I cell phone is not a necessity then why do they get them free when your on welfare

[Neotrotsky]

That's what happens when the loafers and spongers no longer get their "freebees". I expect to see every major metropolitan venue in flames if obama loses his bid for a second round of give-aways.

Worse
image if it was an electoral loss but not popular vote

You would really hear the cries from the MSM and the left
to throw out the Constitution and fueling the anger of the disgruntled
Papa Obama voters.

 

[Lovebears65]

What irritates me is how the lie the topic presents is exposed with facts, yet the right wing keeps on repeating it. You yourself, repeated the claim that the taxpayers are footing the bill. It seems that the right wing here haven't an ounce of integrity, and don't care about things like honesty, if it gets in their way of bashing the poor for their petty political gain.

So who is footing the bills then. If you say the government then YES we are footing the bill because they get the money from US

The USAC receives its funding from telcom company fees.

That fee goes to the government so that they can provide them with cell phones. Who pays the fees.PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY HAVE TO PAY FOR THEIR service. what is the difference We are still paying for them to have the damn thing

 

[chanel]

Ah the old " it's not a tax; it's a fee" line. I wonder which Dems love more.

 

[Dick Tuck]

So who is footing the bills then. If you say the government then YES we are footing the bill because they get the money from US

The USAC receives its funding from telcom company fees.

That fee goes to the government so that they can provide them with cell phones. Who pays the fees.PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY HAVE TO PAY FOR THEIR service. what is the difference We are still paying for them to have the damn thing

It doesn't really matter, but the basic idea goes back to 1938, and the current law was signed by Bush in 2008. Why are the scumbags on the right trying to pin the whole thing on Obama? Is it because they're just lying trash?

 

[Dick Tuck]

Ah the old " it's not a tax; it's a fee" line. I wonder which Dems love more.

What did Bush love about it, since he signed the current law?

 

[francoHFW]

a GOOD DEAL FOR THE PHONE COMPANY, THE GOV'T, THE ue- EVERYONE BUT MISLED DUPES/HATERS. iT'S A $6 PHONE . (oops) BFD, morons.

 

[Lakhota]

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.

FactCheck.org : The Obama Phone?

 

[chanel]

Yep. Bush's program. Obama is Bush on steroids.

In 2008, 107,715 people in Illinois received the free wireless phones. Last year, the number soared to 569,635, a 429-percent increase.

Nationally, 13 million people signed up for the free cell phone program at a cost of $1.2 billion

"There's no need or no reason for government to be doing this. It just teaches the wrong lesson to folks that they don't have to be responsible for things like this," said Republican Congressman Joe Walsh, who represents the northwest suburbs.

In recent months, the FCC has started cracking down after the agency found 400,000 people received multiple phones.

400,000 people defrauding the govt. I'm sure the libs will defend this.

 

[Sarah G]

Yep. Bush's program. Obama is Bush on steroids.

In 2008, 107,715 people in Illinois received the free wireless phones. Last year, the number soared to 569,635, a 429-percent increase.

Nationally, 13 million people signed up for the free cell phone program at a cost of $1.2 billion

"There's no need or no reason for government to be doing this. It just teaches the wrong lesson to folks that they don't have to be responsible for things like this," said Republican Congressman Joe Walsh, who represents the northwest suburbs.

In recent months, the FCC has started cracking down after the agency found 400,000 people received multiple phones.

400,000 people defrauding the govt. I'm sure the libs will defend this.

Sweet. The poor shouldn't be allowed to have a device that may save their lives at some point..

 

[jillian]

Yep. Bush's program. Obama is Bush on steroids.

In 2008, 107,715 people in Illinois received the free wireless phones. Last year, the number soared to 569,635, a 429-percent increase.

Nationally, 13 million people signed up for the free cell phone program at a cost of $1.2 billion

"There's no need or no reason for government to be doing this. It just teaches the wrong lesson to folks that they don't have to be responsible for things like this," said Republican Congressman Joe Walsh, who represents the northwest suburbs.

In recent months, the FCC has started cracking down after the agency found 400,000 people received multiple phones.

400,000 people defrauding the govt. I'm sure the libs will defend this.

1. i question your numbers.
2. i don't think fraud is defensible. were the multiple phones for them and their kids? spouses? etc. let me know when you have your facts.
3. but not acknowledging the need for such phones, particularly where such phones may be in lieu of landlines, is absurd.

but typical rightwingnuttiness...

and given who the o/p is, i'm going to figure it's nonsense, anyway.

 

[Claudette]

Nothing is for free folks. We taxpayers foot the bills for all the freebies out there.

Good deal if your collecting that freebee. Not so good if your the one paying for it.

 

[Sarah G]

Yep. Bush's program. Obama is Bush on steroids.

In 2008, 107,715 people in Illinois received the free wireless phones. Last year, the number soared to 569,635, a 429-percent increase.

Nationally, 13 million people signed up for the free cell phone program at a cost of $1.2 billion

"There's no need or no reason for government to be doing this. It just teaches the wrong lesson to folks that they don't have to be responsible for things like this," said Republican Congressman Joe Walsh, who represents the northwest suburbs.

In recent months, the FCC has started cracking down after the agency found 400,000 people received multiple phones.

400,000 people defrauding the govt. I'm sure the libs will defend this.

1. i question your numbers.
2. i don't think fraud is defensible. were the multiple phones for them and their kids? spouses? etc. let me know when you have your facts.
3. but not acknowledging the need for such phones, particularly where such phones may be in lieu of landlines, is absurd.

but typical rightwingnuttiness...

and given who the o/p is, i'm going to figure it's nonsense, anyway.

These are not full service phones, there is a need. Landlines are fine but having a phone on your person in case of emergencies when you're on the road is better. The poor generally don't have great running cars and the kids are walking to and from school on the mean streets.

I would give my child the phone when they have to be on their own. This really isn't a luxury.

 

[Sarah G]

Nothing is for free folks. We taxpayers foot the bills for all the freebies out there.

Good deal if your collecting that freebee. Not so good if your the one paying for it.

Oh Claudette, you aren't paying for anything. You're sitting on your ass posting.

 

[chanel]

Yep. Bush's program. Obama is Bush on steroids.

In 2008, 107,715 people in Illinois received the free wireless phones. Last year, the number soared to 569,635, a 429-percent increase.

Nationally, 13 million people signed up for the free cell phone program at a cost of $1.2 billion

"There's no need or no reason for government to be doing this. It just teaches the wrong lesson to folks that they don't have to be responsible for things like this," said Republican Congressman Joe Walsh, who represents the northwest suburbs.

In recent months, the FCC has started cracking down after the agency found 400,000 people received multiple phones.

400,000 people defrauding the govt. I'm sure the libs will defend this.

1. i question your numbers.
2. i don't think fraud is defensible. were the multiple phones for them and their kids? spouses? etc. let me know when you have your facts.
3. but not acknowledging the need for such phones, particularly where such phones may be in lieu of landlines, is absurd.

but typical rightwingnuttiness...

and given who the o/p is, i'm going to figure it's nonsense, anyway.

1. From ABC Chicago: Taxpayers foot bill for free government cell phones | abc7chicago.com
2. Um. A normal person doesn't need two phones. Obviously friends/family members were getting the extra ones. The law says "one". Getting more than one is fraud.
3. I'm ok with landlines for emergency purposes. Cell phones are a luxury.

Keep defending this. As more of this shit is brought to light, moderate people will be leaning right.

 

[jillian]

Yep. Bush's program. Obama is Bush on steroids.



400,000 people defrauding the govt. I'm sure the libs will defend this.

1. i question your numbers.
2. i don't think fraud is defensible. were the multiple phones for them and their kids? spouses? etc. let me know when you have your facts.
3. but not acknowledging the need for such phones, particularly where such phones may be in lieu of landlines, is absurd.

but typical rightwingnuttiness...

and given who the o/p is, i'm going to figure it's nonsense, anyway.

These are not full service phones, there is a need. Landlines are fine but having a phone on your person in case of emergencies when you're on the road is better. The poor generally don't have great running cars and the kids are walking to and from school on the mean streets.

I would give my child the phone when they have to be on their own. This really isn't a luxury.

exactly.

my son got a phone as soon as someone else had to pick him up from school and bring him either to home or to his tae kwon do classes (where i would then pick him up when i got out of work). i don't think being poor means your kids have to be unsafe.

i don't think being poor means anyone has to be unsafe.

but if they didn't have fauxrage, they'd have nothing.

 

[Sarah G]

1. i question your numbers.
2. i don't think fraud is defensible. were the multiple phones for them and their kids? spouses? etc. let me know when you have your facts.
3. but not acknowledging the need for such phones, particularly where such phones may be in lieu of landlines, is absurd.

but typical rightwingnuttiness...

and given who the o/p is, i'm going to figure it's nonsense, anyway.

These are not full service phones, there is a need. Landlines are fine but having a phone on your person in case of emergencies when you're on the road is better. The poor generally don't have great running cars and the kids are walking to and from school on the mean streets.

I would give my child the phone when they have to be on their own. This really isn't a luxury.

exactly.

my son got a phone as soon as someone else had to pick him up from school and bring him either to home or to his tae kwon do classes (where i would then pick him up when i got out of work). i don't think being poor means your kids have to be unsafe.

i don't think being poor means anyone has to be unsafe.

but if they didn't have fauxrage, they'd have nothing.

Yeah, fauxrage, a popular theme around here.

I understand that business is business but I just disagree with people being denied necessaties just because they are too poor to pay. I can't stand hearing that people have their utilities shut off, they have no phone, they are starving. We are still a very rich nation and giving away freebies to mammoth corporations then complaining about the poor having a line of communication is ridiculous. It's stupid.

 

[jillian]

These are not full service phones, there is a need. Landlines are fine but having a phone on your person in case of emergencies when you're on the road is better. The poor generally don't have great running cars and the kids are walking to and from school on the mean streets.

I would give my child the phone when they have to be on their own. This really isn't a luxury.

exactly.

my son got a phone as soon as someone else had to pick him up from school and bring him either to home or to his tae kwon do classes (where i would then pick him up when i got out of work). i don't think being poor means your kids have to be unsafe.

i don't think being poor means anyone has to be unsafe.

but if they didn't have fauxrage, they'd have nothing.

Yeah, fauxrage, a popular theme around here.

I understand that business is business but I just disagree with people being denied necessaties just because they are too poor to pay. I can't stand hearing that people have their utilities shut off, they have no phone, they are starving. We are still a very rich nation and giving away freebies to mammoth corporations then complaining about the poor having a line of communication is ridiculous. It's stupid.

all correct. but my larger objection is that the people who are so "offended" by this don't care that their presidential candidate pays a tax rate of 15%....

or that we spend a fortune every day on two wars of choice...

while saying we need to cut teahers benefits and salaries...

they've got their priorities butt backward.

 

[Claudette]

Nothing is for free folks. We taxpayers foot the bills for all the freebies out there.

Good deal if your collecting that freebee. Not so good if your the one paying for it.

Oh Claudette, you aren't paying for anything. You're sitting on your ass posting.

Yup. I'm sitting on my ass posting just like you.

I'm also working and paying taxes. I assume the same of you.

Therefore we who work and pay taxes are paying for the freebies.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Yep. Bush's program. Obama is Bush on steroids.

In 2008, 107,715 people in Illinois received the free wireless phones. Last year, the number soared to 569,635, a 429-percent increase.

Nationally, 13 million people signed up for the free cell phone program at a cost of $1.2 billion

"There's no need or no reason for government to be doing this. It just teaches the wrong lesson to folks that they don't have to be responsible for things like this," said Republican Congressman Joe Walsh, who represents the northwest suburbs.

In recent months, the FCC has started cracking down after the agency found 400,000 people received multiple phones.

400,000 people defrauding the govt. I'm sure the libs will defend this.

The Left does not care about the fraud
They want as many people as possible dependent on gov't

Same reason the Left wants to push tax rates for All over the 50% mark - like in Europe

Once the gov't takes more than half of your disposable income, they will force all to "depend" on gov't in some form. Really, the higher the better...

 

[Neotrotsky]

Nothing is for free folks. We taxpayers foot the bills for all the freebies out there.

Good deal if your collecting that freebee. Not so good if your the one paying for it.

Oh Claudette, you aren't paying for anything. You're sitting on your ass posting.

Yup. I'm sitting on my ass posting just like you.

I'm also working and paying taxes. I assume the same of you.

Therefore we who work and pay taxes are paying for the freebies.

The left loves to be charitable, with other people's money
and the gov't has such a good record in using it