If you're a Democrat
- Thread starter Fade
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2011
- Messages
- 3,692
- Reaction score
- 863
lol
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 614
- Reaction score
- 31
How an FCC Free Phone Program Went Rogue[/]
"Senator Claire McCaskill found an offer in the mail at her Washington condo last year that sounded too good to be true. The flier said the Missouri Democrat—a millionaire many times over—could apply for a free cell phone, complete with monthly service, paid for by the federal government. From what McCaskill could tell, “you just had to check the box” saying you met the income requirements, submit the form, and collect the phone, she says. The senator suspected something wasn't right and began looking into it. What she found was a federal giveaway gone astray: In some instances, the government is handing out multiple phones to the same people. And there is no national tracking system keeping tabs on who’s enrolled—or whether participants even qualify."
Wow, an easy way for Obama to buy votes. And he didn't even have to pay for them.
You did! Tacked right on to your phone bill, to the tune of 1.6 billion dollars last year.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2005
- Messages
- 5,144
- Reaction score
- 1,243
http://gawker.com/5947133/the-obama-phone-program-has-nothing-to-do-with-obama
...the government decided in the '80s (under Ronald Reagan, no less) to institute the Lifeline Assistance program. In 1996, Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act into law, which offered either cell phones or landline services to low-income Americans...
... If you live in one of those locales and your income is at or below 135 percent of the poverty line, or if you qualify for certain benefit programs like Medicaid and TANF, you can apply for a free cell phone that offers you 250 minutes of talk time per month. The people who are getting these phones aren't getting iPhones or other smartphones; they're often people in urban or rural areas who are being supplied with basic cell phones so they can call the hospital when they're sick, or receive calls if there's a problem with their child at school.
...If you're upset that Obama is giving "freeloaders" gratis cell phones paid for with your tax money, don't be. Firstly, Obama had nothing to do with the Lifeline program: the "Obama phone" narrative is a myth that both liberals and conservatives have fallen for since 2009. Secondly, Lifeline isn't paid for with tax revenues. Rather, Lifeline is funded with a pool of money, called the Universal Service Fund, which is paid for with revenue donations from telecommunications providers. Some of those providers—like Verizon, for instance—pass off that cost to their customers with a Universal Service fee, but the government doesn't mandate that the money come from citizens, meaning it's technically not a tax
...It is sort of sad that the woman in Drudge's "Obama phone" video has no idea that her free cell phone has nothing to do with Obama. But conservatives who would try and hold her up as an example of a liberal president gone wild with handouts are just as sad and ignorant, and more cruel by a large margin.
...the government decided in the '80s (under Ronald Reagan, no less) to institute the Lifeline Assistance program. In 1996, Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act into law, which offered either cell phones or landline services to low-income Americans...
... If you live in one of those locales and your income is at or below 135 percent of the poverty line, or if you qualify for certain benefit programs like Medicaid and TANF, you can apply for a free cell phone that offers you 250 minutes of talk time per month. The people who are getting these phones aren't getting iPhones or other smartphones; they're often people in urban or rural areas who are being supplied with basic cell phones so they can call the hospital when they're sick, or receive calls if there's a problem with their child at school.
...If you're upset that Obama is giving "freeloaders" gratis cell phones paid for with your tax money, don't be. Firstly, Obama had nothing to do with the Lifeline program: the "Obama phone" narrative is a myth that both liberals and conservatives have fallen for since 2009. Secondly, Lifeline isn't paid for with tax revenues. Rather, Lifeline is funded with a pool of money, called the Universal Service Fund, which is paid for with revenue donations from telecommunications providers. Some of those providers—like Verizon, for instance—pass off that cost to their customers with a Universal Service fee, but the government doesn't mandate that the money come from citizens, meaning it's technically not a tax
...It is sort of sad that the woman in Drudge's "Obama phone" video has no idea that her free cell phone has nothing to do with Obama. But conservatives who would try and hold her up as an example of a liberal president gone wild with handouts are just as sad and ignorant, and more cruel by a large margin.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2005
- Messages
- 5,144
- Reaction score
- 1,243
Sure but if it's over 'free phone's we need to lock up Reagan's corpse
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Messages
- 10,232
- Reaction score
- 3,006
Is this country great or what?!
Not only did she get a free Obama phone, but the SEIU provided transportation and payed her $11/hr to protest Romney!!
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Messages
- 7,713
- Reaction score
- 2,588
Lifeline: Affordable Telephone Service for Income-Eligible Consumers
Telecommunications Access for People with Disabilities
because decent people would prefer that a person with disabilities be able to get help when they need it rather than die in their own filth
This is just more hatred of poor people by the snobs who believe that predestination crap
this is a vile and unchristian attitude and everyone who thinks this way should be ashamed of themselves.
http://www.assurancewireless.com/Public/FAQs.aspx#faq23
this is Virgin Mobile service. And the phones you are ALLOWED to use (the one they SEND you) are not fancy assed phones. They are the Kyocera phones and that means they are SHIT. Yes, you can call 911 and get calls from a potential employer, but they don't send you a smart phone. It's nothing fancy. My 1st cell phone was with Virgin Mobile and I had several Kyocera phones and they are HORRIBLE.
there's no reason to be jealous of a poor person who gets a "free" Kyocera crap phone.
there's no Santa Claus on a corner throwing free phones in the air for everyone to grab
Telecommunications Access for People with Disabilities
because decent people would prefer that a person with disabilities be able to get help when they need it rather than die in their own filth
This is just more hatred of poor people by the snobs who believe that predestination crap
this is a vile and unchristian attitude and everyone who thinks this way should be ashamed of themselves.
http://www.assurancewireless.com/Public/FAQs.aspx#faq23
this is Virgin Mobile service. And the phones you are ALLOWED to use (the one they SEND you) are not fancy assed phones. They are the Kyocera phones and that means they are SHIT. Yes, you can call 911 and get calls from a potential employer, but they don't send you a smart phone. It's nothing fancy. My 1st cell phone was with Virgin Mobile and I had several Kyocera phones and they are HORRIBLE.
there's no reason to be jealous of a poor person who gets a "free" Kyocera crap phone.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Messages
- 10,232
- Reaction score
- 3,006
How you can tell if you have an Obama phone
When you make a call, a teleprompter pops up
Comes with a useless app called “Biden.”
It automatically screens calls from Republicans
When you ask it to dial "home", it calls Kenya.
It doesn’t have a plan; it just keeps telling you how bad the other guy’s plan is.
When it can't complete a call, it blames your previous phone.
All 3 AM calls go to voicemail.
Pairing it with another device just sucks all the energy out of the other unit.
Type in “job search” and it gives you directions to the nearest welfare office.
The navigation feature covers all 57 States.
There is no city named "Jerusalem"on the world map
The ringtone for international calls is “I’m sorry, so sorry, please accept my apology.”
The healthcare app downloads and installs itself without your permission.
If you get sick, it automatically price shops prepaid funeral plans
The phone is free, but it emails you every day asking for $5
When you make a call, a teleprompter pops up
Comes with a useless app called “Biden.”
It automatically screens calls from Republicans
When you ask it to dial "home", it calls Kenya.
It doesn’t have a plan; it just keeps telling you how bad the other guy’s plan is.
When it can't complete a call, it blames your previous phone.
All 3 AM calls go to voicemail.
Pairing it with another device just sucks all the energy out of the other unit.
Type in “job search” and it gives you directions to the nearest welfare office.
The navigation feature covers all 57 States.
There is no city named "Jerusalem"on the world map
The ringtone for international calls is “I’m sorry, so sorry, please accept my apology.”
The healthcare app downloads and installs itself without your permission.
If you get sick, it automatically price shops prepaid funeral plans
The phone is free, but it emails you every day asking for $5
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 614
- Reaction score
- 31
I posted a link to an article about the service "Going Rogue" since Obama got in office and apparently the Socialists on this board couldn't be bothered to read something a rich Democrat had to say.
So here it is in a nut shell.
It was started in 1985 to provide discounted land-line service for low-income families, it was not free, only discounted.
In 1996 (under Bill Clinton no less) it became a free program and included cell phones. The program then exploded.
Even then it was a relatively small program costing in the low millions of dollars per year.
In the first 23 years the cost had risen to $772 million a year.
In the first 3 years under Obama, the program went from $772 million a year to $1.6 billion dollars a year.
As for who pays these fees.
I never said that the program was funded with tax money. I said that you were paying for it on your bill.
The phone companies are not going to absorb a 17.5% fee themselves, they either add them directly to your bill or they are hidden in the basic charge.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. Well maybe there is for the 269,000 cell phone subscribers (free loaders) who were receiving free phones and service from two or more carriers.
Those 269,000 people will be some of the same folks who don't want to show a photo ID come voting time.
So here it is in a nut shell.
It was started in 1985 to provide discounted land-line service for low-income families, it was not free, only discounted.
In 1996 (under Bill Clinton no less) it became a free program and included cell phones. The program then exploded.
Even then it was a relatively small program costing in the low millions of dollars per year.
In the first 23 years the cost had risen to $772 million a year.
In the first 3 years under Obama, the program went from $772 million a year to $1.6 billion dollars a year.
As for who pays these fees.
I never said that the program was funded with tax money. I said that you were paying for it on your bill.
The phone companies are not going to absorb a 17.5% fee themselves, they either add them directly to your bill or they are hidden in the basic charge.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. Well maybe there is for the 269,000 cell phone subscribers (free loaders) who were receiving free phones and service from two or more carriers.
Those 269,000 people will be some of the same folks who don't want to show a photo ID come voting time.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2005
- Messages
- 5,144
- Reaction score
- 1,243
@Fade,
If your number is right it's 269/12500 or ~ 2% error/defraud rate. That's not really too much out of line with the retail industry's 1.7% loss. That, of course, doesn't excuse it but it does put it in perspective.
Are those people going to double vote? Well we have no evidence to demonstrate they vote at all, let alone double vote. But again let's look at the error it's 269K/ 300 Million. Assuming everyone voted, and assuming every double phone user reulted in two votes that'd add .089% error to the voting. Or we'd have a 99.911% accurate election.
Now let's look at costs. I'll use Minnesota because I know those numbers. The recently vetoed Voter-ID law would add a cost of $36Million to the State, $24Million to Counties, and $12 Million directly in costs to families to take time off, use gas and get a Voter -ID. The $72Million is if we believe the Republican estimates of their own design. External agencies add about 50%. (Let's use the low numbers.) We have about 2million eligible voters. Each one would have to pay this cost or roughly $36 each. Now it's not like this tax is a one time thing. The system needs to be maintained every year. (We'll ignore those costs for ease.) Expand this to the USA and that cost is $10.8Billion in expenses.
The first question I ask is what is the R.O.I. Well we have some numbers that would reflect this. 99.9% accurate election will be changed by $10.8 Billion. (Don't forget I gave the benefit of doubt assuming all double phone users voted twice and all costs were at the low level predicted by Republicans.) In reality the ratio of these two numbers is a bit worse.
Now we have to ask how this is paid. I think we have to add that to our taxes somehow. A poll tax is illegal so the user pays system is not an option.
Finally we have to ask is what does this $10.8Billion change? It certainly adds hardship to many people. We now have an ID we use only every year, at best, and often every 4 years. We have additional costs to bear in the system to keep addresses and such accurate. Will the additional burden result in lowering the already low % of voting population? Minnesota was the best last election at nearly 75%. On average it was only 60%. This means we have a system were we don't know the will of 1/2 the people already. If this lowers the voting population, and those are likely people that are legal to vote, it produces even a worse result. If we have 40% unknown does having a greater unknown help to establish the will of the people? Again I say no.
Voter-ID - unlikely to increase the accuracy of the election and adds cost at a time we all want the government to spend less. It's truly a solution begging for a problem.
EDIT: This isn't too off. Republicans are taking themselves with finding voter fraud. Even their best can't come up with better than 1/10th of 1%
If your number is right it's 269/12500 or ~ 2% error/defraud rate. That's not really too much out of line with the retail industry's 1.7% loss. That, of course, doesn't excuse it but it does put it in perspective.
Are those people going to double vote? Well we have no evidence to demonstrate they vote at all, let alone double vote. But again let's look at the error it's 269K/ 300 Million. Assuming everyone voted, and assuming every double phone user reulted in two votes that'd add .089% error to the voting. Or we'd have a 99.911% accurate election.
Now let's look at costs. I'll use Minnesota because I know those numbers. The recently vetoed Voter-ID law would add a cost of $36Million to the State, $24Million to Counties, and $12 Million directly in costs to families to take time off, use gas and get a Voter -ID. The $72Million is if we believe the Republican estimates of their own design. External agencies add about 50%. (Let's use the low numbers.) We have about 2million eligible voters. Each one would have to pay this cost or roughly $36 each. Now it's not like this tax is a one time thing. The system needs to be maintained every year. (We'll ignore those costs for ease.) Expand this to the USA and that cost is $10.8Billion in expenses.
The first question I ask is what is the R.O.I. Well we have some numbers that would reflect this. 99.9% accurate election will be changed by $10.8 Billion. (Don't forget I gave the benefit of doubt assuming all double phone users voted twice and all costs were at the low level predicted by Republicans.) In reality the ratio of these two numbers is a bit worse.
Now we have to ask how this is paid. I think we have to add that to our taxes somehow. A poll tax is illegal so the user pays system is not an option.
Finally we have to ask is what does this $10.8Billion change? It certainly adds hardship to many people. We now have an ID we use only every year, at best, and often every 4 years. We have additional costs to bear in the system to keep addresses and such accurate. Will the additional burden result in lowering the already low % of voting population? Minnesota was the best last election at nearly 75%. On average it was only 60%. This means we have a system were we don't know the will of 1/2 the people already. If this lowers the voting population, and those are likely people that are legal to vote, it produces even a worse result. If we have 40% unknown does having a greater unknown help to establish the will of the people? Again I say no.
Voter-ID - unlikely to increase the accuracy of the election and adds cost at a time we all want the government to spend less. It's truly a solution begging for a problem.
EDIT: This isn't too off. Republicans are taking themselves with finding voter fraud. Even their best can't come up with better than 1/10th of 1%
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Messages
- 10,232
- Reaction score
- 3,006
You made a fine case of why drivers licences should be eliminated, and no one should have to present an ID to cash a check, because check fraud is virtually non existent!
Almost everyone already has an ID for other reasons, to require a Voter to present an ID does not cause everyone to have to get a new ID, they already have one.
Large scale voter fraud is voting in multiple states
easy way to do it, early vote in Illinois, then go to Wisconsin on election day, you can register at polls and vote again. You could also go to Indiana and vote again, but you would have had to register there ahead of time
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2005
- Messages
- 5,144
- Reaction score
- 1,243
Driver's Licenses and Photo ID cards cost $. Per previous law one cannot charge for Voting. That is an illegal poll tax. if we wnt to use DL then States can no longer charge for the IDs. As for showing ID I can't remember the last time I had a check. And no one ever asks for ID with my debit or credit cards. Seems to me I don't use ID much more often now than we had in society 20 years ago. Also remember you must Swear to your ID when you sign the voting polls. Republicans investigating illegally professed I'd are finding, at best, 1/10 of 1% worth investigating. It'll be interesting to see what % of those are real.
As for your claim of large scale voter fraud Republicans are investigating and appear to have found none of your claim happening.
Again an answer without a problem
As for your claim of large scale voter fraud Republicans are investigating and appear to have found none of your claim happening.
Again an answer without a problem
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 614
- Reaction score
- 31
Faethor gripped:
"Driver's Licenses and Photo ID cards cost $. Per previous law one cannot charge for Voting."
----------------------------------
Fine Faethor! Just bring that free one you get when you are born. Everyone gets one if they are born here.
You got one. I got one. Everyone has one. Even Obama claims he has one.
Problem solved,. and it didn't cost you a dime.
I'll bet you find something wrong with that though.
On a side note; Biden now says you can get a free ass reaming if you want one. I wonder how many extra votes that will get Obama.
"Driver's Licenses and Photo ID cards cost $. Per previous law one cannot charge for Voting."
----------------------------------
Fine Faethor! Just bring that free one you get when you are born. Everyone gets one if they are born here.
You got one. I got one. Everyone has one. Even Obama claims he has one.
Problem solved,. and it didn't cost you a dime.
I'll bet you find something wrong with that though.
On a side note; Biden now says you can get a free ass reaming if you want one. I wonder how many extra votes that will get Obama.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2011
- Messages
- 3,692
- Reaction score
- 863
you got a photo ID at birth? I was born at Westover air force base... I did not
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2005
- Messages
- 5,144
- Reaction score
- 1,243
Ah yes the Social Security card. It has no picture, no identifying characteristics. Families have been known to not report deaths and use the SS card to continue to get benefits. The ID # is fairly easy to come by on the internet for most anyone. Print out your own card shouldn't be hard. If you want a Voter-ID that isn't much better than none.
Though I like your creativity. Too bad other Republicans purposing these systems can't seem to figure out free and instead want to increase your taxes to protect the 99.9% of us against that .1%.
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 614
- Reaction score
- 31
Poor Faethor. Couldn't figure out that I was talking about a real birth certificate. You know, the one that has your foot print on it, and a raised seal. The very one you need in order to get your very first photo ID.
Hey RLB, isn't Westover air force base one of the places that require a photo ID just to get in?
Hey RLB, isn't Westover air force base one of the places that require a photo ID just to get in?