Georgia has discovered the cure for poverty!

[Ray From Cleveland]

Let's get a few things straight. First of all, what is being provided is phone and message service. The funds to provide the service does not come from the federal goverment but from the Universal Service Fund which is funded by a tax on cell phone usage and contributions by cell phone companies. This fund is managed independently from the US government. The dollars proved are those needed to provide a fixed number minutes of cell phone usage and message service. Cell providers may add a teaser of .25 to .5 GB of data usage a month but that is not paid for by the service fund.

Correct. Now can you explain the difference between that and a tax? Where do you think the cell phone companies get that money from? That's right, paying cell phone customers like myself. Given the fact most people have a cell phone today, it's a tax on everybody rich, poor or anything in between. It's actually a hidden tax many don't even know about. Plus I'm sure it's a tax write-off for the cell phone companies.

For your information, schools today require a parent to provide a phone number that they can be reached any time in case of an emergency or an issue involving their child. No, giving a number of a friend or neighbor is not what they are looking for. Employers not only expect a potential employee to provide a number but they but they expect all employees to provide such a number. Lastly, new HUD housing requires that a tenant have a phone to report fires and other emergencies as well as providing contact information. Having phone communications today is not just a convenience, but a necessity.

All of which can be done with a cheaper phone like a landline. I provided my mother with a cell phone for when she has no access to a landline. She never uses it. When I get the bill at the end of the month, it shows how much time and data each phone used. My mothers phone? None usually.

Why is that? Because my mother doesn't like to use the phone for one even though I have an unlimited plan for both of us, and two, mostly because my mother doesn't work or go many places because she doesn't drive. When somebody takes her somewhere, they always have a phone so she never needs hers.

People can get along fine with just a landline. WTF did we do when we didn't have cell phones years ago? I know people that still don't have one even though they could easily afford it.

 

[danielpalos]

End our War on Drugs to pay for welfare!

End our war on drugs (on some drug users) and give the savings back to the people who earned it.

How much did slaves get paid?

 

[danielpalos]

It's called making people work, train, or volunteer while on food stamps:

Thousands Cured Of Poverty After Georgia Introduces Work-For-Food-Stamp Requirement – MILO NEWS

Thousands of people have been miraculously cured of poverty in Georgia following the state’s implementation of a requirement that all those receiving stamps must either be working, training for a job, or volunteering for a non-profit or charity.

According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Georgia has been rolling out work requirements for food stamp recipients for over a year.”

The outlet states that the latest rollout saw the requirements reach 21 counties, affecting roughly 12,000 able-bodied people without children.

Those people were given until April 1 to fulfil the aforementioned requirement. But when that date rolled around, The Journal-Constitution, citing state figures, reports that more than half of the food stamp recipients were dropped from the program.

“Essentially, the number of recipients spiraled down from 11,779 to 4,528, or a drop of 62 percent,” the outlet states.

According to The Journal-Constitution Georgian officials are looking at expanding the food stamp requirements to all 159 counties in the state by 2019.

“The greater good is people being employed, being productive, and contributing to the state,” said Bobby Cagle, head of Georgia’s Division of Family and Children Services, according to the outlet...

I've long said that any long-term people on welfare should be required to work in the fields or volunteer 20 hours per week for a government or non-profit agency unless they have a serious and medically-documented condition that precludes them from doing so. We should roll this program out nationwide.

Republicans have just about ruined Georgia's agriculture.

Crops Rot While Trump-Led Immigration Backlash Idles Farm Work

The death of meaningful U.S. immigration reform, done in by Washington partisanship and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s incendiary comments on foreigners, is leaving crops withering in the field and the farm lobby with nowhere to turn as a labor shortage intensifies.

If Trump Builds the Wall, What Will Happen to our Food System? - Modern Farmer

According to the Farm Bureau report, “closing the border” (i.e. building a wall) would greatly exacerbate existing farm labor shortages found in many parts of the country, resulting in crops left to rot in the fields and a vast reduction in agricultural productivity—which could put some farmers out of business.

“Many migrants who begin their careers as farm laborers move onto other sectors of the economy [with] less demanding positions after several years,” the authors noted. “This progression leads to farmers often being the first to bare the negative economic impacts of decreased border crossings and migrant labor shortages.”

-----------------------------

As always, Republicans take a country that if finally starting to the recover from the last GOP administration and drag it back down. They can't help themselves. That's just who they are.

You link to Bloomberg for economic analysis?!? The annual "crops-rotting-in-the-fields" bogeyman is pure bullshit. It's a scare tactic that relies on the economic absurdity that there exist such things as "labor shortages". Claiming there is a labor shortage in America is the same thing as saying there aren't enough Americans. It is self-evidently false and you shouldn't buy it.

Almost Six Million Unfilled Job Openings In America - Question Is Why?

LOL, 6 mil unfilled job openings? Doesn't mean we have a labor shortage. We have a job overage. We need 6 million robots. Actually, I'm kidding. There's a very simple reason there are "six million unfilled job openings" in the US. Let's see if you can guess what it is:

Mr. Tightwadi owns a burger and kebab joint called Cheap Eats in Skinflint, Michigan. His dishwasher gets deported so he puts a sign in the window that says "DISHWASHER NEEDED. $2 / hour". All day he sits in his office with a stack of blank application forms in front of him ready to interview. But no one comes in for the job. Every fifteen minutes or so, he sticks his head into the kitchen and notes with alarm the growing stack of dirty dishes in the sink. As the day wears on and no one applies for the job, he begins to wonder whether he might have to close the restaurant! Finally, his nerves are shot so he goes into the restroom and locks himself in a stall and begins wailing: why, oh why, will no one wash my dirty dishes?

In the very next stall, as luck would have it, there is a writer for The Economist taking a shit. He has been to a famous college and gotten an expensive and prestigious degree and does economic analysis for a living. He is an expert, in other words, and decides to help poor Mr Tightwadi. I couldn't help but overhear, said the expert, and he farted loudly, but I saw your sign advertising for a dishwasher out front. I think I know what your problem is, he said, groaning with the strain of passing an enormous turd.

Really? said Mr Tighwadi hopefully. Did I use the wrong font on my sign?

I'm not sure, grunted the economist, fonts aren't my area of expertise. But what you have to understand is--and Mr Tightwadi heard a big splash in the next stall--washing dishes is a job Americans don't want to do. And he said it with such confidence Mr Tightwadi was sure he was right.

He was filled with despair. So how will my dishes get clean? he cried.

Well, the writer for the famous and influential magazine asked, can you think of anyone who wants to do dishes?

No! wailed the restaurateur.

Not even in your home country? he asked sly with a long mellifluous fart.

No! They hate washing dishes, too!

Even in America? For two whole dollars per hour?

Well... said Mr. Tightwadi. They might want to wash dishes then. At least their children could have a chance at an education...

You see? the economist exclaimed triumphantly.

But they aren't in America.

Who's the richest person in America? asked the well-educated writer.

Bill Gates, replied Mr. Tightwadi.

And if he's the richest businessman, he must be the best businessman, right?

Yes.

And how does he fill job openings when there aren't enough qualified Americans?

I don't know?

He calls his Congressman and reports a severe shortage of tech workers. Then he makes a large contribution to the Congressman's reelection campaign to prove how severe the shortage is.

Wow, said Mr Tightwadi. That's brilliant. A good education really does pay off. Thank you.

No problem, said the economist. And the best part is, the yokels around here whose wages you will be undercutting are on the hook for the cost of educating your dishwasher's children!

Dayummm, said Mr. Tightwadi respectfully.

Yep, all it takes to succeed in America, um, hey did you know you are out of toilet paper over here?

Oh, said Mr. Tightwadi, my janitor is so lazy. Local... hey... do you think--

Yes, said the writer for The Economist.

Or, the right wing merely prefers to, "hate on the poor" instead of having to "work hard" on better, First World excuses.

 

[danielpalos]

People have children now for the same reason people have been having them for centuries,

• Biological Urges
• Desire to pass on family name, lineage, history
• Seeking life fulfillment through children
• Societal pressure to start a family
• Feeling that children is the next step in their relationship
• Hope that children will help provide for them now or at the end of life
• Status conferred by fatherhood and motherhood
• Trying to fix/grow a relationship with a significant other
• And of course, simply an accident

Although financial status may influence a couple, these primary reason will usually trump financial considerations.

Liberals see the root cause of poverty is the upbringing of children, relationship with parents, qualify of education, guidance and role modeling. For liberals one of the main purposes of social welfare is two improve the environment for children in poverty. In the past taking food off the table and having Mom working instead taking care of the kids has not produce responsible productive adults and it is not likely to in the future.

So what you are saying is that we taxpayers are in a hostage situation. How pathetic.

All the reasons you listed for having children are personal choices--not unavoidable ones. So let's go through your list:

Don't you think that working people have biological urges? Of course we do, but we control those urges because of our income.

Don't you think that working people seek fulfillment through children? Of course we do, but again, if the income isn't there, we do without that fulfillment.

Don't you think that working people face the same societal pressures? Of course we do, but we choose responsibility instead.

Don't you think that working people feel that children are the next step in a relationship? Of course many do, but if you can't afford that next step, you stay at the step you are at.

Don't you think that some working people may consider children for future support? Of course we do, but instead, we take that money we would have otherwise used to bring up children and start an IRA account.

There are differences between needs and wants. Stealing taxpayer money for wants is selfish. Nobody needs to have kids. I never had any, and many other responsible people never had kids either. Even Rush Limbaugh, with all his millions, stated he never had children because he was afraid it would interfere with his success.

If working people can do without these desires, so can the non-working. Demanding taxpayer funded desires is inexcusable.

Expecting people with low income to deviate from normal behavior in regard to having kids, is just a bit unrealistic. Maybe they should, but it's not gonna happen because having a family tends be a lot more important to the poor than the rich. Unlike those with money, fine homes, and great jobs, family is all they have.

I can understand why conservatives such as yourself would feel how unfair the situation is. However, unrealistic solutions will not solve the problem. Taking away food, shelter, and healthcare from people that can't earn enough money, who aren't able to work, or can't find work, in order to punish the few that refuse to work will just create even more serious social problems. I agree we need solutions but we need realist solutions that won't create even worse problems.

What is, "normal behavior"?

Welfare creates rational choices; unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, would also create, rational choices.

 

[Flopper]

Let's get a few things straight. First of all, what is being provided is phone and message service. The funds to provide the service does not come from the federal goverment but from the Universal Service Fund which is funded by a tax on cell phone usage and contributions by cell phone companies. This fund is managed independently from the US government. The dollars proved are those needed to provide a fixed number minutes of cell phone usage and message service. Cell providers may add a teaser of .25 to .5 GB of data usage a month but that is not paid for by the service fund.

Correct. Now can you explain the difference between that and a tax? Where do you think the cell phone companies get that money from? That's right, paying cell phone customers like myself. Given the fact most people have a cell phone today, it's a tax on everybody rich, poor or anything in between. It's actually a hidden tax many don't even know about. Plus I'm sure it's a tax write-off for the cell phone companies.

For your information, schools today require a parent to provide a phone number that they can be reached any time in case of an emergency or an issue involving their child. No, giving a number of a friend or neighbor is not what they are looking for. Employers not only expect a potential employee to provide a number but they but they expect all employees to provide such a number. Lastly, new HUD housing requires that a tenant have a phone to report fires and other emergencies as well as providing contact information. Having phone communications today is not just a convenience, but a necessity.

All of which can be done with a cheaper phone like a landline. I provided my mother with a cell phone for when she has no access to a landline. She never uses it. When I get the bill at the end of the month, it shows how much time and data each phone used. My mothers phone? None usually.

Why is that? Because my mother doesn't like to use the phone for one even though I have an unlimited plan for both of us, and two, mostly because my mother doesn't work or go many places because she doesn't drive. When somebody takes her somewhere, they always have a phone so she never needs hers.

People can get along fine with just a landline. WTF did we do when we didn't have cell phones years ago? I know people that still don't have one even though they could easily afford it.

I never claimed it wasn't a tax. I said, "it was funded by the Universal Service Fund which is funded by a tax on cell phone usage". The tax is also levied on internet service providers, and internet backbone providers.

The primary focus of the fund has been to provide broadband service as well as voice in areas ignored by the private sector because of high cost and low profit potential. These include schools, libraries, tribal land, and much of the vast low populated areas of the country. If you look at your cell phone provider's map of the country, you will see large sections of mountains and desert land now has coverage. When you stop at a motel in very rural areas, you will usually find an internet connection. Today a number of states are reporting over 97% of their schools are providing broadband access to both teachers and students. Much this is due to funds provided by USF and USF contracts.

The Lifeline phones, now referred to as “Obamaphones” by critics, are offered to low-income people, who are given an inexpensive phone with a limited number of voice and text minutes. The service, however, is not new. It actually began back in 1984 as a land-line program to make sure poor people would have a service that allows them to keep in contact with their families and to help them in job searches and emergencies.

In my area, cell phone service for text, voice, and data equivalent to an Obamaphone is $20/mo versus $35 for a land line which only provides voice. For most people landlines make sense only if you talk for hours on the phone each day or you need it for DSL. For low income people that have to move often, as many do, land lines make no sense at all because of the transfer and installation costs. BTW, an Obamaphone can be a landline phone but it is not encouraged because they no longer pay for wiring, the phone, installations, or any service calls.

 

[ph3iron]

It's called making people work, train, or volunteer while on food stamps:

Thousands Cured Of Poverty After Georgia Introduces Work-For-Food-Stamp Requirement – MILO NEWS

Thousands of people have been miraculously cured of poverty in Georgia following the state’s implementation of a requirement that all those receiving stamps must either be working, training for a job, or volunteering for a non-profit or charity.

According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Georgia has been rolling out work requirements for food stamp recipients for over a year.”

The outlet states that the latest rollout saw the requirements reach 21 counties, affecting roughly 12,000 able-bodied people without children.

Those people were given until April 1 to fulfil the aforementioned requirement. But when that date rolled around, The Journal-Constitution, citing state figures, reports that more than half of the food stamp recipients were dropped from the program.

“Essentially, the number of recipients spiraled down from 11,779 to 4,528, or a drop of 62 percent,” the outlet states.

According to The Journal-Constitution Georgian officials are looking at expanding the food stamp requirements to all 159 counties in the state by 2019.

“The greater good is people being employed, being productive, and contributing to the state,” said Bobby Cagle, head of Georgia’s Division of Family and Children Services, according to the outlet...

I've long said that any long-term people on welfare should be required to work in the fields or volunteer 20 hours per week for a government or non-profit agency unless they have a serious and medically-documented condition that precludes them from doing so. We should roll this program out nationwide.

It's so nice to be so judgemental and cut and paste and support a guy who raped his first wife, mocked a disabled person, "blood coming out of her who knows where" and won't show his taxes.
Is this a trumpie who is sucking off his socialist VA, Medicare and SS benefits?
Asian, I'd worry about his WWII deferment camps coming back

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

It's called making people work, train, or volunteer while on food stamps:

Thousands Cured Of Poverty After Georgia Introduces Work-For-Food-Stamp Requirement – MILO NEWS

Thousands of people have been miraculously cured of poverty in Georgia following the state’s implementation of a requirement that all those receiving stamps must either be working, training for a job, or volunteering for a non-profit or charity.

According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Georgia has been rolling out work requirements for food stamp recipients for over a year.”

The outlet states that the latest rollout saw the requirements reach 21 counties, affecting roughly 12,000 able-bodied people without children.

Those people were given until April 1 to fulfil the aforementioned requirement. But when that date rolled around, The Journal-Constitution, citing state figures, reports that more than half of the food stamp recipients were dropped from the program.

“Essentially, the number of recipients spiraled down from 11,779 to 4,528, or a drop of 62 percent,” the outlet states.

According to The Journal-Constitution Georgian officials are looking at expanding the food stamp requirements to all 159 counties in the state by 2019.

“The greater good is people being employed, being productive, and contributing to the state,” said Bobby Cagle, head of Georgia’s Division of Family and Children Services, according to the outlet...

I've long said that any long-term people on welfare should be required to work in the fields or volunteer 20 hours per week for a government or non-profit agency unless they have a serious and medically-documented condition that precludes them from doing so. We should roll this program out nationwide.

It's so nice to be so judgemental and cut and paste and support a guy who raped his first wife, mocked a disabled person, "blood coming out of her who knows where" and won't show his taxes.
Is this a trumpie who is sucking off his socialist VA, Medicare and SS benefits?
Asian, I'd worry about his WWII deferment camps coming back

Japanese concentration camps were the result of you liberals' idol, FDR.

 

[danielpalos]

It's called making people work, train, or volunteer while on food stamps:

Thousands Cured Of Poverty After Georgia Introduces Work-For-Food-Stamp Requirement – MILO NEWS

Thousands of people have been miraculously cured of poverty in Georgia following the state’s implementation of a requirement that all those receiving stamps must either be working, training for a job, or volunteering for a non-profit or charity.

According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Georgia has been rolling out work requirements for food stamp recipients for over a year.”

The outlet states that the latest rollout saw the requirements reach 21 counties, affecting roughly 12,000 able-bodied people without children.

Those people were given until April 1 to fulfil the aforementioned requirement. But when that date rolled around, The Journal-Constitution, citing state figures, reports that more than half of the food stamp recipients were dropped from the program.

“Essentially, the number of recipients spiraled down from 11,779 to 4,528, or a drop of 62 percent,” the outlet states.

According to The Journal-Constitution Georgian officials are looking at expanding the food stamp requirements to all 159 counties in the state by 2019.

“The greater good is people being employed, being productive, and contributing to the state,” said Bobby Cagle, head of Georgia’s Division of Family and Children Services, according to the outlet...

I've long said that any long-term people on welfare should be required to work in the fields or volunteer 20 hours per week for a government or non-profit agency unless they have a serious and medically-documented condition that precludes them from doing so. We should roll this program out nationwide.

It's so nice to be so judgemental and cut and paste and support a guy who raped his first wife, mocked a disabled person, "blood coming out of her who knows where" and won't show his taxes.
Is this a trumpie who is sucking off his socialist VA, Medicare and SS benefits?
Asian, I'd worry about his WWII deferment camps coming back

Japanese concentration camps were the result of you liberals' idol, FDR.

Mr Trump would have asked for an Asian ban.

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

It's called making people work, train, or volunteer while on food stamps:

Thousands Cured Of Poverty After Georgia Introduces Work-For-Food-Stamp Requirement – MILO NEWS

Thousands of people have been miraculously cured of poverty in Georgia following the state’s implementation of a requirement that all those receiving stamps must either be working, training for a job, or volunteering for a non-profit or charity.

According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Georgia has been rolling out work requirements for food stamp recipients for over a year.”

The outlet states that the latest rollout saw the requirements reach 21 counties, affecting roughly 12,000 able-bodied people without children.

Those people were given until April 1 to fulfil the aforementioned requirement. But when that date rolled around, The Journal-Constitution, citing state figures, reports that more than half of the food stamp recipients were dropped from the program.

“Essentially, the number of recipients spiraled down from 11,779 to 4,528, or a drop of 62 percent,” the outlet states.

According to The Journal-Constitution Georgian officials are looking at expanding the food stamp requirements to all 159 counties in the state by 2019.

“The greater good is people being employed, being productive, and contributing to the state,” said Bobby Cagle, head of Georgia’s Division of Family and Children Services, according to the outlet...

I've long said that any long-term people on welfare should be required to work in the fields or volunteer 20 hours per week for a government or non-profit agency unless they have a serious and medically-documented condition that precludes them from doing so. We should roll this program out nationwide.

It's so nice to be so judgemental and cut and paste and support a guy who raped his first wife, mocked a disabled person, "blood coming out of her who knows where" and won't show his taxes.
Is this a trumpie who is sucking off his socialist VA, Medicare and SS benefits?
Asian, I'd worry about his WWII deferment camps coming back

Japanese concentration camps were the result of you liberals' idol, FDR.

Mr Trump would have asked for an Asian ban.

He'd ask for a ban if Asians were creating terror cells inside of America to try to kill Americans, in which case I'd support the ban since no one is entitled to visit America or to citizenship. Citizenship is a privilege, not a right.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Let's get a few things straight. First of all, what is being provided is phone and message service. The funds to provide the service does not come from the federal goverment but from the Universal Service Fund which is funded by a tax on cell phone usage and contributions by cell phone companies. This fund is managed independently from the US government. The dollars proved are those needed to provide a fixed number minutes of cell phone usage and message service. Cell providers may add a teaser of .25 to .5 GB of data usage a month but that is not paid for by the service fund.

Correct. Now can you explain the difference between that and a tax? Where do you think the cell phone companies get that money from? That's right, paying cell phone customers like myself. Given the fact most people have a cell phone today, it's a tax on everybody rich, poor or anything in between. It's actually a hidden tax many don't even know about. Plus I'm sure it's a tax write-off for the cell phone companies.

For your information, schools today require a parent to provide a phone number that they can be reached any time in case of an emergency or an issue involving their child. No, giving a number of a friend or neighbor is not what they are looking for. Employers not only expect a potential employee to provide a number but they but they expect all employees to provide such a number. Lastly, new HUD housing requires that a tenant have a phone to report fires and other emergencies as well as providing contact information. Having phone communications today is not just a convenience, but a necessity.

All of which can be done with a cheaper phone like a landline. I provided my mother with a cell phone for when she has no access to a landline. She never uses it. When I get the bill at the end of the month, it shows how much time and data each phone used. My mothers phone? None usually.

Why is that? Because my mother doesn't like to use the phone for one even though I have an unlimited plan for both of us, and two, mostly because my mother doesn't work or go many places because she doesn't drive. When somebody takes her somewhere, they always have a phone so she never needs hers.

People can get along fine with just a landline. WTF did we do when we didn't have cell phones years ago? I know people that still don't have one even though they could easily afford it.

I never claimed it wasn't a tax. I said, "it was funded by the Universal Service Fund which is funded by a tax on cell phone usage". The tax is also levied on internet service providers, and internet backbone providers.

The primary focus of the fund has been to provide broadband service as well as voice in areas ignored by the private sector because of high cost and low profit potential. These include schools, libraries, tribal land, and much of the vast low populated areas of the country. If you look at your cell phone provider's map of the country, you will see large sections of mountains and desert land now has coverage. When you stop at a motel in very rural areas, you will usually find an internet connection. Today a number of states are reporting over 97% of their schools are providing broadband access to both teachers and students. Much this is due to funds provided by USF and USF contracts.

The Lifeline phones, now referred to as “Obamaphones” by critics, are offered to low-income people, who are given an inexpensive phone with a limited number of voice and text minutes. The service, however, is not new. It actually began back in 1984 as a land-line program to make sure poor people would have a service that allows them to keep in contact with their families and to help them in job searches and emergencies.

In my area, cell phone service for text, voice, and data equivalent to an Obamaphone is $20/mo versus $35 for a land line which only provides voice. For most people landlines make sense only if you talk for hours on the phone each day or you need it for DSL. For low income people that have to move often, as many do, land lines make no sense at all because of the transfer and installation costs. BTW, an Obamaphone can be a landline phone but it is not encouraged because they no longer pay for wiring, the phone, installations, or any service calls.

Telephone service has always been granted special taxes for providing service to areas for which there would otherwise be no justification for doing so. From the beginning of the AT&T monopoly in the 1920's, or so,until a couple of decades ago, AT&T was granted the right to charge extremely high long distance rates in order to recover "long line" costs to these rural areas.

I usually end any conversation, right away, when they mention "obamaphones". The law was originally signed by Reagan for land lines. All Obama did was to extend the program to include cell phones. The RW knows this, but have become obsessed with calling them "obamaphones", like they bring up the "57 states" quote, even though they know that he ment "57 stops". In short, they are just trying to piss liberals off with misinformation and a simple unintentional slip of the tongue. These are sure fire trolling comments, and further discussion is pointless, in my opinion.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Let's get a few things straight. First of all, what is being provided is phone and message service. The funds to provide the service does not come from the federal goverment but from the Universal Service Fund which is funded by a tax on cell phone usage and contributions by cell phone companies. This fund is managed independently from the US government. The dollars proved are those needed to provide a fixed number minutes of cell phone usage and message service. Cell providers may add a teaser of .25 to .5 GB of data usage a month but that is not paid for by the service fund.

Correct. Now can you explain the difference between that and a tax? Where do you think the cell phone companies get that money from? That's right, paying cell phone customers like myself. Given the fact most people have a cell phone today, it's a tax on everybody rich, poor or anything in between. It's actually a hidden tax many don't even know about. Plus I'm sure it's a tax write-off for the cell phone companies.

For your information, schools today require a parent to provide a phone number that they can be reached any time in case of an emergency or an issue involving their child. No, giving a number of a friend or neighbor is not what they are looking for. Employers not only expect a potential employee to provide a number but they but they expect all employees to provide such a number. Lastly, new HUD housing requires that a tenant have a phone to report fires and other emergencies as well as providing contact information. Having phone communications today is not just a convenience, but a necessity.

All of which can be done with a cheaper phone like a landline. I provided my mother with a cell phone for when she has no access to a landline. She never uses it. When I get the bill at the end of the month, it shows how much time and data each phone used. My mothers phone? None usually.

Why is that? Because my mother doesn't like to use the phone for one even though I have an unlimited plan for both of us, and two, mostly because my mother doesn't work or go many places because she doesn't drive. When somebody takes her somewhere, they always have a phone so she never needs hers.

People can get along fine with just a landline. WTF did we do when we didn't have cell phones years ago? I know people that still don't have one even though they could easily afford it.

I never claimed it wasn't a tax. I said, "it was funded by the Universal Service Fund which is funded by a tax on cell phone usage". The tax is also levied on internet service providers, and internet backbone providers.

The primary focus of the fund has been to provide broadband service as well as voice in areas ignored by the private sector because of high cost and low profit potential. These include schools, libraries, tribal land, and much of the vast low populated areas of the country. If you look at your cell phone provider's map of the country, you will see large sections of mountains and desert land now has coverage. When you stop at a motel in very rural areas, you will usually find an internet connection. Today a number of states are reporting over 97% of their schools are providing broadband access to both teachers and students. Much this is due to funds provided by USF and USF contracts.

The Lifeline phones, now referred to as “Obamaphones” by critics, are offered to low-income people, who are given an inexpensive phone with a limited number of voice and text minutes. The service, however, is not new. It actually began back in 1984 as a land-line program to make sure poor people would have a service that allows them to keep in contact with their families and to help them in job searches and emergencies.

In my area, cell phone service for text, voice, and data equivalent to an Obamaphone is $20/mo versus $35 for a land line which only provides voice. For most people landlines make sense only if you talk for hours on the phone each day or you need it for DSL. For low income people that have to move often, as many do, land lines make no sense at all because of the transfer and installation costs. BTW, an Obamaphone can be a landline phone but it is not encouraged because they no longer pay for wiring, the phone, installations, or any service calls.

Telephone service has always been granted special taxes for providing service to areas for which there would otherwise be no justification for doing so. From the beginning of the AT&T monopoly in the 1920's, or so,until a couple of decades ago, AT&T was granted the right to charge extremely high long distance rates in order to recover "long line" costs to these rural areas.

I usually end any conversation, right away, when they mention "obamaphones". The law was originally signed by Reagan for land lines. All Obama did was to extend the program to include cell phones. The RW knows this, but have become obsessed with calling them "obamaphones", like they bring up the "57 states" quote, even though they know that he ment "57 stops". In short, they are just trying to piss liberals off with misinformation and a simple unintentional slip of the tongue. These are sure fire trolling comments, and further discussion is pointless, in my opinion.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Let's get a few things straight. First of all, what is being provided is phone and message service. The funds to provide the service does not come from the federal goverment but from the Universal Service Fund which is funded by a tax on cell phone usage and contributions by cell phone companies. This fund is managed independently from the US government. The dollars proved are those needed to provide a fixed number minutes of cell phone usage and message service. Cell providers may add a teaser of .25 to .5 GB of data usage a month but that is not paid for by the service fund.

Correct. Now can you explain the difference between that and a tax? Where do you think the cell phone companies get that money from? That's right, paying cell phone customers like myself. Given the fact most people have a cell phone today, it's a tax on everybody rich, poor or anything in between. It's actually a hidden tax many don't even know about. Plus I'm sure it's a tax write-off for the cell phone companies.

For your information, schools today require a parent to provide a phone number that they can be reached any time in case of an emergency or an issue involving their child. No, giving a number of a friend or neighbor is not what they are looking for. Employers not only expect a potential employee to provide a number but they but they expect all employees to provide such a number. Lastly, new HUD housing requires that a tenant have a phone to report fires and other emergencies as well as providing contact information. Having phone communications today is not just a convenience, but a necessity.

All of which can be done with a cheaper phone like a landline. I provided my mother with a cell phone for when she has no access to a landline. She never uses it. When I get the bill at the end of the month, it shows how much time and data each phone used. My mothers phone? None usually.

Why is that? Because my mother doesn't like to use the phone for one even though I have an unlimited plan for both of us, and two, mostly because my mother doesn't work or go many places because she doesn't drive. When somebody takes her somewhere, they always have a phone so she never needs hers.

People can get along fine with just a landline. WTF did we do when we didn't have cell phones years ago? I know people that still don't have one even though they could easily afford it.

I never claimed it wasn't a tax. I said, "it was funded by the Universal Service Fund which is funded by a tax on cell phone usage". The tax is also levied on internet service providers, and internet backbone providers.

The primary focus of the fund has been to provide broadband service as well as voice in areas ignored by the private sector because of high cost and low profit potential. These include schools, libraries, tribal land, and much of the vast low populated areas of the country. If you look at your cell phone provider's map of the country, you will see large sections of mountains and desert land now has coverage. When you stop at a motel in very rural areas, you will usually find an internet connection. Today a number of states are reporting over 97% of their schools are providing broadband access to both teachers and students. Much this is due to funds provided by USF and USF contracts.

The Lifeline phones, now referred to as “Obamaphones” by critics, are offered to low-income people, who are given an inexpensive phone with a limited number of voice and text minutes. The service, however, is not new. It actually began back in 1984 as a land-line program to make sure poor people would have a service that allows them to keep in contact with their families and to help them in job searches and emergencies.

In my area, cell phone service for text, voice, and data equivalent to an Obamaphone is $20/mo versus $35 for a land line which only provides voice. For most people landlines make sense only if you talk for hours on the phone each day or you need it for DSL. For low income people that have to move often, as many do, land lines make no sense at all because of the transfer and installation costs. BTW, an Obamaphone can be a landline phone but it is not encouraged because they no longer pay for wiring, the phone, installations, or any service calls.

Maybe in you area. Over here, landlines are still much less expensive than cells. One of my tenants keeps her landline for long distance calls, and for unlimited service, she's paying about eight dollars a month.
Many cable providers offer package deals for television, internet and landline phone. Yes, they do provide internet in rural areas, and guess who pays for that? Thank our friendly neighborhood Al Gore for that one too.

In any case, if these phones were to be used only for the things you say, you don't need 100 minutes a month yet alone 250. There are many times I don't come close to 200 minutes a month, and I use my phone for my full-time job, personal use as well as for my apartment dealings. It's more pandering to the lazy.

Now I'll address what you said about the cost of an Obama Phone. You said it costs about 20 bucks a month. Why can't a lowlife work three hours at McDonald's a month and pay for their own Fn phone?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

No whites have been the most racist. When you make laws and policy on purpose to deny rights of people based on color, then talk about people of color as you have done, you are making a false equivalence.

They're also the dumbest.

Reading this board proves that rabid racists are easily the most dull witted people on the planet.

The world be a better place without these inbred, cracker trailer trash but since we can't declare open season on our human garbage, we can always hope they'll secede. We could keep the people of color and throw out the trash.

That won't happen either. No way they'd ever give up the free ride they US gives them.


.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I'll admit that requiring education and training is probably a good way to reduce the overall level of poverty. It makes the person more able to earn more money too.

Typical liberal. Fuzzy, empty thinking. The solution for every problem is "more education", which usually just means "they just need to think like me".

You really need to quit listening to right wing talk radio.

And considering what conservative policy has wrought, perhaps you might want to strongly think about becoming a liberal.

They're not smart enough to be liberals.

And they're way too lazy.


.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No whites have been the most racist. When you make laws and policy on purpose to deny rights of people based on color, then talk about people of color as you have done, you are making a false equivalence.

They're also the dumbest.

Reading this board proves that rabid racists are easily the most dull witted people on the planet.

The world be a better place without these inbred, cracker trailer trash but since we can't declare open season on our human garbage, we can always hope they'll secede. We could keep the people of color and throw out the trash.

That won't happen either. No way they'd ever give up the free ride they US gives them.


.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

There are plenty of other countries that think like you. Why don't you move to one of them?

You want to see what would happen if liberals "weeded out" conservatives or Republicans. Then tell your leaders you support dividing this country in half: liberals on one side, and conservatives on the other.

Nothing would make me happier I can tell you that. Imagine living in a country with no liberals around; what a blessing.

If we chose my side of the country and liberals had to move out, my property value would double overnight. We could layoff half of our police officers because of the reduction of crime. Most of our prisons would be emptied out too and transferred to your side. All the businesses would move here because of low taxation and much less regulation.

On your side, taxation would be almost everything a person works for. Half of the people would be on the dole and living off the other half that worked. Crime would be at epidemic proportions because your citizens wouldn't be able to defend themselves with no guns. After the working had enough with giving everything to the government, they would be crawling over the wall we built to get to our side.

 

[cnelsen]

I'll admit that requiring education and training is probably a good way to reduce the overall level of poverty. It makes the person more able to earn more money too.

Typical liberal. Fuzzy, empty thinking. The solution for every problem is "more education", which usually just means "they just need to think like me".

You really need to quit listening to right wing talk radio.

And considering what conservative policy has wrought, perhaps you might want to strongly think about becoming a liberal.

They're not smart enough to be liberals.

And they're way too lazy.


.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

The racist, anti-Christian bigot, Luddly Neddite, wants to attack me but has neither the courage nor the intellectual capacity to do so. So, instead, he rants against unspecified "crackers". Pathetically, lacking the imagination to devise particular insults, he relies on easy stereotypes to give voice to his impotence. Since joining this board not too long ago, I have had several engagements with him in which I would challenge some claim of his, or ridicule some infantile notion he'd proffered, but he is unable to contest in such an open manner. He disappears only to resurface in the manner you see here: as a weakling and a bully.

 

[danielpalos]

Let's get a few things straight. First of all, what is being provided is phone and message service. The funds to provide the service does not come from the federal goverment but from the Universal Service Fund which is funded by a tax on cell phone usage and contributions by cell phone companies. This fund is managed independently from the US government. The dollars proved are those needed to provide a fixed number minutes of cell phone usage and message service. Cell providers may add a teaser of .25 to .5 GB of data usage a month but that is not paid for by the service fund.

Correct. Now can you explain the difference between that and a tax? Where do you think the cell phone companies get that money from? That's right, paying cell phone customers like myself. Given the fact most people have a cell phone today, it's a tax on everybody rich, poor or anything in between. It's actually a hidden tax many don't even know about. Plus I'm sure it's a tax write-off for the cell phone companies.

For your information, schools today require a parent to provide a phone number that they can be reached any time in case of an emergency or an issue involving their child. No, giving a number of a friend or neighbor is not what they are looking for. Employers not only expect a potential employee to provide a number but they but they expect all employees to provide such a number. Lastly, new HUD housing requires that a tenant have a phone to report fires and other emergencies as well as providing contact information. Having phone communications today is not just a convenience, but a necessity.

All of which can be done with a cheaper phone like a landline. I provided my mother with a cell phone for when she has no access to a landline. She never uses it. When I get the bill at the end of the month, it shows how much time and data each phone used. My mothers phone? None usually.

Why is that? Because my mother doesn't like to use the phone for one even though I have an unlimited plan for both of us, and two, mostly because my mother doesn't work or go many places because she doesn't drive. When somebody takes her somewhere, they always have a phone so she never needs hers.

People can get along fine with just a landline. WTF did we do when we didn't have cell phones years ago? I know people that still don't have one even though they could easily afford it.

I never claimed it wasn't a tax. I said, "it was funded by the Universal Service Fund which is funded by a tax on cell phone usage". The tax is also levied on internet service providers, and internet backbone providers.

The primary focus of the fund has been to provide broadband service as well as voice in areas ignored by the private sector because of high cost and low profit potential. These include schools, libraries, tribal land, and much of the vast low populated areas of the country. If you look at your cell phone provider's map of the country, you will see large sections of mountains and desert land now has coverage. When you stop at a motel in very rural areas, you will usually find an internet connection. Today a number of states are reporting over 97% of their schools are providing broadband access to both teachers and students. Much this is due to funds provided by USF and USF contracts.

The Lifeline phones, now referred to as “Obamaphones” by critics, are offered to low-income people, who are given an inexpensive phone with a limited number of voice and text minutes. The service, however, is not new. It actually began back in 1984 as a land-line program to make sure poor people would have a service that allows them to keep in contact with their families and to help them in job searches and emergencies.

In my area, cell phone service for text, voice, and data equivalent to an Obamaphone is $20/mo versus $35 for a land line which only provides voice. For most people landlines make sense only if you talk for hours on the phone each day or you need it for DSL. For low income people that have to move often, as many do, land lines make no sense at all because of the transfer and installation costs. BTW, an Obamaphone can be a landline phone but it is not encouraged because they no longer pay for wiring, the phone, installations, or any service calls.

Maybe in you area. Over here, landlines are still much less expensive than cells. One of my tenants keeps her landline for long distance calls, and for unlimited service, she's paying about eight dollars a month.
Many cable providers offer package deals for television, internet and landline phone. Yes, they do provide internet in rural areas, and guess who pays for that? Thank our friendly neighborhood Al Gore for that one too.

In any case, if these phones were to be used only for the things you say, you don't need 100 minutes a month yet alone 250. There are many times I don't come close to 200 minutes a month, and I use my phone for my full-time job, personal use as well as for my apartment dealings. It's more pandering to the lazy.

Now I'll address what you said about the cost of an Obama Phone. You said it costs about 20 bucks a month. Why can't a lowlife work three hours at McDonald's a month and pay for their own Fn phone?

try asking an employer to let you work enough to pay for your phone.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I'll admit that requiring education and training is probably a good way to reduce the overall level of poverty. It makes the person more able to earn more money too.

Typical liberal. Fuzzy, empty thinking. The solution for every problem is "more education", which usually just means "they just need to think like me".

You really need to quit listening to right wing talk radio.

And considering what conservative policy has wrought, perhaps you might want to strongly think about becoming a liberal.

They're not smart enough to be liberals.

And they're way too lazy.


.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

The racist, anti-Christian bigot, Luddly Neddite, wants to attack me but has neither the courage nor the intellectual capacity to do so. So, instead, he rants against unspecified "crackers". Pathetically, lacking the imagination to devise particular insults, he relies on easy stereotypes to give voice to his impotence. Since joining this board not too long ago, I have had several engagements with him in which I would challenge some claim of his, or ridicule some infantile notion he'd proffered, but he is unable to contest in such an open manner. He disappears only to resurface in the manner you see here: as a weakling and a bully.

You are, indeed, a legend in your own mind.....

 

[Vandalshandle]

No whites have been the most racist. When you make laws and policy on purpose to deny rights of people based on color, then talk about people of color as you have done, you are making a false equivalence.

They're also the dumbest.

Reading this board proves that rabid racists are easily the most dull witted people on the planet.

The world be a better place without these inbred, cracker trailer trash but since we can't declare open season on our human garbage, we can always hope they'll secede. We could keep the people of color and throw out the trash.

That won't happen either. No way they'd ever give up the free ride they US gives them.


.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

There are plenty of other countries that think like you. Why don't you move to one of them?

You want to see what would happen if liberals "weeded out" conservatives or Republicans. Then tell your leaders you support dividing this country in half: liberals on one side, and conservatives on the other.

Nothing would make me happier I can tell you that. Imagine living in a country with no liberals around; what a blessing.

If we chose my side of the country and liberals had to move out, my property value would double overnight. We could layoff half of our police officers because of the reduction of crime. Most of our prisons would be emptied out too and transferred to your side. All the businesses would move here because of low taxation and much less regulation.

On your side, taxation would be almost everything a person works for. Half of the people would be on the dole and living off the other half that worked. Crime would be at epidemic proportions because your citizens wouldn't be able to defend themselves with no guns. After the working had enough with giving everything to the government, they would be crawling over the wall we built to get to our side.

 

[BrokeLoser]

No whites have been the most racist. When you make laws and policy on purpose to deny rights of people based on color, then talk about people of color as you have done, you are making a false equivalence.

They're also the dumbest.

Reading this board proves that rabid racists are easily the most dull witted people on the planet.

The world be a better place without these inbred, cracker trailer trash but since we can't declare open season on our human garbage, we can always hope they'll secede. We could keep the people of color and throw out the trash.

That won't happen either. No way they'd ever give up the free ride they US gives them.
Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

You backward fucking whack-jobs are so amusing...haha
Careful now...remember, never bite the hand that feeds your lowlife ass. I'm strongly considering not sending your sorry, dependent, filthy ass your EBT card this month after this bullshit. I'm seriously disgusted with you human pets.
I've provided you with the "human garbage" meter shown below...haha...ENJOY!
21.3% of US Participates in Government Assistance Programs Each Month
Who Participated in Welfare?
The black population: At 41.6 percent, blacks were more likely to participate in government assistance programs in an average month.
o The black participation rate was followed by Hispanics at 36.4 percent, Asians or Pacific
Islanders at 17.8 percent, and non-Hispanic whites at 13.2 percent.