Democratic Pandering

News you want to discuss. Threads should start with a reference or fact. Straight opinion is better housed in "The Lounge" below.
User avatar
Badmojo
Posts: 1935
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:30 pm

Re: Democratic Pandering

Postby Badmojo » Thu May 22, 2014 3:40 pm

Are we still on this? Every first world country has it's safety nets, they are insurance policies and anyone falling on hard times qualifies.

I don't have kids but my taxes pay for their education, are they on welfare too?

User avatar
Marie
Certified Fan
Posts: 31874
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:13 pm
Location: In front of my computer

Re: Democratic Pandering

Postby Marie » Fri May 23, 2014 2:32 am

Badmojo wrote:Are we still on this? Every first world country has it's safety nets, they are insurance policies and anyone falling on hard times qualifies.

I don't have kids but my taxes pay for their education, are they on welfare too?

Oh definitely -- and please note, to be absolutely in tune with the tea party, you MUST call them *"government schools," not public schools as they were formerly designated!

(*As in the sentence "I hear black helicopters coming to take me away to be re-educated in a government school." 8-[ )

-Marie-
You find out what someone is really like in "battle," and Olbermann is who you want to be in a foxhole with, Patrick said. "On the air, we had each others' backs," said Olbermann.
-David Goetzl: "Keith Olbermann, Dan Patrick still brothers long after ESPN's 'Big Show'"; MediaPost blog, 4-6-2012


Image

User avatar
Badmojo
Posts: 1935
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:30 pm

Re: Democratic Pandering

Postby Badmojo » Fri May 23, 2014 1:54 pm

I hate rereading my own posts, it's should have been its.

Eh, we'll just blame my gub'ment education.

User avatar
Marie
Certified Fan
Posts: 31874
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:13 pm
Location: In front of my computer

Re: Democratic Pandering

Postby Marie » Sat May 24, 2014 2:00 am

BrooklynBilly wrote:Transfer payments-taking money from one person and giving it to another person or, to put it another way, welfare, e.g, food stamps, medicaid, section 8 rent subsidies, EITC,Lifeline(aka Obamaphone) etc.

:roll: Let's put this canard to rest once and for all, shall we...

From FACTCHECK.org --
Ask FactCheck
OBAMA PHONE?
Updated on Nov. 5, 2009

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.

FULL QUESTION: Is this e-mail true?
"I had a former employee call me earlier today inquiring about a job, and at the end of the conversation he gave me his phone number. I asked the former employee if this was a new cell phone number and he told me yes this was his 'Obama phone'."

FULL ANSWER: Welfare recipients, and others, can receive a free cell phone, but the program is not funded by the government or taxpayer money as the e-mail alleges. And it’s hardly new.

How It Works: SafeLink Wireless, the program mentioned in the e-mail, does indeed offer a cell phone, about one hour’s worth of calling time per month, and other wireless services like voice mail to eligible low-income households. Applicants have to apply and prove that they are either receiving certain types of government benefits, such as Medicaid, or have household incomes at or below 135 percent of the poverty line. Using 2009 poverty guidelines, that’s $14,620 for an individual and a little under $30,000 for a family of four, with slightly higher amounts for Alaska and Hawaii.

SafeLink is run by a subsidiary of América Móvil, the world’s fourth largest wireless company in terms of subscribers, but it is not paid for directly by the company. Nor is it paid for with "tax payer money," as the e-mail claims. Rather, it is funded through the Universal Service Fund, which is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company, an independent, not-for-profit corporation set up by the Federal Communications Commission. The USF is sustained by contributions from telecommunications companies such as "long distance companies, local telephone companies, wireless telephone companies, paging companies, and payphone providers." The companies often charge customers to fund their contributions in the form of a universal service fee you might see on your monthly phone bill. The fund is then parceled out to companies, such as América Móvil, that create programs, such as SafeLink, to provide telecommunications service to rural areas and low-income households.

History: The SafeLink program has actually been offering cell phones to low-income households in some states since 2008, not beginning "earlier this year," as the e-mail claims. But the program is rooted in a deeper history.

When phone lines were first laid out in the late 19th century, they were not always inter-operable. That is to say the phone service created by one company to serve one town may not have been compatible with the phone service of another company serving a different town nearby. The telecom companies themselves saw the folly in this arrangement, and so in 1913, AT&T committed itself to resolving interconnection problems as part of the "Kingsbury Commitment."

That common goal of universal service became a goal of universal access to service when Congress passed The Telecommunications Act of 1934. The act created the FCC and also included in its preamble a promise "to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.” There was a fear, expressed by telecom companies themselves, that market forces alone might encourage companies to pass on providing service to hard-to-reach places. This would both hurt the people who wouldn’t have service as well as existing customers who wouldn’t be able to reach them. So the new FCC was tasked with promoting this principle of "universal service."

This informal practice was codified when the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) was created as part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act to "ensure all Americans, including low-income consumers and those who live in rural, insular, high cost areas, shall have affordable service and [to] help to connect eligible schools, libraries, and rural health care providers to the global telecommunications network." The USAC includes four programs to serve rural areas, high cost areas, rural health care providers, and schools and libraries. Since 1997, USAC has provided discounted land line service to low-income individuals. (A more limited program to offer assistance to low-income individuals was created a decade earlier; the telecommunications act expanded and formalized it.) According to Eric Iversen, USAC director of external relations, the Universal Service Fund more recently began funding programs that provide wireless service, such as the pre-paid cellular SafeLink program mentioned in the chain e-mail.

The president has no direct impact on the program, and one could hardly call these devices "Obama Phones" as the e-mail author does. This specific program, SafeLink, started under President George Bush, with grants from an independent company created under President Bill Clinton, which was a legacy of an act passed under President Franklin Roosevelt, which was influenced by an agreement reached between telecommunications companies and the administration of President Woodrow Wilson.

Wilson Phones, anyone?
[ :lol: -Marie]

– Justin Bank

Update, Nov. 5: A public relations representative from SafeLink Wireless contacted us to note that the América Móvil subsidiary that operates the SafeLink program and receives funds from the USF is TracFone Wireless, based in Miami, Fla.

Sources
~Mueller, Milton. Universal Service: Competition, Interconnection, and Monopoly in the Making of the American Telephone System. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1997.
~Press Release, "Research and Markets: America Movil, S.A. de C.V. – Financial and Strategic Analysis Review," Business Wire. 24 Mar 2009.
~Government Printing Office, "Federal Register: January 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 14)] [Notices] [Page 4199-4201]."

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

-Marie-
You find out what someone is really like in "battle," and Olbermann is who you want to be in a foxhole with, Patrick said. "On the air, we had each others' backs," said Olbermann.
-David Goetzl: "Keith Olbermann, Dan Patrick still brothers long after ESPN's 'Big Show'"; MediaPost blog, 4-6-2012


Image

BrooklynBilly
Forum's Senior Troll
Posts: 5223
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:45 am

Re: Democratic Pandering

Postby BrooklynBilly » Sat May 24, 2014 10:22 am

Obtaining something that someone else pays for because he has to is welfare. The constitution does not guarantee one the right to a telephone.
Nemo surdior est quam is qui non audiet

User avatar
IrishEyes
Certified Fan
Posts: 477
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:52 pm
Location: The Midwest

Re: Democratic Pandering

Postby IrishEyes » Sat May 24, 2014 12:14 pm

BrooklynBilly wrote:Obtaining something that someone else pays for because he has to is welfare. The constitution does not guarantee one the right to a telephone.

So your sending back your social security checks? Because the people who are working now are the ones paying for it.
BTW, it was a Bill Clinton who signed the law for welfare reform. It was Bush who made welfare necessary.

BrooklynBilly
Forum's Senior Troll
Posts: 5223
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:45 am

Re: Democratic Pandering

Postby BrooklynBilly » Sat May 24, 2014 12:20 pm

IrishEyes wrote:
BrooklynBilly wrote:Obtaining something that someone else pays for because he has to is welfare. The constitution does not guarantee one the right to a telephone.

So your sending back your social security checks? Because the people who are working now are the ones paying for it.
BTW, it was a Bill Clinton who signed the law for welfare reform. It was Bush who made welfare necessary.


Social Security is an earned benefit, my employers and I paid over $250,000 into the fund over my 50 + year work career, for Medicare the number is about $100,000. If I had invested that money in a stock market index fund I'd be on easy street.

It was Newt Gingrich who got Clinton to sign off on welfare reform.
Nemo surdior est quam is qui non audiet

User avatar
Marie
Certified Fan
Posts: 31874
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:13 pm
Location: In front of my computer

Re: Democratic Pandering

Postby Marie » Sat May 24, 2014 1:42 pm

BrooklynBilly wrote:Obtaining something that someone else pays for because he has to is welfare. The constitution does not guarantee one the right to a telephone.

Billy, you posted that right under an article explaining that the reason the telecoms are furnishing emergency phones is NOT "because they HAVE to." The companies believe that helping people to have a way to contact each other in emergencies is a public relations plus for them, do you understand? No one is forcing them to do it.

That's not a new business concept. It's been around longer than you have, which is some considerable length of time. You'd think you'd have figured out how that works by now.

Damn, how thick can one rube be? Or are you publicly coming out against CHARITY, now?

-Marie-
You find out what someone is really like in "battle," and Olbermann is who you want to be in a foxhole with, Patrick said. "On the air, we had each others' backs," said Olbermann.
-David Goetzl: "Keith Olbermann, Dan Patrick still brothers long after ESPN's 'Big Show'"; MediaPost blog, 4-6-2012


Image

User avatar
Marie
Certified Fan
Posts: 31874
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:13 pm
Location: In front of my computer

Re: Democratic Pandering

Postby Marie » Sat May 24, 2014 1:51 pm

BrooklynBilly wrote:Social Security is an earned benefit, my employers and I paid over $250,000 into the fund over my 50 + year work career, for Medicare the number is about $100,000. If I had invested that money in a stock market index fund I'd be on easy street. . . .

If you had invested it, you'd have lost it in the Bush era financial scandal. It's doing you more good being invested in the people around you. You keep forgetting why SocSec & Medicare were needed in the first place. It's not better for you if old ppl are being found dead in their houses, Mr. Can't-See-Beyond-The End-of-Your-Nose.

-Marie-
You find out what someone is really like in "battle," and Olbermann is who you want to be in a foxhole with, Patrick said. "On the air, we had each others' backs," said Olbermann.
-David Goetzl: "Keith Olbermann, Dan Patrick still brothers long after ESPN's 'Big Show'"; MediaPost blog, 4-6-2012


Image

User avatar
Badmojo
Posts: 1935
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:30 pm

Re: Democratic Pandering

Postby Badmojo » Sat May 24, 2014 7:00 pm

You have to be some sort of double dip moron to ever think tbere is something called an "obama phone". Serious dumb assery at foot here not to understand the law, its intent and any sort of historical perspective. Nope, some moron calls it "obama phone" and the rest of us are forced to wait until a cerain someone catches up.

Maybe next time you should just ban the moron for being a moron.

Serious dumb fuck.

User avatar
Marie
Certified Fan
Posts: 31874
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:13 pm
Location: In front of my computer

Re: Democratic Pandering

Postby Marie » Sat May 24, 2014 7:08 pm

Badmojo wrote:You have to be some sort of double dip moron to ever think tbere is something called an "obama phone". Serious dumb assery at foot here not to understand the law, its intent and any sort of historical perspective. Nope, some moron calls it "obama phone" and the rest of us are forced to wait until as someone catches up.

But can't people see? There HAS to be an "Obamaphone" because there's an ObamaCARE. See, it's just like putting -gate on the end of everything Democratic, to convey the idea that all presidents since Nixon have been as pathologically corrupt as he was.

False equivalency is the only thing righties have left any more, after the decade-and-a-half of non-governance that everyone else thinks of when they think of Republicans.

-Marie-
You find out what someone is really like in "battle," and Olbermann is who you want to be in a foxhole with, Patrick said. "On the air, we had each others' backs," said Olbermann.
-David Goetzl: "Keith Olbermann, Dan Patrick still brothers long after ESPN's 'Big Show'"; MediaPost blog, 4-6-2012


Image

User avatar
Badmojo
Posts: 1935
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:30 pm

Re: Democratic Pandering

Postby Badmojo » Sat May 24, 2014 7:19 pm

Marie wrote:
Badmojo wrote:You have to be some sort of double dip moron to ever think tbere is something called an "obama phone". Serious dumb assery at foot here not to understand the law, its intent and any sort of historical perspective. Nope, some moron calls it "obama phone" and the rest of us are forced to wait until as someone catches up.

But can't people see? There HAS to be an "Obamaphone" because there's an ObamaCARE. See, it's just like putting -gate on the end of everything Democratic, to convey the idea that all presidents since Nixon have been as pathologically corrupt as he was.

False equivalency is the only thing righties have left any more, after the decade-and-a-half of non-governance that everyone else thinks of when they think of Republicans.

-Marie-



I tend to think those who need to be kept to a higher standard are the one who are least likely to meet it. Billy is a shoe in for moronic conspiracies, mayhaps he should actually prove something or face consequences.

At the very least Icy left voluntarily because of his crack-pot beliefs. Now we are left with an unrealistic libertarian with a fetish for right wing social policy.

User avatar
Marie
Certified Fan
Posts: 31874
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:13 pm
Location: In front of my computer

Re: Democratic Pandering

Postby Marie » Sat May 24, 2014 9:37 pm

Badmojo wrote:At the very least Icy left voluntarily because of his crack-pot beliefs. Now we are left with an unrealistic libertarian with a fetish for right wing social policy.

IMO Billy's just a mouthpiece, a propagandizing troll with no personal philosophy of his own. I treat his RW prattle as sincere in order to debate it, but it's the spiel I'm arguing with (and all who support it) -- not him.

-Marie-
You find out what someone is really like in "battle," and Olbermann is who you want to be in a foxhole with, Patrick said. "On the air, we had each others' backs," said Olbermann.
-David Goetzl: "Keith Olbermann, Dan Patrick still brothers long after ESPN's 'Big Show'"; MediaPost blog, 4-6-2012


Image


Return to “What Story Are YOU Talking About?”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests