Not necessarily. It all depends on how the phone is used. If it's set up to let the recipient call 911, that's fine. If it's meant to help the recipient find a job to get off welfare, that's fine too. If it's set up so apart from 911 dialing, it receives only (to let mothers be available to the school, say; or for a doctor's office to be able to contact them), that's fine too.
But if as I suspect the phone is a handout the recipient can use any way she pleases, it sucks on ice with musical accompaniment.
I can understand the thinking. The phone company charges a lot for even basic, local landline service. Further, historically (I haven't seen a study that says how or if the customs have changed with the advent of the cheap cell phone) a poor person who saved up and got a phone installed suddenly found his or her phone being used as a free public phone by the loafers on the floor or in the building. But a larger question is this:
Why has the media not reported on the "Obama Phones?"
Why have there been no reports on the establishment of the program, and its objectives? Why has there been no following of recipients of the "Obama Phone" to see how it is really being used, as opposed to how the stated goal of the program says it is to be used?
I read The Week, The Economist, read a couple of NYC papers, read msn.com, watch BBC America and listen to the local radio station. Add to that the fact my wife listens to NPR and the only independent radio station in New York City. One or the other of us should have run across this program, and neither of us did.
The fact Obama is spending tax dollars on this program to provide welfare recipients with cellphones is newsworthy. It can be spun positively or negatively. But until I read this thread, I'd never even heard of it! What's the story behind THAT?
This is part of the Lifeline program, started by the FCC back in 1984 and has been modified over the years with the advent of new technology. I think it gives cell phone service to low income people for only one year and then about 1 hour per month, prepaid. Different companies are involved. This is not a new Obama program.
I think land lines provide service plans for those on a low income. (my brother and i had it for a while.) limited to local calls only, that kind of thing.
70 mins a month is not a lot if you're looking for work. hopefully they hand out really ugly phones so the recipients will be encouraged to get a job and a more stylish phone.
EDIT: rambo beat me to it. life line, that's it.
__________________ A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it an appearance of being right-Thomas Paine
Last edited by petrol; 10-27-2009 at 05:22 PM.
Reason: edit
Obama really never specified the "CHANGE" he would effect. No one made him, although some tried. The folks simply voted in a neighborhood "organizer". Those who voted him in should not be surprised at the leadership he has displayed thus far.
His track record was there for everyone to see. They chose not to look.
This is part of the Lifeline program, started by the FCC back in 1984 and has been modified over the years with the advent of new technology. I think it gives cell phone service to low income people for only one year and then about 1 hour per month, prepaid. Different companies are involved. This is not a new Obama program.
According to snopes that is not quite correct either.
Quote:
Also contrary to what is suggested in the example quoted above, the LifeLine program is not an "Obama program" (i.e., one that was initiated by or during the Obama administration). LifeLine was implemented by Congress well before the advent of the Obama administration, and the SafeLink Wireless service was launched in Florida by TracFone back in September 2008, several weeks before the election that put Barack Obama in the White House.
Also, here is the meat of the snopes article
Quote:
The intent of these programs is to help ensure that everyone, regardless of income, has access to basic telephone services in order to be able to keep in touch with family members, make medical appointments, contact emergency services, be reachable by telephone themselves, etc. Contrary to what is suggested by the example cited above, Lifeline/Link-Up discounts are not available only to "welfare recipients" — these programs are implemented at both the state and federal levels, so qualification criteria can vary from state to state, but in general participants must have an income that is at or below 135% of the federal Poverty Guidelines, or take part in at least one of the following federal assistance programs:
Medicaid
Food Stamps
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Federal Public Housing Assistance
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)
The National School Lunch Program's Free Lunch Program
If we look at enough history on the "Lifeline" program, we could get lost in the details. This makes me think that if Obama had been the safety officer on the Titanic, his first act after the iceberg would have been to insist he needed to be elected Captain, and then set up a committee to rearrange all the deck chairs and bedcovers. Regardless of where this idea came from, it is being implemented at tax payer expense on the watch of a Chicago street organizer.
What I fail to understand is where the idea that everyone needs to have a phone! when i was growing up out on the farm we did not have a phone until I was about 13-14 and we made it just fine.......I for one don't give a rats putootie how these phones are used.....the American tax payer should not be held liable to provide a phone to everyone.....regardless of who started the idiodic program......
__________________
If our future is dependent on the integrity of our elected officials..........Best buy more AMMO
....I for one don't give a rats putootie how these phones are used.....the American tax payer should not be held liable to provide a phone to everyone.....regardless of who started the idiodic program......
This is what I was talking about . glad to see others see the real picture of where the money went .....Or shouldn't of went ..?
__________________ I might not be playing with a full deck... But I am playing with a full clip!!! (gunnut2u)
I never had a cell phone until 1993 and only because I was in law enforcement and the state was too poor to provide one, even though I travelled throughout the state on a regular basis. Eventually, the state and the phone service provider agreed on a special rate where we would get 50 minutes for the price of 30 minutes; i.e. 20 extra minutes. Not surprisingly, I never used more than 10-15 minutes total per month. I was so pleased with my natural frugalness; I purchased a phone/30 minute per month plan for my then fiancé, confident that she was frugale too. Wrong. The more minutes I added, the more she called. Of course, being engaged, I couldn't just cut her off. I would just stared at my watch and sweat bullets until the conversation concluded. Sixteen years later with unlimited calling, mobile phones are carried like pistols in belt holsters and their users are as dependent on them as pace makers, nitro tablets, and oxygen bottles. No wonder that it is implied that all people must have them to survive. When I first observed some of the guys at the hunt club slipping out of the club house to check in with their wives, and later deployed personnel in the midst of a war zone having “phone conflict sessions” followed by “phone sex” with their wives, then I knew we as a society slipped yet another notch into the technology abyss. Mobile phones have just made life more complicated. By the way, nobody ever gave me a job over the phone yet.
__________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Was "Your" Voice Heard Today? NRA-ILA ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
well, I can state from personal experience that I have lost work by not having my phone with me. I had to get a crackberry too because I'd get home from work check my emails and see a job offer. I'd call and get the response, 'oh, yeah we just booked someone, thanks,'.
so,maybe if you live on a farm in rural america, you may not need a cell phone. if however you live in the city and have to hustle for work every day you better have your phone on at all times.
BTW> i'm not saying everyone should get free unlimited government talk plans.
__________________ A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it an appearance of being right-Thomas Paine
well, I can state from personal experience that I have lost work by not having my phone with me. I had to get a crackberry too because I'd get home from work check my emails and see a job offer. I'd call and get the response, 'oh, yeah we just booked someone, thanks,'.
so,maybe if you live on a farm in rural america, you may not need a cell phone. if however you live in the city and have to hustle for work every day you better have your phone on at all times.
BTW> i'm not saying everyone should get free unlimited government talk plans.
If your out hustling for work and you can't buy your own phone perhaps you need to hustle a little more a basic plan is what....$30 a month?
__________________
If our future is dependent on the integrity of our elected officials..........Best buy more AMMO
