Drop the darn Obama phone

[nehalem256]

For the reason I just gave. The Constitution includes the Post Office because the founders understood the necessity for information and communication.

The same thing is true of phones, the internet, cell phones, water, and electricity. The government plays a role in the universal availability of all these things.

That doesn't man all these things need to be paid for or provided by the government, and they aren't.

But that wasn't the issue I was responding to.

Last time I checked you have to pay to mail things through the Post Office.

Your comparison of the Post Office to Obamaphones therefore fails.

 

[sixone]

As cell phones and the internet beome the way Americans communicate with each other there's a societal and governmental interest in making communication and information universally available. That's why the Post Office is in the Constitution.

George W Bush understood this, so does Obama.

Last I checked, the Constitution doesn't require the Post Office to offer discounted rates based on income.

"Universally available" doesn't require a subsidy.

 

[ivwshane]

Just like your dear leader, you offer nothing but pathetic excuses. Fact: spending on free phones for those who "need" them (based on being below the poverty rate) has tripled. Unless the poverty rate has tripled during the same time frame (it has not), it's another example of massive increases in wasteful spending. It's hard to believe wasteful spending would skyrocket under this administration.... Oh wait, it's not.

So exactly what did Obama do to increase the spending on this program?

 

[umbrella39]

I don't care how much or how little this program costs, this is not what our government was set up for. The whole f'in thing is a waste of taxpayer money even if it costs a penny.

For those who it actually helps and doesn't scam the system it saves us all money in the long run if they are able to use said phone which is pretty much required when interviewing for jobs. I'd rather this person who really wants a job and not to be reliant on the government teet to have this cheap phone and work then have to pay them welfare, food stamps, medicaid... Really we have no way to get a hold of you? You're hired! Come on man don't be so jaded.

 

[umbrella39]

So exactly what did Obama do to increase the spending on this program?

I was just going to post the same, how did Obama increase spending on this program?

 

[Yreka]

I was just going to post the same, how did Obama increase spending on this program?

From what I recall from the 12 other threads on this topic, it was due to the fact that the program went from a wired land-line to cellular under Obama.

The move in itself makes sense with the wired-line going the way of the dodo. Problem is there (apparently) wasn't enough oversight put in place to prevent 30+ phones being made available per person per month.

With a land-line it would be much easier to maintain, as you can simply limit it to 1 per residence. Now you can have 30 per month per person x people per household...

That being said, I don't have a problem with this program at all.. As stated many time already, this is a good investment in our society assuming reasonable limits are put in place to prevent fraud..

But that is one of the biggest annoyances with "welfare" programs (corporate or otherwise). At least ACT like you are spending someone else's money.

I understand some level of fraud exists, but meeting requests to curb it with charges of "racism" or "bbbut the corporations, military, etc" doesn't help matters.. In fact, nothing sends me personally running for some foot-tapping republican love faster...

I am happy to see investigation in the OP, I think the increase since the time of program change merits it.

 

[OverVolt]

Ring ring ring obama phone

 

[ivwshane]

From what I recall from the 12 other threads on this topic, it was due to the fact that the program went from a wired land-line to cellular under Obama.

The move in itself makes sense with the wired-line going the way of the dodo. Problem is there (apparently) wasn't enough oversight put in place to prevent 30+ phones being made available per person per month.

With a land-line it would be much easier to maintain, as you can simply limit it to 1 per residence. Now you can have 30 per month per person x people per household...

That being said, I don't have a problem with this program at all.. As stated many time already, this is a good investment in our society assuming reasonable limits are put in place to prevent fraud..

But that is one of the biggest annoyances with "welfare" programs (corporate or otherwise). At least ACT like you are spending someone else's money.

I understand some level of fraud exists, but meeting requests to curb it with charges of "racism" or "bbbut the corporations, military, etc" doesn't help matters.. In fact, nothing sends me personally running for some foot-tapping republican love faster...

I am happy to see investigation in the OP, I think the increase since the time of program change merits it.

Thanks for the info. So is fraud a major issue with this program? Do you have sources for this info? Just going from landline to a cellular phone and all other things being equal would cause a pretty big increase in costs.

 

[Yreka]

Thanks for the info. So is fraud a major issue with this program? Do you have sources for this info? Just going from landline to a cellular phone and all other things being equal would cause a pretty big increase in costs.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323511804578296001368122888.html

If you look at the numbers of not only cost, but total phones distributed something does seem "off"

Most of the "Debunk" sites seem to focus on the fact that: A. Obama has nothing to do with it. and B.. Its not tax money, its cell phone (tax) fees that pay for the program. Neither fact is really material IMO..

What isn't clear to me is what (if any) limitations are placed on the amount of phones you get per month other than saying "1 per household"

Considering it's unreasonable to expect people to have a valid ID, I'm not sure you could put an effective limit in place. Again with land lines its easy because they have to go to a single residence.. It doesn't do you much good to sign up for 30 lines on your one-bedroom apartment even if you could do it.

Edit, I believe this was the video from one of the other discussions.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/10/03/video-baltimore-woman-has-30-obama-phones/

 

[SaurusX]

Thanks for the info. So is fraud a major issue with this program? Do you have sources for this info? Just going from landline to a cellular phone and all other things being equal would cause a pretty big increase in costs.

Millions Improperly Claimed U.S. Phone Subsidies - WSJ.com

A review of five top recipients of Lifeline support conducted by the FCC for the Journal showed that 41% of their more than six million subscribers either couldn't demonstrate their eligibility or didn't respond to requests for certification.

Totally ninja'd.

 

[CPA]

For those who it actually helps and doesn't scam the system it saves us all money in the long run if they are able to use said phone which is pretty much required when interviewing for jobs. I'd rather this person who really wants a job and not to be reliant on the government teet to have this cheap phone and work then have to pay them welfare, food stamps, medicaid... Really we have no way to get a hold of you? You're hired! Come on man don't be so jaded.

Jaded or not, there is no way you will ever convince me that a cellphone needs to be subsidized. Never.

 

[Brainonska511]

Jaded or not, there is no way you will ever convince me that a cellphone needs to be subsidized. Never.

Even if it is cheaper to provide a cellphone to each qualified residence over a landline?

 

[nehalem256]

What isn't clear to me is what (if any) limitations are placed on the amount of phones you get per month other than saying "1 per household"

Considering it's unreasonable to expect people to have a valid ID, I'm not sure you could put an effective limit in place. Again with land lines its easy because they have to go to a single residence.. It doesn't do you much good to sign up for 30 lines on your one-bedroom apartment even if you could do it.

Let see...

For those who it actually helps and doesn't scam the system it saves us all money in the long run if they are able to use said phone which is pretty much required when interviewing for jobs. I'd rather this person who really wants a job and not to be reliant on the government teet to have this cheap phone and work then have to pay them welfare, food stamps, medicaid... Really we have no way to get a hold of you? You're hired! Come on man don't be so jaded.

If the argument for giving out free phones is it will allow people to get jobs wouldn't it seem reasonable to request the same level of ID to get a free phone as is required to get a job?

 

[Tom]

Last I checked, the Constitution doesn't require the Post Office to offer discounted rates based on income.

"Universally available" doesn't require a subsidy.

Its up to Congress how the Post Office is funded. If they wanted to offer rates based on income that's within their authority.

 

[jhbball]

Jaded or not, there is no way you will ever convince me that a cellphone needs to be subsidized. Never.

that's because you can't see past the end of your nose.

 

[Oldgamer]

Foxnews told them it is, so that's all the thinking the righies on here are capable of.

LOL

 

[infoiltrator]

One, these phones, for homeless, run into "where to charge them issues." Two, minutes are limited, many run out "phone not available at this time.
Basically anyone with internet can have various low cost "over the internet" home phones.
The poor cannot. Many fixed income elderly or disable cannot.
Often contact with health care, meals on wheels, etc is vital.

The program uses a questionaire, which is sent to the phone company involved. any checking is their responsibility. Appears no one looks.
Apparently there is profit in it hence the growth.

 

[Lanyap]

I wan my obamaphone. I wan more free stuff!

I hear you get a free obamaurn with each obamaphone.

 

[ivwshane]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323511804578296001368122888.html

If you look at the numbers of not only cost, but total phones distributed something does seem "off"

Most of the "Debunk" sites seem to focus on the fact that: A. Obama has nothing to do with it. and B.. Its not tax money, its cell phone (tax) fees that pay for the program. Neither fact is really material IMO..

What isn't clear to me is what (if any) limitations are placed on the amount of phones you get per month other than saying "1 per household"

Considering it's unreasonable to expect people to have a valid ID, I'm not sure you could put an effective limit in place. Again with land lines its easy because they have to go to a single residence.. It doesn't do you much good to sign up for 30 lines on your one-bedroom apartment even if you could do it.

Edit, I believe this was the video from one of the other discussions.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/10/03/video-baltimore-woman-has-30-obama-phones/

Millions Improperly Claimed U.S. Phone Subsidies - WSJ.com



Totally ninja'd.

Thanks for the links guys.

I think it's important to note this part of the article though:

Suspecting that many of the new subscribers were ineligible, the Federal Communications Commission tightened the rules last year and required carriers to verify that existing subscribers were eligible. The agency estimated 15% of users would be weeded out, but far more were dropped

and

Until last year, FCC rules didn't require carriers to certify to the FCC that subscribers were eligible. Consumers could self-certify, and in many states documentation wasn't required.

Carriers said many of the disqualified subscribers simply didn't reply when asked to prove their eligibility. They also said the FCC rules on self-certification, and the absence of a national database of participants, made it hard to keep ineligible people from signing up.

The FCC said it is investigating allegations that some Lifeline providers violated the rules, though it declined to comment on that probe. Carriers that don't properly confirm eligibility can be fined up to $150,000 for each violation for each day of a continuing violation, up to a maximum of $1.5 million. In egregious cases, a carrier could lose its ability to participate in the program.

So at least something is being done about it.


To be honest, instead of the DHS we should have a government waste and fraud department that's well funded to not only go after fraud but to come up with measures to limit fraud in the first place.

 

[werepossum]

Wow, some of you still think this is an Obama program?

hahahahaha.


If they are so concerned if people on the program are eligible or not, why don't they take a more proactive approach to their application process?

Because it's government. Government isn't interested in limiting people using their programs, government is interested in growing their programs.

 

[werepossum]

Millions Improperly Claimed U.S. Phone Subsidies - WSJ.com



Totally ninja'd.

Holy crap, 41% is bad even for government cheese.

Government - we're the ideal business because we have the ability to give away our products and force others at gun point to pay for them. No recessions, no competition, no obsolescence. Only growth.

 

[ivwshane]

Holy crap, 41% is bad even for government cheese.

Government - we're the ideal business because we have the ability to give away our products and force others at gun point to pay for them. No recessions, no competition, no obsolescence. Only growth.

So how many Obama phones do you have?

 

[FaaR]

Poor people gaming the system. Color be surprised.

Yeah, because only poor people would ever think to lie, cheat or steal. It's the truth, honest!

Meanwhile, I have this bridge here that you may be interested in buying. ...Oh, you were just trolling up there in your reply, you say? Okay then. Carry on!

 

[Sonikku]

Another one of Obama's failed policies. The obamaphone. Why should someone get some iphone or whatever just because they're poor?

Ronald Reagan would never have stood for this.

 

[ivwshane]

Another one of Obama's failed policies. The obamaphone. Why should someone get some iphone or whatever just because they're poor?

Ronald Reagan would never have stood for this.

Are you being ironic?