Drop the darn Obama phone

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

bdunosk

Senior member
Sep 26, 2000
573
2
81
I think cell phones will be soon regarded as a necessity just as much as electricity, and soon too computers, and having access to the internet. Times are a changing.. we are evolving. Got to go with the flow, or be left behind in the dark ages.

How are any of those electronic gadgets necessities?

"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." - Ben Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 29, 1766

I also find it funny to use the word "evolving" if you consider Charles Darwin's theory. Or are you saying that the fittest have become those who find a way to game the system? Hmmm... let's keep voting for more gov't (taxpayer funded) subsidies!
 

bdunosk

Senior member
Sep 26, 2000
573
2
81
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.

http://youtu.be/tpAOwJvTOio

You really think those phones are being used to get jobs? I worked in downtown Detroit for nearly 8 years, which was enough to know what gov't hand-outs do to people and their work ethic.

Besides, why a cell phone ($$$$) instead of a landline ($)?
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
I actually had a grandmother, long deceased now who utilized the telephone supplement programs.. she was too poor to afford a land line phone. This is also right up there with the electric companies who also provide assistance for the poor for help with electricity.

But I do see how these assistance programs probably need some revamping, and I am certain that some companies might have become complacent on monitoring any type of fraud.

There is nothing wrong with them looking into it.

Around here they have vans that sit in parking lots next to busy streets with spinning/strobe lights and big ass signs that say something like "Free cell phones". The people that work them get paid a commission per phone they "give away", I can all but guarantee you that they couldn't give two shits about fraud.

I know quite a few people that have them and don't need them at all. They already have a smartphone of some sort but hey, its free so why not right. Hell, two people I have met claim their only use for their .gov phone is as a spare cellphone they use to cheat on their SOs without leaving a phone trail.

I remember walking by one of those mobile give away things once and seeing multiple people on their iphones/smartphones calling their friends to come sign up for the free phones. If your ass has an iphone or ANY smartphone then you do not need a .gov phone but they meet the criteria....
 
Dec 10, 2005
25,299
8,684
136
Besides, why a cell phone ($$$$) instead of a landline ($)?

Do you know that for a fact that cell phones are more expensive to subsidize for the poor over landlines? I highly doubt they're giving out iPhones with cadillac plans under this program.
 

bdunosk

Senior member
Sep 26, 2000
573
2
81
Do you know that for a fact that cell phones are more expensive to subsidize for the poor over landlines? I highly doubt they're giving out iPhones with cadillac plans under this program.

I do not. Having paid for both a land line and a cell phone, the former is vastly cheaper for local calls.

The link below talks about increased cost of the program but does not appear to discriminate between increased cost and increased utilization.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...Phones-Costing-Taxpayers-2-1-Billion-Per-Year
 

Yreka

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
4,084
0
76
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.

Agreed, like I said this is a good thing.. Same with the Scooter Store investigation thread, and the one about Elizabeth Warren calling out the banking industry (although admittedly its just talk at this point, I certainly welcome the dialogue). These are all symptoms of the same problem.

The other argument that drives me nuts is "well it would cost MORE to, you know actually look into this stuff"

To that I say "great, who can I make the check out to?" This is money well spent VS. increasing the amount of money thrown at programs covered in parasites. It would at LEAST add somewhat of a disincentive for future activity, and give the taxpayers some sense of justice. In contrast, more of the same simply encourages poor behavior.

Just like the local school systems, we keep voting and voting and voting in new taxes because we think education is a good investment.. Less and less money is making it into the classrooms, and more and more we hear about fraud in "administration" and nothing being done..

"We just need a bit more money.. The leeches in-between you and the kids are almost full, maybe if we pour a bit more on top it will trickle down to the classrooms this time. "

Its getting to the point where otherwise rational people who don't mind paying taxes & re-investing in our society are getting fatigued & there is nowhere to run. One side blasts you for being racist, hating poor people, brown people, etc should you dare suggest these well intended programs are actually implemented in a sane way. The other side will completely agree for a bit, until god forbid you start questioning "Welfare" for the other side. "Job Creators" can't begin to be held accountable for their misdeeds, that's hippie talk.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,810
2,595
136
I love how the righties have renamed a decade+ old program the Obamaphone. He had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of this program and has not expanded it.
 

bdunosk

Senior member
Sep 26, 2000
573
2
81
I love how the righties have renamed a decade+ old program the Obamaphone. He had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of this program and has not expanded it.

You're partially right...

Lifeline started in '84 (Reagan), which subsidized landlines to low-income people.

In 2008, it was expanded to anyone receiving food stamps and to cover cell phones.

Now, what about Tracfone - a (the largest?) provider of these gov't subsidized mobile phones? Tracfone's CEO donated $50k to Obama's campaign and his wife has bundled $600k+ Obama donations. Politics as usual... doesn't matter which party.
 
Last edited:

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,810
2,595
136
You're partially right...

Lifeline started in '84 (Reagan), which subsidized landlines to low-income people.

In 2008 (Obama), it was expanded to anyone receiving food stamps and to cover cell phones.

Now, what about Tracfone - a (the largest?) provider of these gov't subsidized mobile phones? Tracfone's CEO donated $50k to Obama's campaign and his wife has bundled $600k+ Obama donations. Politics as usual... doesn't matter which party.

It covered cellphones long before Obama. My brother in law heard about it on Rush's show and persuaded his mother to get one well before Obama was elected.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,656
15,613
136
God damn it! This is why I ask for citations, so we don't have to debate the facts and just debate the issue.

Here are the facts regrading "Obama phones"

Fact: Its a program that was in effect before Obama became president.
Fact: The program started issuing cellphones in 2008 before Obama was in office.

And I'll quote the whole article for those that are too lazy to click on the link:

Q: Has the Obama administration started a program to use "taxpayer money" to give free cell phones to welfare recipients?

A: No. Low-income households have been eligible for discounted telephone service for more than a decade. But the program is funded by telecom companies, not by taxes, and the president has nothing to do with it.



FULL QUESTION

Is this e-mail true?


I had a former employee call me earlier today inquiring about a job, and at the end of the conversation he gave me his phone number. I asked the former employee if this was a new cell phone number and he told me yes this was his "Obama phone."

⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full text ⬏




FULL ANSWER

Welfare recipients, and others, can receive a free cell phone, but the program is not funded by the government or taxpayer money, as the e-mail alleges. And it’s hardly new.

How It Works

SafeLink Wireless, the program mentioned in the e-mail, does indeed offer a cell phone, about one hour’s worth of calling time per month, and other wireless services like voice mail to eligible low-income households. Applicants have to apply and prove that they are either receiving certain types of government benefits, such as Medicaid, or have household incomes at or below 135 percent of the poverty line. Using 2009 poverty guidelines, that’s $14,620 for an individual and a little under $30,000 for a family of four, with slightly higher amounts for Alaska and Hawaii.

SafeLink is run by a subsidiary of América Móvil, the world’s fourth largest wireless company in terms of subscribers, but it is not paid for directly by the company. Nor is it paid for with "tax payer money," as the e-mail claims. Rather, it is funded through the Universal Service Fund, which is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company, an independent, not-for-profit corporation set up by the Federal Communications Commission. The USF is sustained by contributions from telecommunications companies such as "long distance companies, local telephone companies, wireless telephone companies, paging companies, and payphone providers." The companies often charge customers to fund their contributions in the form of a universal service fee you might see on your monthly phone bill. The fund is then parceled out to companies, such as América Móvil, that create programs, such as SafeLink, to provide telecommunications service to rural areas and low-income households.

History

The SafeLink program has actually been offering cell phones to low-income households in some states since 2008, not beginning "earlier this year," as the e-mail claims. But the program is rooted in a deeper history.

When phone lines were first laid out in the late 19th century, they were not always inter-operable. That is to say the phone service created by one company to serve one town may not have been compatible with the phone service of another company serving a different town nearby. The telecom companies themselves saw the folly in this arrangement, and so in 1913, AT&T committed itself to resolving interconnection problems as part of the "Kingsbury Commitment."

That common goal of universal service became a goal of universal access to service when Congress passed The Telecommunications Act of 1934. The act created the FCC and also included in its preamble a promise "to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.” There was a fear, expressed by telecom companies themselves, that market forces alone might encourage companies to pass on providing service to hard-to-reach places. This would both hurt the people who wouldn’t have service as well as existing customers who wouldn’t be able to reach them. So the new FCC was tasked with promoting this principle of "universal service."

This informal practice was codified when the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) was created as part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act to "ensure all Americans, including low-income consumers and those who live in rural, insular, high cost areas, shall have affordable service and [to] help to connect eligible schools, libraries, and rural health care providers to the global telecommunications network." The USAC includes four programs to serve rural areas, high cost areas, rural health care providers, and schools and libraries. Since 1997, USAC has provided discounted land line service to low-income individuals. (A more limited program to offer assistance to low-income individuals was created a decade earlier; the telecommunications act expanded and formalized it.) According to Eric Iversen, USAC director of external relations, the Universal Service Fund more recently began funding programs that provide wireless service, such as the pre-paid cellular SafeLink program mentioned in the chain e-mail.

The president has no direct impact on the program, and one could hardly call these devices "Obama Phones," as the e-mail author does. This specific program, SafeLink, started under President George Bush, with grants from an independent company created under President Bill Clinton, which was a legacy of an act passed under President Franklin Roosevelt, which was influenced by an agreement reached between telecommunications companies and the administration of President Woodrow Wilson.

http://factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/
 

bdunosk

Senior member
Sep 26, 2000
573
2
81
You guys are right - I'll edit my post to not perpetuate inaccuracy.

Too bad I didn't find this last night:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/26/technology/mobile/tracfone-free-phones/index.html

They talk about 2008 being the correct year that cell phones were in allowed, which was under Bush, and how the utilization of this program increased due to aggressive recruitment, especially by Tracfone, combined with the economic downturn.

Lifeline is paid by the consumer (those "fees" that you see in your phone bill).
 

SheHateMe

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2012
7,251
20
81
I had a former employee call me earlier today inquiring about a job, and at the end of the conversation he gave me his phone number. I asked the former employee if this was a new cell phone number and he told me yes this was his "Obama phone."

Wut? I hope he didn't get a job...
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,810
2,595
136
You guys are right - I'll edit my post to not perpetuate inaccuracy.

Too bad I didn't find this last night:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/26/technology/mobile/tracfone-free-phones/index.html

They talk about 2008 being the correct year that cell phones were in allowed, which was under Bush, and how the utilization of this program increased due to aggressive recruitment, especially by Tracfone, combined with the economic downturn.

Lifeline is paid by the consumer (those "fees" that you see in your phone bill).

Thanks for making the change. If only you could wave a magic wand and stop the pundits on Fox News and Rush and all the other talk show hosts from referring to these as Obamaphones as well.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,976
29,307
136
I think anyone who refers to a program started under Reagan and upgraded to include cell phones under Bush as Obamaphones should be committed because they are a danger to themselves and society.

Are you people ignorant, crazy or stupid??

Damn, Fox News and the CEC has done a number on you
 

Yreka

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
4,084
0
76
God damn it! This is why I ask for citations, so we don't have to debate the facts and just debate the issue.

Here are the facts regrading "Obama phones"

Fact: Its a program that was in effect before Obama became president.
Fact: The program started issuing cellphones in 2008 before Obama was in office.

And I'll quote the whole article for those that are too lazy to click on the link:

From post #34

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..

And as further predicted, the discussion degenerates into these immaterial facts. Great example of how things end up the way they are.. Representation we deserve indeed.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,381
10,987
136
I've never had an issue with the subsidized land lines, since you have to have a phone to get any type of real job.

What I don't understand is why are we paying 3rd parties to advertize to people to get them to sign up? Why can't the normal phone companies offer this themselves, since it will actually be their network handling the phone? Also why does it need to be advertized more than a statement in the phone book and on the phone bill? There isn't massive advertizement for the school lunch program or food stamps, but people who need it find out about it and get signed up without some middleman getting a large pay check.

I just really don't understand why there is a middleman getting rich off this process, which was true long before they were giving out cell phones too.

As for land line versus cell phones, I think land lines still provide enough utility to get/keep and job and provide a reasonable amount of connectivity to other people. But land lines use much cheaper equipment, that lasts much longer. So we are stuck providing new equipment all the time. Also a land line has unlimited local calling, so it will always work, where a cell phone can go over its limit and become ineffective at finding/keeping a job.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
God damn it! This is why I ask for citations, so we don't have to debate the facts and just debate the issue.

Here are the facts regrading "Obama phones"

Fact: Its a program that was in effect before Obama became president.
Fact: The program started issuing cellphones in 2008 before Obama was in office.

And I'll quote the whole article for those that are too lazy to click on the link:



http://factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/
This in a nutshell is the idiocy of progressives. It's not funded by taxpayers, far from it. It's funded by fees the federal government forces telecom companies to levy on those who pay for their own services.

If you expect sensible people to see a functional difference between the federal government taking your money to pay for phone services for someone else on one hand, and the federal government taking money from your phone company that it forces your phone company to collect for it to pay for phone services for someone else on the other, you might as well skip directly to claiming it's funded by gifts from Bigfoot and the aliens who brought him here. At least then people could give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you might just be crazy rather than intentionally duplicitous.

Regardless of the benefits (or lack thereof) of the program, let's be clear: it's a tax on makers to pay for benefits for takers. You may personally find that to be a good thing or a bad thing, but as SCOTUS found with Obamacare and the Tennessee Supreme Court found with our abortive "right to work fee", a tax is a tax is a tax, no matter what cute schemes politicians adopt to fool the weak minded and give cover to scoundrels. If you can't even be honest about how it's funded, how do you expect to be taken seriously when you argue about its merits?

As for why they are called Obamaphones, Obama is President and presided over its huge expansion. If it makes you feel any better, they'll be called Hillaryphones when she is President.
 
Sep 7, 2009
12,960
3
0
That right there is hilarious.


It is still a tax. An indirect tax, but still a tax. This is like saying ad valorum and car taxes aren't taxes. It doesn't matter who collects it, it's enforced by the government.
 
Last edited:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
As for why they are called Obamaphones, Obama is President and presided over its huge expansion. If it makes you feel any better, they'll be called Hillaryphones when she is President.

I think the funnier part is how Democrats apparently now support the Bush agenda
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |