ROFL if obama specifically took steps to stop all government aid abuses he would lose 75%+ of his voting demographic.
No way that this will ever happen.
It's OBAMA he's gonna get me a OBAMAPHONE gotta vote OBAMA.
Uh, yes, "happens enough to give is a shit" is a pretty good metric for deciding to take action. You're aware that it's impossible to stop 100% of all fraud and waste, right? The private market does. Every retail store has a certain amount of "breakage" they calculate into running costs, because actually stopping every bit of theft is cost prohibitive and unnecessary. But I guess it's "defending waste and theft" for them to do that?
What you've described might work, but how do you know there aren't already policies in place to accomplish exactly this goal, but take longer than the 1 day since the author got these phones in order to function? Because your plan wouldn't stop him from getting the phones either, it would just stop him from keeping them.
LOL on factcheck.org
"Nor is it paid for with "tax payer money," as the e-mail claims. Rather, it is funded through the Universal Service Fund, ...." 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."
Only a lib group can claim that's not a tax, because its called a fee.
Fraudulent title. They're Regan/Bush phones.
They're ObamaPhones now.
edit: after reading the article, it sounds like it wasn't fraud on his part, but rather, it was either fraud, or gross incompetence by the people signing him up. Nonetheless, I'd bet that somewhere, he had to sign. And prior to that signature was something to the effect of stating that "by signing, you agree, blah blah blah" that would make it fraudulent for him to knowingly receive a phone he wasn't entitled to.
I'm pretty sure there is zero incenrive for the companies providing the service not to curb such waste/fraud.
Another shady business? Yeah probably.
LOL on factcheck.org
"Nor is it paid for with "tax payer money," as the e-mail claims. Rather, it is funded through the Universal Service Fund, ...." 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."
Only a lib group can claim that's not a tax, because its called a fee.
Actually, "lib" groups (apparently meaning honest people with critical thinking skills, in this case) don't consider it a tax because it is charged by private companies, is collected by private companies, and is paid to a private, non-profit company. Most people consider "tax" to mean something collected by government, or paid to government. You "cons" will no doubt continue to pervert that simple concept as needed to maintain your knee-jerk, purely partisan outrage.Yup I love it when the liberalies try to make it out like these handouts are not a "tax".
B-b-b-buh buh b-b-but the money is charged as a FEE so it's not a TAX...
ROFL....... Just one more way our Dear Leader takes money from anyone who works to funnel it down to people who don't. If you can afford to have the luxury of paying a cell phone bill then you can afford to funnel some money down to his constituents!
LOL on factcheck.org
"Nor is it paid for with "tax payer money," as the e-mail claims. Rather, it is funded through the Universal Service Fund, ...." 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."
Only a lib group can claim that's not a tax, because its called a fee.
Actually, "lib" groups (apparently meaning honest people with critical thinking skills, in this case) don't consider it a tax because it is charged by private companies, is collected by private companies, and is paid to a private, non-profit company. Most people consider "tax" to mean something collected by government, or paid to government. You "cons" will no doubt continue to pervert that simple concept as needed to maintain your knee-jerk, purely partisan outrage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund#Universal_Service_Administrative_CompanyUSAC reports quarterly revenue projections detailing what contributions are expected and detailing what actions are taken in the expansion and bolstering of universal service. While the USAC cannot act without Congressional approval, it can make recommendations. USAC recommendations have resulted in expanding telecommunication resources, particularly broadband Internet and mobile access to schools and libraries, and recognizing Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) as a form of interstate and international communication, which requires those companies providing VoIP services to contribute to the USF.
What change to this program did Obama make, exactly?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund#Universal_Service_Administrative_Company
:hmm: Doesn't sound so private to me.
Are you saying there is an actual distinction between a "tax" and a "mandatory fee paid to corporation that needs congressional approval to act"?
The liberal extremists can call it all they want, but if it's a government mandated required fee then it's a tax.
I'm sure there are all sorts of word games that can be played with this, but the intention is to take money from people who work hard to afford the "luxury" of a cell phone and give that money to obama's constituents.
And the constituents of all the POTUS's before Obama since the program started? Just want to make sure you aren't leaving them out.
The liberal extremists can call it all they want, but if it's a government mandated required fee then it's a tax.
I'm sure there are all sorts of word games that can be played with this, but the intention is to take money from people who work hard to afford the "luxury" of a cell phone and give that money to obama's constituents.
It was a fund that the telcos were to pay into but were allowed to pass the costs on to consumers, they don't have to but they choose to. You can call it a tax of you want but it does come under the "tax" portion of your bill.
Sounds like a tax to me.
You can cover it up, hide it, mislead people all you want... But it's designed to make the working people pay for phones for people who both cannot and choose not to work....
I think a better analogy here than a "tax" is that it's more like a regulation which costs a corporation x amount of money, and that cost may be passed on to the corporation's customers.
I think the point of the article is to show that these people designated to give out phones are encouraged to do so because their companies get more money.
Sure you are supposed to get only one phone. But there are not many checks and balances in this program it seems.
Yes, lots of things sound like taxes. The upgrade fee carriers charge when you upgrade your phone and renew your contract sounds like a tax to some people as well.
How is that different than a sales tax?