• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obamaphones Being Sold For Drugs, Shoes Ect. (Video)[W:33]

Oh so it's Clinton's fault now? :lol:

The Lifeline program was actually created under Reagan to help the very poor and elderly with rotary phone land lines. You can't pawn those off for heroin. Maybe you should check your facts before you make a ridiculous post like this one.

I was refering to the cell phone program which was started in 1996 because that is what the poster was referring to not a land line.
 
This is a waste of time...maybe read the article, visit the website of the organization in charge of the program and actually do your due diligence in separating the bs from reality.

Given the links I've provided, and the excerpts, I think it would be hard to argue I haven't done my due dilligence...:cool:
 
Re: Obamaphones Being Sold For Drugs, Shoes Ect. (Video)

Oddly, the reforms happened 10 months before the election. Damn those facts...

What reforms? The costs in 2012 were 2.2B. You can claim all the reforms you like. Doesn't mean they are even remotely being enforced.You're only further undermining your own argument and credibility by pointing this out.

He actually does not have direct supervision. The Universal Service Administrative Company, which is independent, runs it. Damn it, facts again ruining your premise. I am sure facts are obama's fault too...

He's the President of the United States. He supervises everyone below him in the Federal Government. Stop trying to play the Obama doesn't govern card. He's not some innocent bystander to what's going on around him in Washington.
 
Given the links I've provided, and the excerpts, I think it would be hard to argue I haven't done my due dilligence...:cool:

How so?

Commission decisions in 2005 and 2008 allowed the program to subsidize wireless service. But without adequate protections in place, the program experienced rapid growth, and waste, fraud, and abuse were threatening its future. Over the past three years, the FCC has taken a series of steps to fundamentally reform the program, including:
• In March 2010, the National Broadband Plan recommended consideration of specific reforms to Lifeline to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse, including duplicate payments.
• In May 2010, the Commission directed the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service to make specific proposals for program reforms, and called out eligibility reviews and documentation requirements as particular areas of focus.
• In 2011, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to comprehensively reform the program, including proposals developed by the Joint Board.
• Also in 2011, the Commission adopted an order to eliminate duplicative Lifeline payments, which began saving the program money that year.
• In January 2012, the Commission unanimously adopted comprehensive reform to Lifeline, including:
o Requiring that Lifeline customers certify their eligibility with carriers every year. Carriers must de-enroll subscribers who are no longer eligible or do not recertify.
 Subscribers had to recertify by Dec 31, 2012 and carriers were required to report the results to the FCC by January 31, 2013. De-enrollments will be reflected in the disbursements for the first quarter of 2013.
 Analysis of six major carriers shows that 33% of their Lifeline subscribers – 3.3 million subscribers – did not recertify.
 As many as 4 million subscribers may be de-enrolled as a result of the 2012 annual recertification requirement, saving over $400 million in 2013 in payments for ineligible subscriptions.
o Eliminating “Link Up” subsidies for new connections, which were acting as unnecessary “bounties” for new sign-ups. As a result, Link Up expenditures dropped from roughly $14 million per month in May – the final month Link Up payments were sent to providers -- to less than $200,000 in December 2012. Link Up is still available in some Tribal areas.
o Requiring carriers to obtain proof of income eligibility from new subscribers. These changes took effect in June 2012 and were first reflected in August disbursements, which dropped by nearly $40 million in one month.
o Clarifying that Lifeline subscriptions are limited to one per household, and scrubbing subscriber roles of duplicates. The FCC has reviewed over 12 million subscriber records and eliminated 1.1 million duplicate subscriptions, which will result in $128 million in annualized savings. The process of examining subscriber rolls state-by-state continues as the FCC develops a comprehensive database that will automatically check for duplicate subscriptions.
o Requiring providers to verify the continued eligibility of their subscribers for Lifeline on annual basis.

That's the press release where you lifted one sentence.
 
speaking of facts, if the plan expanded to cell phones in 2008, how could Obama have done it? He had no more power than any other senator in 2008.

2.2B in 2012 4 years into Obama's Presidency

Is the massive explosion in Food Stamps under Obama's watch FDR's fault? Yes or No

Given the links I've provided, and the excerpts, I think it would be hard to argue I haven't done my due dilligence...:cool:

So the massive increases in costs over the last 4 years on Obama's watch is Clinton's fault. Got it.
 
Who? A youtube clip that is full of misinformation?

There you go, describing virtually every Obama supporter YouTube clip. :mrgreen:

But yes, a clip of just one of his crazy-ass supporters spouting off what's on her ignorant mind started it. Candidate Obama could have told the electorate the truth about the program, set them straight, but no attempt was made. It was to his advantage for the moron contingent of his supporters to believe they were getting free phones from him.
 
2.2B in 2012 4 years into Obama's Presidency

In 2012, Obama had only been president for 3 years.

Is the massive explosion in Food Stamps under Obama's watch FDR's fault? Yes or No

Do you think that presidents are all-powerful beings that can do things which fall far outside the scope of their powers?
 
love the term "Obamaphone", despite the OP's article telling us the emergency phone program was begun during the ronnie raygun regime and expanded to include cell phones during the dicknbush reign of terror
I see you criticize people mocking Obama by misusing his name, but then go on to mock others that you don't like by purposely misusing their names. Yep, some good ol' serious objectivity goin' on right there.
 
Then why can't the benefits be put in the name of the primary care provider? There's no reason not to limit services to only those who are supposed to get it.

Pay phones are gone because even the poor have phones now. If the poor still used them, they would exist.

And nice trying to insult me simply because you couldn't come up with a solution to something that simple.



Which they would not do to those people if they were not being paid by the government to do so.

It's very simple. Some carriers are giving out phones on the Lifeline program because the government is paying them.


Ever heard of mail? It's actually totally free for the recepient, you should check it out.

How did anyone get a job, get medical attention, or anything else before phones? Should we buy them suits and cars too so they can get a job? How about shampoo, haircuits, a computer, a printer, document protector, pencils and everything else they might need? How does one find a job without a computer these days?

Guess we should be giving out all kinds of free ****. I mean, after all, it's free right?

I really didn't expect you to go for the fallacy of failing to draw the line.

How many employers hire by mail these days for entry level.jobs?

And a free suit might not be a bad idea, but a bus pass would suffice for transport.

Everything else is reducto ad absurdum. Reduction to the absurd.
 
As I have posted links to, the Commissioners who set up the change in regulation included the former Chief of Staff to Democrat Ernest Holings, and the former Senior Aide to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle.

As to promotion, I've provided the links to the FCC's campaigns. How else would the program expand so quickly?

The point is, as evidenced by the facts, it was important for the government to be seen as the great saviour for the poor and needy, something critical to the President.

To argue otherwise is rather foolish.

It should come as no surprise that people take exception to news that continues to show large numbers of people freeloading off of government programs.

You can't blame people who have their own struggles for feeling taken advantage of.

How else could the program expand so quickly? So if a popular idea or product expands quickly it must be because the government is pushing it? nentendo, Smartphones, the long lines waiting for Apple's latest gen of phone? A good idea sells.

Now I wonder who was pushing for the expansion of the life line system to include cell phones BEFORE BushII left office? Remember, the plan was approved before Obama was elected, and also remember when the Oath of office was administered, not Nov 7th. you seem to think no one cared about this program or pushed/pulled for it prior to 2009, when Obama actually took office.
 
'I don't care what you do with it': Hidden camera catches wireless company employees passing out 'Obama phones' to people who say they'll sell them for drugs, shoes, handbags, spending cash | Mail Online



1711-woman-obama-phone.jpg


GOT OBAMA PHONE [10 HOURS] REMIX - #ObamaPhone - YouTube
You mean Rubio phones.
 
I really didn't expect you to go for the fallacy of failing to draw the line.

How many employers hire by mail these days for entry level.jobs?

And a free suit might not be a bad idea, but a bus pass would suffice for transport.

Everything else is reducto ad absurdum. Reduction to the absurd.

I'm not talking of any fallacy. I'm talking about real needs, and this simply isn't one. How many poor unemployed people do you think are regularly using their phones to find jobs?

And free suits? Amazing. I see there's no point in us even talking because our beliefs aren't even on the same planet. I'm in reality, where we're sucking financially, and you're in a world where free **** should rain from the heavens.
 
Which they would not do to those people if they were not being paid by the government to do so.

It's very simple. Some carriers are giving out phones on the Lifeline program because the government is paying them.

Wrong again. The money does not come from the government. Please read the sources provided in this thread.
 
How so?



That's the press release where you lifted one sentence.


Ok. I recognize the press release. And?

As I have shown via direct links to FCC documents, the program was expanded to include cell phones in April 2008. The commissioners involved included rather significant players in the Democrat hierarchy. (Not that it matters, but we're in finger pointing circus mode aren't we?)

Once in place, and with Tate, the Bush appointee warning about fraud and abuse, removed by an Obama appointee, the FCC rolled out the marketing blitz to encourage the half of eligible people not on the program to get moving.

From their 2009 Press Release Marketing campaign:

"The programs have been active for years and are administered by the FCC and state public utility commissions, but at least half of eligible consumers nationwide do not take advantage of this assistance."​


So, not sure what point I'm missing here. I think I've covered all the relevant points without resorting to anything other than government documents.
 
Something tells me you have become quite dependent on those rose colored glasses you wear.

Any luck finding the documents you stated Bush signed?

Bush did not sign a document.

Countering your vague claims is not wearing rose colored glasses. You have yet to show Obama has had anything to do with the expansion of the program.
 
I was refering to the cell phone program which was started in 1996 because that is what the poster was referring to not a land line.

Interestingly, 5 senators voted against it, 4 democrats and 1 republican.
 
Re: Obamaphones Being Sold For Drugs, Shoes Ect. (Video)

What reforms? The costs in 2012 were 2.2B. You can claim all the reforms you like. Doesn't mean they are even remotely being enforced.You're only further undermining your own argument and credibility by pointing this out.

The reforms documented in this very thread.

He's the President of the United States. He supervises everyone below him in the Federal Government. Stop trying to play the Obama doesn't govern card. He's not some innocent bystander to what's going on around him in Washington.

Even private companies? About USAC - Universal Service Administrative Company - USAC.org

Dammit, facts again....
 
In 2012, Obama had only been president for 3 years.



Do you think that presidents are all-powerful beings that can do things which fall far outside the scope of their powers?

Yes, but it is Obama's fault. You know when you stubbed your toe awhile ago? That was Obama's fault. Communism...Obama's fault.
 
Bush did not sign a document.

Countering your vague claims is not wearing rose colored glasses. You have yet to show Obama has had anything to do with the expansion of the program.


You know, when you write this:

"And crying that people are blaming Bush for a program Bush signed into law is hilarious,"​

And then you come back now and claim he didn't sign any "document", I'm not sure what you think you are claiming.

My guess is it would be impossible for you to admit anything, since you can't even admit things you've previously committed to writing.

Oh well, that's your burden.

:2wave:

:peace
 
You know, when you write this:
"And crying that people are blaming Bush for a program Bush signed into law is hilarious,"​

And then you come back now and claim he didn't sign any "document", I'm not sure what you think you are claiming.

My guess is it would be impossible for you to admit anything, since you can't even admit things you've previously committed to writing.

Oh well, that's your burden.

:2wave:

:peace

I think I corrected my mistake. Something one of us has done...
 
If they want to sell government handouts for drugs I wish they'd bring back the government cheese. Through a friend, I bought some for $10 a block back when they gave that out, and I'd do it again. That was some damn good cheese.
 
I'm not talking of any fallacy. I'm talking about real needs, and this simply isn't one. How many poor unemployed people do you think are regularly using their phones to find jobs?

And free suits? Amazing. I see there's no point in us even talking because our beliefs aren't even on the same planet. I'm in reality, where we're sucking financially, and you're in a world where free **** should rain from the heavens.

Not at all.

I'm talking about hands up, not hand outs.

How much is last years JC Penny suit cost? Does it have to be new?

Costs me $30 a year to provide a slew of services BESIDES the cellphone program.

Like subsidizing rural service and phones for schools and the indigent/elderly.

That a bargain. One I choose to participate in by having a phone.

Anybody who doesn't like the program is free to not participate.

They can communicate by mail.
 
Ok. I recognize the press release. And?

As I have shown via direct links to FCC documents, the program was expanded to include cell phones in April 2008. The commissioners involved included rather significant players in the Democrat hierarchy. (Not that it matters, but we're in finger pointing circus mode aren't we?)

Once in place, and with Tate, the Bush appointee warning about fraud and abuse, removed by an Obama appointee, the FCC rolled out the marketing blitz to encourage the half of eligible people not on the program to get moving.

From their 2009 Press Release Marketing campaign:

"The programs have been active for years and are administered by the FCC and state public utility commissions, but at least half of eligible consumers nationwide do not take advantage of this assistance."​


So, not sure what point I'm missing here. I think I've covered all the relevant points without resorting to anything other than government documents.

I guess what I'm missing is how people eligible for the program becoming aware they are eligible is waste/fraud/abuse.

As of 2010 there were measures being instituted to combat actual waste/fraud/abuse.
 
Then why can't the benefits be put in the name of the primary care provider? There's no reason not to limit services to only those who are supposed to get it.

Perhaps you need to learn about the care of the disabled. The primary care giver will be one of 2-5 people if 24 hour care is required as they take their shifts from their employer. Therefore their primary care givers could change at any time, regardless of whether the caregiver quits, he/she may just be reassigned to another client. I guess you could put it in the name of the company who provides the care, but then you're forcing the client (and his/her guardian who may or may not live near enough to be the one on the benefits cards) to have to stay with that provider regardless of the care given.

Sorry, just doesn't work as you desire and your knowledge is seriously lacking to have any legit opinion.
 
Back
Top Bottom