rubbing it in.

But that is a topic for another thread. We are seriously off topic here!

Oh are you a Nazi and Jap lover? Last I checked the US was attacked by Japan first and Hitler declared war on the US afterwards

Also it was the Nazis that murdered 7 million Jews and millins of others in their camps

When the US dropped the bom it ENDED A WORLD WAR and saved about a milion lives since the US did not have to invade japan

If you are going to discuss a topic at least you should know the bare basics of the subject bfore humilating yourself

[Nell's Room]

I do have a response to that but will not further derail this thread. If you wish to discuss the issue of the bomb, then start a thread so we can continue our discussion. If not, it would be great to get back on topic. :)

[red states rule]

I do have a response to that but will not further derail this thread. If you wish to discuss the issue of the bomb, then start a thread so we can continue our discussion. If not, it would be great to get back on topic. :)

Go ahead and start the tread hotshot. I can chew your ass here or there

Your choice

[Nell's Room]

Go ahead and start the tread hotshot. I can chew your ass here or there

Your choice

You seem more interested in continuing the discussion than I do, so you do the honors. And please show me some respect, I may have some controversial views, but that doesn't mean we can't get along...even if you are a right winger. ;)

[red states rule]

You seem more interested in continuing the discussion than I do, so you do the honors. And please show me some respect, I may have some controversial views, but that doesn't mean we can't get along...even if you are a right winger. ;)


After your snide comments about my country you are lucky to be getting the little respect I am showing you

Again, start the thread and shut up with the "I am the victim" crap

[Nell's Room]

After your snide comments about my country you are lucky to be getting the little respect I am showing you

Again, start the thread and shut up with the "I am the victim" crap

It is one thing to attack a country (you are welcome to attack mine if you wish, as you are entitled to your opinions) but another to attack a person. I have not attacked you as a person, but you have attacked me as a person. We don't even know each other. Obviously we got off on the wrong foot.

[Missileman]

What happens if there IS no pay phone in sight? The person call use the phone to call from help, without moving around and potentially increasing the danger to themselves. But I wouldn't expect Americans to understand that. I get the sense that Americans care only for themselves, and do not wish to assist the less fortunate, especially if it means they have to pay for it.

I have no problem assisting the less fortunate, even paying for it. I don't think it's unreasonable to get VALUE for my money though. That's the difference between liberals and conservatives. A bed out of the weather, a hot meal, some decent clothing on their backs, and maybe some rudimentary healthcare are all that's NEEDED. How many people do you think you could FEED with the $2,100,000,000.00 they're spending on a luxury?

As for what happens if there's no pay phone in sight, just put a payphone at every place you WOULD have had to put a cell phone charging station.

[logroller]

So you support government picking winners and losers in the free market? I remember a member of Bush 41's cabinet being savaged by the liberal media for refusing to "invest" taxpayer moeny when HD TV was being developed

He said, and correctly so, it is not the governments business to get involved. Whenever the government gets involved in the private sector they screw it up

Hmm. And what was his position in the 2008 bailout. High definition television and cell phones aren't entirely comparable either--A few extra pixels doesn't give the spreading of information a wider birth, but Cell phones do. You ignore, repeatedly, the many great things you benefit from than are developed thanks to public monies. You lead me to believe that modern technology could have never happened and you'd fine with it.
To answer your first question, I support the government's promotion of information technology.

[jimnyc]

How many 'free' things do you take advantage of without even knowing it? And I find it repulsing that Americans do not wish to assist their own people, just because they are too stingy to open their wallets.

WTF? I open the next thread in line and here you are with the anti American crap again? LOL

Let's face it, your entire economy is what Obama spent in his first term as president. We probably pay more for welfare yearly than your entire economy, so stop with telling us how we don't help people. Hell, we probably spend that much deploying troops onto Australian land. What I find repulsive, is that when a country gets so much free stuff from another country, and then complains about the country giving it to them.

But WHY should we just give stuff away when the majority of these "helpless" people are capable of working for it? Maybe like the Aussies who take from us but then complain about wars?

[Gaffer]

I've known and talked with a lot of Aussies and never heard a one bad mouth the US. Nell is the first. The Aussies I knew would smack her upside the head and tell her to sit down until she can add something relevant to the conversation.

Met two Aussies at a PX in Vietnam. One was barely 5 foot tall with really broad shoulders, built like Gimli from Lord of the Rings. I looked over his head at a belt line even with my face. He used a pistol belt looped through his belt loops. I have never seen a man that big in my life. supplying uniforms for this guy must have cost half the Australian economy. They were with an engineer battalion.

Nell, stop embarrassing your countrymen.

[jimnyc]

I've known and talked with a lot of Aussies and never heard a one bad mouth the US. Nell is the first. The Aussies I knew would smack her upside the head and tell her to sit down until she can add something relevant to the conversation.

Met two Aussies at a PX in Vietnam. One was barely 5 foot tall with really broad shoulders, built like Gimli from Lord of the Rings. I looked over his head at a belt line even with my face. He used a pistol belt looped through his belt loops. I have never seen a man that big in my life. supplying uniforms for this guy must have cost half the Australian economy. They were with an engineer battalion.

Nell, stop embarrassing your countrymen.

Agreed, but I suppose she is entitled to her uninformed and uneducated opinion.

Australia is one of our oldest allies and we've always had a great relationship with them. When we went into Afghanistan, Australia was one of the first to sign on to "Operation Enduring Freedom". They only sent a handful of troops, less than we'll send to Australia via peacetime over the next 5 years, but they still sent them to assist. We also supply their military as well. And we are a HUGE part of their economy. Like I said earlier, their entire economy is like $1.5 trillion (GDP). About 10-15% of their budget is spent on US based military products.

Oh, and she'll belly ache about Bush, but their economy has been MUCH better since BUSH signed the Australia - US free trade agreement in 2004-5.

[red states rule]

Agreed, but I suppose she is entitled to her uninformed and uneducated opinion.

Australia is one of our oldest allies and we've always had a great relationship with them. When we went into Afghanistan, Australia was one of the first to sign on to "Operation Enduring Freedom". They only sent a handful of troops, less than we'll send to Australia via peacetime over the next 5 years, but they still sent them to assist. We also supply their military as well. And we are a HUGE part of their economy. Like I said earlier, their entire economy is like $1.5 trillion (GDP). About 10-15% of their budget is spent on US based military products.

Oh, and she'll belly ache about Bush, but their economy has been MUCH better since BUSH signed the Australia - US free trade agreement in 2004-5.


jim I suspect that popping sound I just heard was Nell's head exploding :laugh2:

[Gaffer]

Agreed, but I suppose she is entitled to her uninformed and uneducated opinion.

Australia is one of our oldest allies and we've always had a great relationship with them. When we went into Afghanistan, Australia was one of the first to sign on to "Operation Enduring Freedom". They only sent a handful of troops, less than we'll send to Australia via peacetime over the next 5 years, but they still sent them to assist. We also supply their military as well. And we are a HUGE part of their economy. Like I said earlier, their entire economy is like $1.5 trillion (GDP). About 10-15% of their budget is spent on US based military products.

Oh, and she'll belly ache about Bush, but their economy has been MUCH better since BUSH signed the Australia - US free trade agreement in 2004-5.

And in return they gave us Olivia Newton-John, the Beegees, the Seekers, and Mel Gibson. And Rawl Harris. Tie Me Kangaroo Down.

I'll gladly give her a history lesson on WW2 and the atom bomb if she wants.

[red states rule]

And in return they gave us Olivia Newton-John, the Beegees, the Seekers, and Mel Gibson. And Rawl Harris. Tie Me Kangaroo Down.

I'll gladly give her a history lesson on WW2 and the atom bomb if she wants.

Harry Truman sumed it up on why he dropped the Atomic bomb on Japan

We said he could not think of looking a prent in the eye of a soldier who died taking Japan when he could of prevented the invasion by using the bomb

Using the bomb saved an estimated ONE MILLION lives on BOTH sides (both miltary and civilian lives)

Truman had the guts that is lacking in today modern day Dems to do what has to be done to protect America and win wars

[jimnyc]

And in return they gave us Olivia Newton-John, the Beegees, the Seekers, and Mel Gibson. And Rawl Harris. Tie Me Kangaroo Down.

I'll gladly give her a history lesson on WW2 and the atom bomb if she wants.

She doesn't want a history. Anything that shows the US in a positive light she seems to want to distance herself from. But the country she despises is still better than her country in just about every category. And while the foreigners are quick to condemn, how many still lie, cheat and steal to get here, year after year? But I'm afraid a history lesson would be a waste of time. I believe she's a 60's liberal hippie who took too much LSD and found herself washed up on a small beach in Australia.

I'd love to visit Australia, solely for the beaches and a bit of the outback (and maybe a few beers), there is really no other good reason to go there, or stay there. Anything outside of that, the US offers the same, and MUCH better. Unless of course you'd like to give up pride in our great nation and sing to the ridiculous queen instead! :lol:

[Gaffer]

Harry Truman sumed it up on why he dropped the Atomic bomb on Japan

We said he could not think of looking a prent in the eye of a soldier who died taking Japan when he could of prevented the invasion by using the bomb

Using the bomb saved an estimated ONE MILLION lives on BOTH sides (both miltary and civilian lives)

Truman had the guts that is lacking in today modern day Dems to do what has to be done to protect America and win wars

It goes well beyond even that. Fanatical worship of the emperor would have brought about millions of Japanese deaths as well. They were already arming and training millions of women and school children to fight. They intended to execute every prisoner being held throughout the empire. The death toll would have been astronomical.

Not to mention our willingness to use the bombs kept the Russians in check for a few years.

[red states rule]

It goes well beyond even that. Fanatical worship of the emperor would have brought about millions of Japanese deaths as well. They were already arming and training millions of women and school children to fight. They intended to execute every prisoner being held throughout the empire. The death toll would have been astronomical.

Not to mention our willingness to use the bombs kept the Russians in check for a few years.

and I read where Admiral Yamamoto spoke on the dangers of invading the US

He said the troops would find a gun behind every bush and tree. He lived in the US and attended school and knew America very well

[Gaffer]

and I read where Admiral Yamamoto spoke on the dangers of invading the US

He said the troops would find a gun behind every bush and tree. He lived in the US and attended school and knew America very well

Yep, he knew better than to try an invasion here. He did have plans to invade Australia though. That got postponed due to a little action called the Battle of the Coral Sea. Midway cause the Japanese to go on the defensive for the rest of the war. Australia was saved.

[red states rule]

Yep, he knew better than to try an invasion here. He did have plans to invade Australia though. That got postponed due to a little action called the Battle of the Coral Sea. Midway cause the Japanese to go on the defensive for the rest of the war. Australia was saved.

He knew teh US would win a long war Gaffer. Our code breakers provided the info that provided the victory at Midway where the US sank 4 Jap carriers and pushed the Japs back over 1000 miles

At that point the war was over but it went on and on because the Japs would not give up

Whcih is why the Atomic bomb had to be and was used to end the war once and for all

[Gaffer]

Maybe Nell will read some of this and learn something.

[red states rule]

Maybe Nell will read some of this and learn something.


She will read it but I doubt if she will learn

If that were the case Gaffer nobody would ever be a liberal

[fj1200]

Those early adopters= government.
Youre right in ma bell. I regretted that example. Truth is, if left to the markets we wouldn't have telephone systems.
Why did government grant the public monopoly? Because it would be cost prohibitive to develop the infrastructure otherwise.

The reasoning for government subsidizing the development of such things is easily supportable. The question which remains is, when does the government need to stop doing so?
Taking the OP for example--Is the landline system still a necessary technology?

Come on man, where do you get such info from? Bell was granted a monopoly via patent and when that expired their business went south.

When Bell's original patent expired 15 years later in 1894, the telephone market opened to competition and 6,000 new telephone carriers started while the Bell Telephone company took a significant financial downturn.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System#cite_note-cato-1)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System#cite_note-att_milestones-3)
We eventually got the Kingsbury Commmittment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsbury_Commitment) which cemented the monopoly for the next 70 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System

I'm still not sure how your justifying your "government subsidy" argument yet.


How many 'free' things do you take advantage of without even knowing it? And I find it repulsing that Americans do not wish to assist their own people, just because they are too stingy to open their wallets.

Provide me a listing of what you think I get "free" and I'll let you know. It's certainly not "free" health care like you get. Your BS that we don't wish to assist our own people is just that.

[fj1200]

Maybe Nell will read some of this and learn something.

We already had an a-bomb discussion in another thread. It went pretty much how you think it would go. :laugh:

[red states rule]

It is amazing how anyone with an IQ above that of a house plant actually thinks anything in life is free.

I see these idiots on TVF demanding "free" healthcare, "free" college education, and free housing

Everytime I see one of these lame ass libs I think of this typical Obama voter


http://youtu.be/P36x8rTb3jI


I wonder if the bank has foreclosed on her home and if so is she blaming Bush for it?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

1. I don't know how much you donate to charity and I do not really care. This is not the issue. We are talking about taxpayer funded cell phones here, which I believe are a good idea.

2. My government might well call on the US but that doesn't mean the majority of Australians would oppose this move. As for liberating countries, that is what you call it when you start a war, and justify it by insisting it was a 'liberation'. We know that is bullcrap.

World War Two was not bullcrap genius. We saved Australia along with the rest of the world! If you think it was bullcrap I'd like to say ever so politely that you have a screw loose.
America has been the most generous nation to have ever existed on this little blue spinning marble.
For we have given blood,sweat and tears along with massive treasure so that others may live free!
No nation could ever give more than that!-Tyr

p.s. I give the Aussies there due . They all fought like very brave men and suffered the highest casualty rate in ratio to the number of thier men actually engaging the enemy! I believe that I read decades ago that their casualty rate for those that went away to war was around 90%!!

[red states rule]

World War Two was not bullcrap genius. We saved Australia along with the rest of the world! If you think it was bullcrap I'd like to say ever so politely that you have a screw loose.
America has been the most generous nation to have ever existed on this little blue spinning marble.
For we have given blood,sweat and tears along with massive treasure so that others may live free!
No nation could ever give more than that!-Tyr

p.s. I give the Aussies there due . They all fought like very brave men and suffered the highest casualty rate in ratio to the number of thier men actually engaging the enemy! I believe that I read decades ago that their casualty rate for those that went away to war was around 90%!!


I will give the Aussies their credit as well. When I want a good steak I go to Outback

The Blooming Onion is great

The gals in the tight pants are pretty good as well

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

and I read where Admiral Yamamoto spoke on the dangers of invading the US

He said the troops would find a gun behind every bush and tree. He lived in the US and attended school and knew America very well

Gun rights , a strong deterrent even to foreign would be criminals seeking plunder!-:beer:-Tyr

[red states rule]

Gun rights , a strong deterrent even to foreign would be criminals seeking plunder!-:beer:-Tyr


It does make the gun hating left hang their head in shame

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

And in return they gave us Olivia Newton-John, the Beegees, the Seekers, and Mel Gibson. And Rawl Harris. Tie Me Kangaroo Down.

I'll gladly give her a history lesson on WW2 and the atom bomb if she wants.

My friend you forgot the best one!
AC/DC, now that's a damn fine Rock and Roll band!--:beer:
ARE YOU DRINKING SOME COLD BREW OR WHAT?--:beer:
If not, I'll have another one in your honor.-Tyr

[red states rule]

My friend you forgot the best one!
AC/DC, now that's a damn fine Rock and Roll band!--:beer:
ARE YOU DRINKING SOME COLD BREW OR WHAT?--:beer:
If not, I'll have another one in your honor.-Tyr

and on great fact about the Atomic bomb that Nell must never forget

The Atomic Bomb

Built in the USA

Tested in Japan

War Over

[logroller]

Come on man, where do you get such info from? Bell was granted a monopoly via patent and when that expired their business went south.

We eventually got the Kingsbury Commmittment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsbury_Commitment) which cemented the monopoly for the next 70 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System

I'm still not sure how your justifying your "government subsidy" argument yet.


I'm not talking about direct subsidies; though define what "special projects for the National government" means to you; other than government paying AT&T for massive infrastructure projects of national interest, that no other company had the capability of providing. But this from the Comm Act of '96-

Universal service support made explicit. Prior to enactment of the Act, universal service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_service) had been funded through implicit subsidies (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Implicit_subsidies&action=edit&redlink=1), levied as above-cost business rates, urban rates, and above-cost rates for the “access charges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access_charge)” that long distance carriers paid as intercarrier compensation to local telephone companies for originating and terminating their subscribers’ long distance calls. Recognizing that new entrants would target those services that had above-cost rates, and thus erode universal service support, Congress included in the 1996 Act a provision requiring universal service support to be explicit, rather than hidden in above-cost rates.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996#cite_note-13) This requirement has only been partially implemented, however, and therefore significant implicit universal services subsidies still remain in above-cost rates for certain services.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996#cite_note-14)

[logroller]

^oops, link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996

[logroller]

Taxpayers don't pay for the "free phones", rate payers do. Its a fee charged, voluntarily, by the telecom providers. The Universal Service Fund is funded by the Telecom companies; they just pass it on to ratepayers (the fee is limited by FCC regs, though). So if you don't have a phone, you don't pay for it. Just so you know, its not your taxes; the US Treasury has nothing to do with lifeline.

[red states rule]

Taxpayers don't pay for the "free phones", rate payers do. Its a fee charged, voluntarily, by the telecom providers. The Universal Service Fund is funded by the Telecom companies; they just pass it on to ratepayers (the fee is limited by FCC regs, though). So if you don't have a phone, you don't pay for it. Just so you know, its not your taxes; the US Treasury has nothing to do with lifeline.

From the OP link LR




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 (http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8697996)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 (http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-911-services) 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.

[logroller]

From the OP link LR

"Could be" doesn't mean they are...or ever will. If lifeline is funded by VoiP ratepayers now, it would stand to reason that an expansion into broadband would be funded much the same way. Saying it could be, or worse yet stating, as you did in the thread title, that it already has been is on par with the Obama's BS. Easily debunked RSR. Like I said, misrepresentation. Though, I've proven it's blatantly false; out of clemency I don't call it an outright lie.

[logroller]

Or wait, RSR, are you saying that spending money to cut down blatant abuse of the service is a bad thing? That the 10 million is a waste if it cuts down on the rampant abuse of the service by multiple line for the same person? Thats crazy.

[red states rule]

"Could be" doesn't mean they are...or ever will. If lifeline is funded by VoiP ratepayers now, it would stand to reason that an expansion into broadband would be funded much the same way. Saying it could be, or worse yet stating, as you did in the thread title, that it already has been is on par with the Obama's BS. Easily debunked RSR. Like I said, misrepresentation. Though, I've proven it's blatantly false; out of clemency I don't call it an outright lie.

So where the hell else does the government get money to spend besides the taxpayers LR?

[red states rule]

Or wait, RSR, are you saying that spending money to cut down blatant abuse of the service is a bad thing? That the 10 million is a waste if it cuts down on the rampant abuse of the service by multiple line for the same person? Thats crazy.


LR I am saying why the hell are taxpayers providing cell phones to anyone? And at the same time we are told taxes need to go up

[logroller]

LR I am saying why the hell are taxpayers providing cell phones to anyone? And at the same time we are told taxes need to go up
They're not; rate payers are! Thats what I'm telling you. The "free" cell phones are paid for by current phone customers, not taxpayers.
land furthermore; it's just a discount as I understand it. I've yet to see any proof of 100% coverage.

[red states rule]

They're not; rate payers are! Thats what I'm telling you. The few cell phones are paid for by current phone customers, not taxpayers.

Anytime there is a fee, tax, and tarriff imposed on business they pass that along to the consumer

When taxes go up on a business WE end up paying it

Corporations do NOT pay taxes LR. You can try to spin this anyway you want. The taxpayers are footing the bill on another damn worthless handout to the freeloaders that continue demand more from the producers

One way or anther the US taxpayer is being soaked

[logroller]

Anytime there is a fee, tax, and tarriff imposed on business they pass that along to the consumer

When taxes go up on a business WE end up paying it

Corporations do NOT pay taxes LR. You can try to spin this anyway you want. The taxpayers are footing the bill on another damn worthless handout to the freeloaders that continue demand more from the producers

One way or anther the US taxpayer is being soaked
If you don't have a phone, you don't pay this fee. But. I matter what you do, you pay taxes. Taxes aren't avoidable; few are. You pay the fee voluntarily by using the service. Your choice.

[Missileman]

"Could be" doesn't mean they are...or ever will. If lifeline is funded by VoiP ratepayers now, it would stand to reason that an expansion into broadband would be funded much the same way. Saying it could be, or worse yet stating, as you did in the thread title, that it already has been is on par with the Obama's BS. Easily debunked RSR. Like I said, misrepresentation. Though, I've proven it's blatantly false; out of clemency I don't call it an outright lie.

The fee, AKA tax, is mandated by the government. Letting the phone companies collect it from us and then give it to the government doesn't alter the fact it's a tax.

[red states rule]

If you don't have a phone, you don't pay this fee. But. I matter what you do, you pay taxes. Taxes aren't avoidable; few are. You pay the tax voluntarily by using the service. Your choice.

LR please sign up for Economics 101 at your local college. You need it

[Gaffer]

Free phones are needed to coordinate the riots. They are also very useful in detonating bombs. You don't expect the lefties to pay for all that themselves do you? :laugh:

[red states rule]

Free phones are needed to coordinate the riots. They are also very useful in detonating bombs. You don't expect the lefties to pay for all that themselves do you? :laugh:

and don't forget to call in the reserves for all those OWS protests. If enough people do not show up they need to send in the paid protestors

[Gaffer]

and don't forget to call in the reserves for all those OWS protests. If enough people do not show up they need to send in the paid protestors

Yep they need to be able to call the union thugs when they are short of protesters. Not to mention coordinating flash mobs.

[red states rule]

Yep they need to be able to call the union thugs when they are short of protesters. Not to mention coordinating flash mobs.

Or send out SOS messages for more ballots if they are losing. It is amazing how fast they can locate boxes of filled out ballots when they need to

[Gaffer]

Or send out SOS messages for more ballots if they are losing. It is amazing how fast they can locate boxes of filled out ballots when they need to

And if they are still behind they start throwing out republican ballots.

[red states rule]

And if they are still behind they start throwing out republican ballots.

and toss out military ballots

[logroller]

The fee, AKA tax, is mandated by the government. Letting the phone companies collect it from us and then give it to the government doesn't alter the fact it's a tax.

Fees are not taxes; there's a difference.


Any assessment that raises money in excess of what is needed to defray costs is a tax.
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/taxes-vs-fees-whats-difference-between-bananas-and-drivers-licenses

The fees assessed by the telecom companies are less than what the costs they incur. Thus, it's a fee, not a tax.

[Nell's Room]

And in return they gave us Olivia Newton-John, the Beegees, the Seekers, and Mel Gibson. And Rawl Harris. Tie Me Kangaroo Down.

I'll gladly give her a history lesson on WW2 and the atom bomb if she wants.

Mel Gibson is American. Please do not associate that pathetic slimeball with us, you can keep him! Along with Nicole Kidman.

[logroller]

Mel Gibson is American. Please do not associate that pathetic slimeball with us, you can keep him! Along with Nicole Kidman.
He got hooked on jew-hate-heroin. It's a disease. ;)
Paul hogan is my favorite Aussie; he ever clear up his tax problems down there?
I would say Russell Crowe, but he's a kiwi.

[red states rule]

Fees are not taxes; there's a difference.


http://taxfoundation.org/blog/taxes-vs-fees-whats-difference-between-bananas-and-drivers-licenses

The fees assessed by the telecom companies are less than what the costs they incur. Thus, it's a fee, not a tax.


Fees are not taxes?


http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/8/82170/1549246-129092786498235257_super.jpg

[fj1200]

I'm not talking about direct subsidies; though define what "special projects for the National government" means to you; other than government paying AT&T for massive infrastructure projects of national interest, that no other company had the capability of providing. But this from the Comm Act of '96-

Thank you, that was a bit more specific. I'm now not sure what capability you're referring to here; Are you talking about pre or post breakup because there was/is? all sorts of government intervention in the TC market to void any free-market failure claim. Now I can agree with you that we live in an interconnected world where people need to have access but the issue is where does the responsibility lie and do we think providing a "free" cell phone is going to solve all the other issues that the poor have.


They're not; rate payers are! Thats what I'm telling you. The "free" cell phones are paid for by current phone customers, not taxpayers.
land furthermore; it's just a discount as I understand it. I've yet to see any proof of 100% coverage.

That would be an unfunded mandate. Kind of like telling insurance companies that they need to cover pre-existing conditions.

[ConHog]

Thank you, that was a bit more specific. I'm now not sure what capability you're referring to here; Are you talking about pre or post breakup because there was/is? all sorts of government intervention in the TC market to void any free-market failure claim. Now I can agree with you that we live in an interconnected world where people need to have access but the issue is where does the responsibility lie and do we think providing a "free" cell phone is going to solve all the other issues that the poor have.



That would be an unfunded mandate. Kind of like telling insurance companies that they need to cover pre-existing conditions.

How is it unfunded if the tc companies are collecting the funds to fund it? Or did you simply mean unfunded by the government? In which case, isnt that a good thing?

[Missileman]

Fees are not taxes; there's a difference.


http://taxfoundation.org/blog/taxes-vs-fees-whats-difference-between-bananas-and-drivers-licenses

The fees assessed by the telecom companies are less than what the costs they incur. Thus, it's a fee, not a tax.

I feel so much better now. As long as the government is spending MORE than what they're taking in, I'm not really being taxed at all.

The "tax" was mandated by the government and winds up in the hands of the government. They levied the "tax" against the phone companies but were nice enough to allow them to make us pay for it each month. Of course, with or without congressional permission, that's exactly how all taxes levied on business get paid anyways.

[MtnBiker]

And I find it repulsing that Americans do not wish to assist their own people, just because they are too stingy to open their wallets.

Perhaps your perception needs some education;


CHICAGO, Ill. (June 20, 2011) – Giving USA Foundation™ and its research partner, the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, today announced that total charitable contributions from American individuals, corporations and foundations were an estimated $290.89 billion in 2010, up from a revised estimate of $280.30 billion for 2009. The 2010 estimate represents growth of 3.8 percent in current dollars and 2.1 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars.


http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/news/2011/06/pr-GUSA.aspx


280 billion in chariatable contributions is hardly stingy or Americans having closed wallets.

[ConHog]

Perhaps your perception needs some education;



http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/news/2011/06/pr-GUSA.aspx


280 billion in chariatable contributions is hardly stingy or Americans having closed wallets.

And thats a fact jack.

Dont know why so many refuse to admit basic facts just because it disagrees with their opinion.

We are not a selfish people. We ARE an inefficient people, especially if the government is involved, but we arent selfish

[red states rule]

I feel so much better now. As long as the government is spending MORE than what they're taking in, I'm not really being taxed at all.

The "tax" was mandated by the government and winds up in the hands of the government. They levied the "tax" against the phone companies but were nice enough to allow them to make us pay for it each month. Of course, with or without congressional permission, that's exactly how all taxes levied on business get paid anyways.

Hey, don't worry

It is not a tax. It is a fee, or a service charge, or a alternate source of revenue

But it is ot a tax

(Sarcasm off)

[fj1200]

How is it unfunded if the tc companies are collecting the funds to fund it? Or did you simply mean unfunded by the government? In which case, isnt that a good thing?

Unfunded by government. Congress mandates the public policy they want to achieve but doesn't have the guts to actually appropriate the funds in the first place. But you're right, it is different than Congress mandating the states do X to achieve some objective without providing the funding to do it. I'd argue not a good thing because it's still a requirement above the firms function of serving customers.

[jimnyc]

Perhaps your perception needs some education;



http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/news/2011/06/pr-GUSA.aspx


280 billion in chariatable contributions is hardly stingy or Americans having closed wallets.

So in other words, our charity to the less fortunate is equivalent to about 15% of all of Australia's GDP? LOL And that doesn't even count the billions and billions that are continually given to the less fortunate around the world.

[ConHog]

Once again, ConHog is going to bring some facts to the Bash Obama party.

Turns out NO ONE is getting a free phone.


What Benefits are Available Under the Lifeline Program?

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 at the same time. 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. Additionally, only ONE Lifeline service may be obtained per household. ‘‘Household’’ is defined as any individual or group of individuals who live together at the same address as one economic unit. An ‘‘economic unit’’ is defined as ‘‘all adult individuals contributing to and sharing in the income and expenses of a household.’’ Lifeline support is available to eligible low-income consumers living in group living facilities. Lifeline applicants may demonstrate when initially enrolling in the program that any other Lifeline recipients residing at their residential address are part of a separate household.

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/lifeline-and-link-affordable-telephone-service-income-eligible-consumers

So, the average person is getting $9.25 a month off their bill.

As to how it is funded.........

It's called the Universal Service Fund and has been around since 1934 , so once again blaming Obama is ridiculous.

http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/universal-service-fund


I just looked at my cell phone bill. I have 4 lines on this bill.

here is the entry I found

7. Federal Universal Service Charge 0.53

So it cost me $6.00 a year for my share of the USF. LOL @ you guys complaining about this.

.




It's called teh

[Missileman]

Once again, ConHog is going to bring some facts to the Bash Obama party.

Turns out NO ONE is getting a free phone.


What Benefits are Available Under the Lifeline Program?

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 at the same time. 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. Additionally, only ONE Lifeline service may be obtained per household. ‘‘Household’’ is defined as any individual or group of individuals who live together at the same address as one economic unit. An ‘‘economic unit’’ is defined as ‘‘all adult individuals contributing to and sharing in the income and expenses of a household.’’ Lifeline support is available to eligible low-income consumers living in group living facilities. Lifeline applicants may demonstrate when initially enrolling in the program that any other Lifeline recipients residing at their residential address are part of a separate household.

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/lifeline-and-link-affordable-telephone-service-income-eligible-consumers

So, the average person is getting $9.25 a month off their bill.

As to how it is funded.........

It's called the Universal Service Fund and has been around since 1934 , so once again blaming Obama is ridiculous.

http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/universal-service-fund


I just looked at my cell phone bill. I have 4 lines on this bill.

here is the entry I found

7. Federal Universal Service Charge 0.53

So it cost me $6.00 a year for my share of the USF. LOL @ you guys complaining about this.

.




It's called teh

I don't find the other $2,099,999,994.00 amusing in the least.

[ConHog]

I don't find the other $2,099,999,994.00 amusing in the least.

that's relevant to THIS thread how?

[Missileman]

that's relevant to THIS thread how?

Read the thread title!

[ConHog]

Read the thread title!

I read your OP, now PROVE it.

[Missileman]

I read your OP, now PROVE it.

Prove what?

[ConHog]

Prove what?

That the government is spending $2,099,999,994.00 annually to give people free cell phones.

[Missileman]

That the government is spending $2,099,999,994.00 annually to give people free cell phones.

From the article linked in the OP, which wasn't mine btw:


In 2011, the FCC estimated the cost (http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0601/FCC-12-11A1.pdf)(page 153) of the program would be $2.1 billion


That's the FCC's estimate for 2011. It further estimated that it could rise to $3.3 billion by 2014 without reforms. Do you have any proof that the FCC's estimate is faulty?

[ConHog]

From the article linked in the OP, which wasn't mine btw:



That's the FCC's estimate for 2011. It further estimated that it could rise to $3.3 billion by 2014 without reforms. Do you have any proof that the FCC's estimate is faulty?

That proves that the FCC estimates cellular customers paid that much. Has NOTHING to do with taxes. It's a surcharge applied DIRECTLY to phone bills, and if you don't have a phone you pay NOTHING.


BUt, from the document.

72 See Universal Service Administrative Company, 1Q Filing, Fund Size Projections for First Quarter 2012, at 19
(Nov. 2, 2011), ,available at http://www.usac.org/about/governance/fccfilings/
2012/Q1/1Q2012%20Quarterly%20Demand%20Filing.pdf (detailing that USAC projects total annual 2012
Link Up support to be approximately $183.48 million); USAC 2011 Support Amounts Letter at 3; 2011 Monitoring
Report at Table 2-2.


It appears that the total annual support was $183.5M not $2B +

that's quite a significant difference.

Where did you see the $3.4B estimate. I don't see that anywhere.

[Mr. P]

Once again, ConHog is going to bring some facts to the Bash Obama party.

Turns out NO ONE is getting a free phone.


What Benefits are Available Under the Lifeline Program?

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 at the same time. 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. Additionally, only ONE Lifeline service may be obtained per household. ‘‘Household’’ is defined as any individual or group of individuals who live together at the same address as one economic unit. An ‘‘economic unit’’ is defined as ‘‘all adult individuals contributing to and sharing in the income and expenses of a household.’’ Lifeline support is available to eligible low-income consumers living in group living facilities. Lifeline applicants may demonstrate when initially enrolling in the program that any other Lifeline recipients residing at their residential address are part of a separate household.

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/lifeline-and-link-affordable-telephone-service-income-eligible-consumers

So, the average person is getting $9.25 a month off their bill.

As to how it is funded.........

It's called the Universal Service Fund and has been around since 1934 , so once again blaming Obama is ridiculous.

http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/universal-service-fund


I just looked at my cell phone bill. I have 4 lines on this bill.

here is the entry I found

7. Federal Universal Service Charge 0.53

So it cost me $6.00 a year for my share of the USF. LOL @ you guys complaining about this.

.




It's called teh

No one free? Really?



Am I eligible?

Lifeline and Link-up Assistance are government programs designed to provide discounted or free telephone service to income-eligible consumers.

...This package includes a FREE cellular phone, as well as FREE minutes every month

Humm.. it looks free for many to me, CH.

https://www.reachoutmobile.com/about-lifeline.php

[ConHog]

No one free? Really?



Humm.. it looks free for many to me, CH.

https://www.reachoutmobile.com/about-lifeline.php

Hmmmm

The Lifeline program was established by your local government to help people obtain wireless services by offering a discounted package. This package includes a FREE cellular phone, as well as FREE minutes every month

Reads to me the package is discounted, but includes a free phone and some free minutes , but you still have to pay SOMETHING every month. The government site says nothing about free.

I assume you get a cheapie little flip phone for free and X number of minutes free, but you still have to pay something.

I got a new a few months back, AT&T gave it to me for free to. So, that's not a big deal there.


Actually I just followed the link and if you choose the free phone you get no bonus minutes. If you buy the $19.99 phone which is the cheapest phone they have, you get 30 bonus minutes. Minutes cost $7.95 an hour and for each hour purchased you get 10 free minutes.

Now, I have unlimited everything at like $400 a month for 4 phones, so I don't know how much minutes go for , is $7.95 an hour a reasonable discount?

Personally, I don't know why if they are going to do this, they don't just go with smart talk, it's $45 a month for unlimited everything, mark it down to $30 for the poor and go on, but whatever..............

[jimnyc]

Hmmmm

The Lifeline program was established by your local government to help people obtain wireless services by offering a discounted package. This package includes a FREE cellular phone, as well as FREE minutes every month

Reads to me the package is discounted, but includes a free phone and some free minutes , but you still have to pay SOMETHING every month. The government site says nothing about free.

I assume you get a cheapie little flip phone for free and X number of minutes free, but you still have to pay something.

I got a new a few months back, AT&T gave it to me for free to. So, that's not a big deal there.

If you pull a coupon out of a magazine, and get a discounted monthly price - but get a free phone and free minutes. Call the entire package "discounted" all you like, but they are still getting stuff FREE, stuff that others are paying for in some manner. The bottom line is that people are once again getting something free, that someone else is paying for, and I'll guarantee you that somewhere in the midst of it all, the costs are passed along to the consumer.

Like I said a couple of days ago, I think the majority of benefits people are offered for FREE in this nation, they should be offered these things if they perform community service or something else to work off what they are getting for free. I wouldn't mind the indigent or homeless in my area getting free phones - if I know they are cleaning the neighborhood or performing some other working function in return for the freebie.

[jimnyc]

And I like the following:



Am I eligible?
Lifeline and Link-up Assistance are government programs designed to provide discounted or free telephone service to income-eligible consumers. Qualification standards vary depending on the state in which you reside. Generally, you qualify if you are currently enrolled in a government assisted program such as:



Food Stamps
Medicaid
Federal Public Housing Assistance or Section 8
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
National School Free Lunch Program
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) - AND -


If no one in the household is currently enrolled in any other lifeline program.




So long as you're already scraping money from others and getting freebies, then you qualify!

[ConHog]

And I like the following:



So long as you're already scraping money from others and getting freebies, then you qualify!

I'm not liking this as a whole either. My main point in this thread was that this simply isn't something Obama started. It's that simple.

Now, certainly his administration is making a push to switch to only cellular phones, but that's just logical as technology improves.

The question of SHOULD we do it, is completely different that the question of "IS this Obama's doing?"

[jimnyc]

I'm not liking this as a whole either. My main point in this thread was that this simply isn't something Obama started. It's that simple.

Now, certainly his administration is making a push to switch to only cellular phones, but that's just logical as technology improves.

The question of SHOULD we do it, is completely different that the question of "IS this Obama's doing?"

Well I never even mentioned Obama personally. I think my take on things should be the way it is regardless of who is in the WH. My point is people getting freebies and others getting some sort of costs passed on to them.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

And I like the following:



So long as you're already scraping money from others and getting freebies, then you qualify!

Obama is pushing for the gubbermint tit suckers to suck harder, this is just more of that!
He wants a few more billion spent every chance he gets. It's the obama way!-Tyr

[ConHog]

Well I never even mentioned Obama personally. I think my take on things should be the way it is regardless of who is in the WH. My point is people getting freebies and others getting some sort of costs passed on to them.

Right, and we're not disagreeing in this thread either. I think this is a dumb program and a waste. I'm merely saying Obama didn't start it.

[Mr. P]

Hmmmm

The Lifeline program was established by your local government to help people obtain wireless services by offering a discounted package. This package includes a FREE cellular phone, as well as FREE minutes every month

Reads to me the package is discounted, but includes a free phone and some free minutes , but you still have to pay SOMETHING every month. The government site says nothing about free.

I assume you get a cheapie little flip phone for free and X number of minutes free, but you still have to pay something.

I got a new a few months back, AT&T gave it to me for free to. So, that's not a big deal there.


Actually I just followed the link and if you choose the free phone you get no bonus minutes. If you buy the $19.99 phone which is the cheapest phone they have, you get 30 bonus minutes. Minutes cost $7.95 an hour and for each hour purchased you get 10 free minutes.

Now, I have unlimited everything at like $400 a month for 4 phones, so I don't know how much minutes go for , is $7.95 an hour a reasonable discount?

Personally, I don't know why if they are going to do this, they don't just go with smart talk, it's $45 a month for unlimited everything, mark it down to $30 for the poor and go on, but whatever..............

From the link I posted.

Will I have to pay any money up front to activate?
No. If you qualify you will receive a package in the mail that includes your wireless handset which will be preloaded with free minutes of airtime.

Will I have to buy minutes every month to keep my account active?
No, you can purchase additional minutes of airtime to add to your account if you want. However, you do not need to buy any additional airtime to keep your lifeline phone active!
*For CA residents - YES. You MUST purchase a minimum of $2.50 a month, or any other plan to maintain your Government Assisted Wireless Service.

How many minutes do I get every month?
The number of free minutes added to your account varies by plan and state you select.

Still look FREE for many to me.

[ConHog]

From the link I posted.

Will I have to pay any money up front to activate?
No. If you qualify you will receive a package in the mail that includes your wireless handset which will be preloaded with free minutes of airtime.

Will I have to buy minutes every month to keep my account active?
No, you can purchase additional minutes of airtime to add to your account if you want. However, you do not need to buy any additional airtime to keep your lifeline phone active!
*For CA residents - YES. You MUST purchase a minimum of $2.50 a month, or any other plan to maintain your Government Assisted Wireless Service.

How many minutes do I get every month?
The number of free minutes added to your account varies by plan and state you select.

Still look FREE for many to me.


It's NOT free. No free minutes? And you have to pay activation fees and what not..... At least here in Arkansas

[ConHog]

Obama is pushing for the gubbermint tit suckers to suck harder, this is just more of that!
He wants a few more billion spent every chance he gets. It's the obama way!-Tyr

Negged for once again blaming Obama for a plan that has been around four 3 decades.

[red states rule]

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot I covered CH's neg rep by sending you some positive rep. Let me know if the asshole negs you for expressing your opinion and I will try to cover it

[logroller]

Hmmmm

The Lifeline program was established by your local government to help people obtain wireless services by offering a discounted package. This package includes a FREE cellular phone, as well as FREE minutes every month

Reads to me the package is discounted, but includes a free phone and some free minutes , but you still have to pay SOMETHING every month. The government site says nothing about free.

I assume you get a cheapie little flip phone for free and X number of minutes free, but you still have to pay something.

I got a new a few months back, AT&T gave it to me for free to. So, that's not a big deal there.


Actually I just followed the link and if you choose the free phone you get no bonus minutes. If you buy the $19.99 phone which is the cheapest phone they have, you get 30 bonus minutes. Minutes cost $7.95 an hour and for each hour purchased you get 10 free minutes.

Now, I have unlimited everything at like $400 a month for 4 phones, so I don't know how much minutes go for , is $7.95 an hour a reasonable discount?

Personally, I don't know why if they are going to do this, they don't just go with smart talk, it's $45 a month for unlimited everything, mark it down to $30 for the poor and go on, but whatever..............
I love the haphazard use of "free"... No, wait, I despise it. If I buy 60 minutes for x dollars, and they give me 70 minutes, I've bought 70 minutes for x dollars. There's nothing free about it. That's like when they say "free phone with two- year contract"-- It's not free. It's a contracted agreement that says I have to pay x dollars a month for 24 months. Hardly free. If there's strings attached, it's not free. These are the same sales reps that correct me when i say its 20 bucks, and they say it's 19.99. Funny how they differentiate over a penny, but a $1500 service contract entitles me to "free" $50 phone.

[red states rule]

I love the haphazard use of "free"... No, wait, I despise it. If I buy 60 minutes for x dollars, and they give me 70 minutes, I've bought 70 minutes for x dollars. There's nothing free about it. That's like when they say "free phone with two- year contract"-- It's not free. It's a contracted agreement that says I have to pay x dollars a month for 24 months. Hardly free. If there's strings attached, it's not free. These are the same sales reps that correct me when i say its 20 bucks, and they say it's 19.99. Funny how they differentiate over a penny, but a $1500 service contract entitles me to "free" $50 phone.


LR, as you suggested nothing is free. That is why I am so sad to see people who graduated from college demand "free" healthcare, "free" college for all, and so on

Somewhere along the line, someone is paying the bill

and it usually ends up being the US taxpayer one way of another

[logroller]

LR, as you suggested nothing is free. That is why I am so sad to see people who graduated from college demand "free" healthcare, "free" college for all, and so on

Somewhere along the line, someone is paying the bill

and it usually ends up being the US taxpayer one way of another

There are times where it's mutually beneficial to provide things for others. I'm not saying that a cell phone company shouldn't provide the tools necessary to use their service; It's just "included", not "free".

[red states rule]

There are times where it's mutually beneficial to provide things for others. I'm not saying that a cell phone company shouldn't provide the tools necessary to use their service; It's just "included", not "free".

And I am happy to donate my money to worthy causes. I do not like the fact the governemnt takes my money and gives to causes some government offical (and in many causes a unelected official) deems worthy

[logroller]

And I am happy to donate my money to worthy causes. I do not like the fact the governemnt takes my money and gives to causes some government offical (and in many causes a unelected official) deems worthy
I hear ya. The concept of subsidization is marked with dilemma. We're talking phones here, but take corn subsidies: the original intent of providing food being perverted, so now it's used for sodas and plays a part in the obesity epidemic. Of course people drink it, so that's their fault, but were the real cost of producing that corn syrup included into the soda, less would drink it. There's always external costs to any action, and its frustrating to see more money spent on something which was caused by govt in the first place.

[red states rule]

I hear ya. The concept of subsidization is marked with dilemma. We're talking phones here, but take corn subsidies: the original intent of providing food being perverted, so now it's used for sodas and plays a part in the obesity epidemic. Of course people drink it, so that's their fault, but were the real cost of producing that corn syrup included into the soda, less would drink it. There's always external costs to any action, and its frustrating to see more money spent on something which was caused by govt in the first place.


That is why all subsidization of everything needs to go. Libs only have a short list of what they call "corporate welfare" but the government has its nose (and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars) in the private secotr and it does not belong there

The free market works fine when government stays the hell out of its way

[logroller]

That is why all subsidization of everything needs to go. Libs only have a short list of what they call "corporate welfare" but the government has its nose (and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars) in the private secotr and it does not belong there

The free market works fine when government stays the hell out of its way
market failures do occur. Classic examples include pollution and roads.

[Missileman]

I love the haphazard use of "free"... No, wait, I despise it. If I buy 60 minutes for x dollars, and they give me 70 minutes, I've bought 70 minutes for x dollars. There's nothing free about it. That's like when they say "free phone with two- year contract"-- It's not free. It's a contracted agreement that says I have to pay x dollars a month for 24 months. Hardly free. If there's strings attached, it's not free. These are the same sales reps that correct me when i say its 20 bucks, and they say it's 19.99. Funny how they differentiate over a penny, but a $1500 service contract entitles me to "free" $50 phone.

From the link that Mr. P posted:


Best of all, there are no recurring charges, monthly fees, or surcharges.

The use of the word discount is haphazard when the discount is 100%, at that point it's FREE.

[jimnyc]

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot I covered CH's neg rep by sending you some positive rep. Let me know if the asshole negs you for expressing your opinion and I will try to cover it

Huh?

I'm afraid to even look into rep comments at this point. But to ALL, please don't play games with rep comments.

[jimnyc]

Perhaps your perception needs some education;



http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/news/2011/06/pr-GUSA.aspx


280 billion in chariatable contributions is hardly stingy or Americans having closed wallets.


So in other words, our charity to the less fortunate is equivalent to about 15% of all of Australia's GDP? LOL And that doesn't even count the billions and billions that are continually given to the less fortunate around the world.

Nell likes to come and toss out anti American jabs left and right, but ignores any replies and rarely if ever comes back to support positions or answer questions. Kinda like an Aussie version of Gabby!