Obamaphones-Now with internet!

[TFOGGER]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/05/28/us/ap-us-internet-for-the-poor.html?_r=0


NEW YORK — The head of the Federal Communications Commission is proposing that the government agency expand a phone subsidy program for the poor to include Internet access.The FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler, has called broadband a critical service for modern life. But many low-income people don't have access.
According to a Pew Research Center report from 2013, 70 percent of U.S. adults have a high-speed Internet connection at home. Only 54 percent of households earnings less than $30,000 a year do.
The FCC says low-income Americans are more likely to rely on smartphones for Internet access. According to the Pew report, 67 percent of households that make less than $30,000 a year have home broadband or a smartphone.
The program, called Lifeline, was started in 1985 and expanded to include wireless phones in 2005. In 2014, it served 12 million households and cost $1.7 billion, paid for by surcharges on the country's telephone customer bills.
Eligibility depends on income being at or less than 135 percent of the federal government's poverty line, or participation in programs includingMedicaid (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/medicaid/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), food stamps or free school lunch.










[Mad][Mad][Mad][Mad][Mad][Mad][Mad][Mad]

[generalmeow]

[Mad][Mad][Mad][Mad][Mad][Mad][Mad][Mad]

Put Republicans in charge, and not only will they not kill the Obamaphone program, they'll expand it. They'll call it freedomphones, or patriotphones, or libertyphones. Can't take away someone's Obamaphone once they've already got one and depend on it.

Do you remember entitlements and handouts decreasing under any Republican administration? Me neither.

[SNAFU]

That's it,gonna become unemployable.
To get all this tax payer free upgrades.
Food,heat,internet,phone,computer,,and paid schooling.

[Dave_L]

Once you get someone on the hook, it's hard, if not impossible, to get them off. Can you imagine the riots if any administration tried to reel back benefits at this point?

[blacklabel]

Once you get someone on the hook, it's hard, if not impossible, to get them off. Can you imagine the riots if any administration tried to reel back benefits at this point?
Reel back? Have them delayed by a couple days and Walmart becomes a war zone.

[KS63]

Government subsidies=Legal Crack

[GilpinGuy]

The FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler, has called broadband a critical service for modern life.

Tough to get the flash mob updates without Twitter.

[RblDiver]

People who argued against net neutrality warned others about new taxes et al being levied on the internet. We were told we were nuts.

Now look at what's going on...

[Dave]

Put Republicans in charge, and not only will they not kill the Obamaphone program, they'll expand it. They'll call it freedomphones, or patriotphones, or libertyphones. Can't take away someone's Obamaphone once they've already got one and depend on it.

Do you remember entitlements and handouts decreasing under any Republican administration? Me neither.
You mean the original Bush phones? The subsidized phone plans started with him as land lines, then moved onto being cell phones under Obama. Medicare Part D was his plan as well with no idea on how to fund it. None of the a**holes wanting to run in 2016 want to reduce spending, they just want to direct the cash flow to whoever will help get them elected.

[Skip]

How else are they going to mobilize/organize all those Democrats? The ones with all day to promote Hope 'n Change...

It isn't going to end until the working/producing folks stand up and end it. And "voting harder this time" isn't a solution.

[SamuraiCO]

Swell. Climb on guess I can carry some more weight. Hope you enjoy all your free time while we all schlep off to work every day. Just don't riot and burn everything if you are challenged to act civil.

[Aloha_Shooter]

Put Republicans in charge, and not only will they not kill the Obamaphone program, they'll expand it. They'll call it freedomphones, or patriotphones, or libertyphones. Can't take away someone's Obamaphone once they've already got one and depend on it.

Do you remember entitlements and handouts decreasing under any Republican administration? Me neither.

Reagan was unable to reduce overall government spending as he wanted because Tip O'Neill held the plans to fix the Defense Department (after years of crippling reductions under Carter and Nixon) hostage but he WAS able to reduce the GROWTH in government spending. Domestic programs exploded under Bush but Medicare Part D (a horrid idea) was pushed to enable his narrow win over Kerry (which was still a good thing) and the real explosion took place only after the Democrats took control of the House and Senate in 2006.

Reagan took half a loaf when he could. I'd rather have the whole loaf but I'm glad he took the half he did -- as were the millions of people who were eventually freed from the tyranny of the USSR thanks to putting some muscle back into the US military. President Walter Mondale (had he won) would have eliminated the space program and spent three times as much as Reagan on domestic programs. Presidents Al Gore or John Kerry would have given us the crippling aspects of the Obama Administration 4-8 years earlier and probably gotten on their knees to beg pardon from UBL and the Taliban if they'd won.

Try understanding history before commenting on it.


You mean the original Bush phones? The subsidized phone plans started with him as land lines, then moved onto being cell phones under Obama. Medicare Part D was his plan as well with no idea on how to fund it. None of the a**holes wanting to run in 2016 want to reduce spending, they just want to direct the cash flow to whoever will help get them elected.

The subsidized phones started well before Bush; the intent was similar to the TVA providing electricity to rural communities but Democrats have morphed it beyond all recognition just as they have done to every government initiative passed over the last century or so.

[generalmeow]

Try understanding history before commenting on it.

You should take some of your own advice

58606

All I see is a steady increase. What do you see? Entitlement spending went up during Reagan's presidency. Went up during Bush I. Went up during Bush II.

Thanks for telling me what Reagan wanted, as if you're some expert on the subject. You don't know jack shit about what anybody ever wanted. You can only know what they say they wanted. But actions speak louder than words.

Obama says he wants to bring us all together, and in 20 years I'm going to be sitting in a concentration camp for white people and some jackass is going to be telling me all Obama ever wanted was to bring us together (der, cuz he sed so).

Edit: I bet Reagan probably did want to cut entitlement spending, like any rational person would want. But I bet he wanted Republicans to get re-elected even more, which means allowing them to promise free shit. Entitlements will go up under Republicans as much as Democrats. The logical conclusion is that if you're sick of this shit, don't vote Republican or Democrat. I clearly like what Republicans say more than Democrats, but the facts are the facts. I do understand history. Who cares what the official whitewashed historical narrative is? Look at a chart. If you want to tell me that entitlements go down under Republicans, and I'm just dumb, back it up with something. "Aw shucks, well they wanted to cut entitlements, but (x)" is horseshit.

Obviously once they leave office they're going to have a well thought out story about why it didn't happen, so that they can continue to say they want to cut entitlements. How many times are you going to let them fool you?

[th3w01f]

You mean the original Bush phones? The subsidized phone plans started with him as land lines, then moved onto being cell phones under Obama. Medicare Part D was his plan as well with no idea on how to fund it. None of the a**holes wanting to run in 2016 want to reduce spending, they just want to direct the cash flow to whoever will help get them elected.

Pretty sure it all started under Regan but that's just nit picking. :)

Actually, I don't really have a problem with land lines, they can't be sold or traded for other 'items' and what would someone do with more than 1. "I 'lost' my home phone and need a new one".

[Dave_L]

I think we've lost sight of what a "necessity" is in life.