If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   The world's richest man is getting richer... Thanks to 'Obamaphones'   (foxnews.com) divider line 131
    More: Interesting, Carlos Slim, lifeline, bundlers, Universal Service Fund, Capitol Hill  
•       •       •

3945 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Oct 2012 at 6:49 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



131 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-10 05:14:04 PM
Oh no. How will the right spin their anger one? See, they are against the "Obamaphones" but love capitalism. They like the idea of the rich getting richer, but this is a Mesican earning the money...which means the earned money is not staying in the US and going to a foreigner...wow, this will be a tough one for them
 
2012-10-10 05:52:58 PM
What's an "Obamaphone"?

www.danheller.com

Is it anything like a xylophone?
 
2012-10-10 05:53:49 PM
*Gasp* how does a Mexican get so rich?

Poor Fox viewers. First Obama wins the election again and now this.
 
2012-10-10 06:00:16 PM

Endive Wombat: Oh no. How will the right spin their anger one? See, they are against the "Obamaphones" but love capitalism. They like the idea of the rich getting richer, but this is a Mesican earning the money...which means the earned money is not staying in the US and going to a foreigner...wow, this will be a tough one for them


No need for spin.

Taking money, from ME, against my will, and using MY money to buy a phone and give it to someone else, is not capitalism, no matter who gets rich.
 
2012-10-10 06:03:28 PM
What kind of phones?

www.fohguild.org
 
2012-10-10 06:05:30 PM
Ring ring ring ring ring ring ring
Obamaphone
Ring ring ring ring ring ring ring
Obamaphone
I've got this feeling, so appealing,
for us to get together and sing. Sing!

www.myhero.com
 
2012-10-10 06:27:17 PM
Better those than homophones, amirite?
 
2012-10-10 06:33:30 PM
Considering the source of this article, I'm gonna whip out my Obamaphone and call bullsh*t.


/Reagan signed the bill into law, you idiots
 
2012-10-10 06:51:06 PM
Obama will apparently give me a phone now. What will Romney do for me?
 
2012-10-10 06:52:27 PM

fiver5: Endive Wombat: Oh no. How will the right spin their anger one? See, they are against the "Obamaphones" but love capitalism. They like the idea of the rich getting richer, but this is a Mesican earning the money...which means the earned money is not staying in the US and going to a foreigner...wow, this will be a tough one for them

No need for spin.

Taking money, from ME, against my will, and using MY money to buy a phone and give it to someone else, is not capitalism, no matter who gets rich.



Taxes, how do they work?
 
2012-10-10 06:53:58 PM
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-10-10 06:55:17 PM
Is there nothing that won't outrage the right?
 
2012-10-10 06:56:26 PM
Conservative humor!
 
2012-10-10 06:56:38 PM
FTFA:

A Mexican telecom mogul who holds the title of world's richest man, and one of President Obama's top donors ...

Isn't accepting campaign donations from foreign nationals illegal?
 
2012-10-10 06:56:46 PM

Sleeping Monkey: Is there nothing that won't outrage the right?


Lies and whiplash-inducing flip-flops from their candidates.
 
2012-10-10 06:57:48 PM
Favorite Obamaphones:
Fartbongo
Taxbongo
Obummer
Obambi
Obumble
 
2012-10-10 06:58:17 PM

Saborlas: Considering the source of this article, I'm gonna whip out my Obamaphone and call bullsh*t.


/Reagan signed the bill into law, you idiots


Shouldn't they be called Regaphones then? Why is Obama stealing the credit?
 
2012-10-10 06:58:45 PM
Slim?

scottlong1980.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-10-10 06:58:57 PM
oh my good poors are getting a reduction on cell phone payments of ALMOST NINE DOLLARS

call breitbart's ghost
 
2012-10-10 06:59:07 PM
Is it just me or does $70 billion seem too low to be the world's richest man?
 
2012-10-10 07:00:35 PM
And by that you mean Reaganphones, right trollmitter?
 
2012-10-10 07:08:01 PM

OgreMagi: FTFA:

A Mexican telecom mogul who holds the title of world's richest man, and one of President Obama's top donors ...

Isn't accepting campaign donations from foreign nationals illegal?


I don't know if it would have been, but after Citizens united since these "obamaphones" are obviously doing business in the US, it's 100% ok.
 
2012-10-10 07:09:58 PM

Saborlas: Considering the source of this article, I'm gonna whip out my Obamaphone and call bullsh*t.


/Reagan signed the bill into law, you idiots


If Romney can retroactively leave his position at Bain, Obama can retroactively sign a bill into law.
 
2012-10-10 07:11:40 PM

StubhyGraham: Is it just me or does $70 billion seem too low to be the world's richest man?


Nope, the Saudis multiply like jackrabbits so their shares get diced up, Buffett gave away a lot of his, and the Indians who have billions spend it on decadence.
 
2012-10-10 07:12:24 PM
Worth repeating: Obamaphone lady sounds like a muppet.
 
2012-10-10 07:12:40 PM
Conservatards hate it when government programs work the way they were intended.


newnownext.mtvnimages.com
 
2012-10-10 07:15:18 PM

OgreMagi: FTFA:

A Mexican telecom mogul who holds the title of world's richest man, and one of President Obama's top donors ...

Isn't accepting campaign donations from foreign nationals illegal?


Not if you keep donations under 200 to avoid reporting requirements.
 
2012-10-10 07:19:04 PM

birdboy2000: Obama will apparently give me a phone now. What will Romney do for me?


Grab your ankles and find out.
 
2012-10-10 07:19:41 PM

fusillade762: Better those than homophones, amirite?


Four for you. +4.
 
2012-10-10 07:20:49 PM

Vectron: Conservatards hate it when government programs work the way they were intended.


[newnownext.mtvnimages.com image 607x310]


Free phones for trash?
 
2012-10-10 07:22:02 PM

Saborlas: Considering the source of this article, I'm gonna whip out my Obamaphone and call bullsh*t.


/Reagan signed the bill into law, you idiots


I was checking to see if the article mentions that the expansion of the program happened in 2008, before Obama's inauguration, but it makes no mention of that fact.

The program, which began in the mid-1980s, has exploded in the past four years after being expanded from supplying landlines to the poor to providing cellular phones.

They want to blame Obama and their low-information readership will buy it hook, line, and sinker.
 
2012-10-10 07:22:19 PM

fiver5: Taking money, from ME, against my will, and using MY money to buy a phone and give it to someone else, is not capitalism, no matter who gets rich.


So then defense contractors and cdw-g are not capitalism? or are you spinning and not thinking you're spinning because poors.
 
2012-10-10 07:23:55 PM

OgreMagi: FTFA:

A Mexican telecom mogul who holds the title of world's richest man, and one of President Obama's top donors ...

Isn't accepting campaign donations from foreign nationals illegal?


A Mexican telecom mogul who holds the title of world's richest man, and one of President Obama's top donors are both ...

/nicely done.
 
2012-10-10 07:24:35 PM

birdboy2000: Obama will apparently give me a phone now. What will Romney do for me?


He'll give you a rafalca-hair brush and a car-elevator credit.
 
2012-10-10 07:26:50 PM

Sleeping Monkey: Is there nothing that won't outrage the right?


imageshack.us
 
2012-10-10 07:27:34 PM

OgreMagi: FTFA:

A Mexican telecom mogul who holds the title of world's richest man, and one of President Obama's top donors ...

Isn't accepting campaign donations from foreign nationals illegal?


A Mexican telecom mogul who holds the title of world's richest man, and one of President Obama's top donors are both getting even richer from the U.S. government program that supplies so-called "Obamaphones" to the poor.

Carlos Slim, who has an estimated net worth of $70 billion, owns a controlling stake in TracFone, which makes $10 per phone for each device it provides to poor Americans. The company, whose president and CEO is Frederick "F.J." Pollak, also makes money from extra minutes and data plans it sells to subscribers who get phones and service through the government's Lifeline program. The program, which began in the mid-1980s, has exploded in the past four years after being expanded from supplying landlines to the poor to providing cellular phones.


Liars gonna lie.

Of course you've proven in the past that the entire concept of how phones work baffles you. Maybe the whole industry even having a corporate structure just leaves you flummoxed
 
2012-10-10 07:27:59 PM

I_Am_Weasel: Ring ring ring ring ring ring ring
Obamaphone
Ring ring ring ring ring ring ring
Obamaphone
I've got this feeling, so appealing,
for us to get together and sing. Sing!


Socialist
Islamist
Islamofascistocialist
Obamaphone
 
2012-10-10 07:29:05 PM

fiver5: Endive Wombat: Oh no. How will the right spin their anger one? See, they are against the "Obamaphones" but love capitalism. They like the idea of the rich getting richer, but this is a Mesican earning the money...which means the earned money is not staying in the US and going to a foreigner...wow, this will be a tough one for them

No need for spin.

Taking money, from ME, against my will, and using MY money to buy a phone and give it to someone else, is not capitalism, no matter who gets rich.


-Oil Subsidies
-$300 hammers for the DoD
-Farm subsidies
-Piss-testing the poors
-More bureaucracy for Voter ID

The GOP must be really on your sh*t list, eh Concerned Citizen?
 
2012-10-10 07:30:17 PM

OgreMagi: FTFA:

A Mexican telecom mogul who holds the title of world's richest man, and one of President Obama's top donors ...

Isn't accepting campaign donations from foreign nationals illegal?


Allow me.


Mexican telecom mogul who holds the title of world's richest man, and one of President Obama's top donors are both getting even richer from the U.S. government program that supplies so-called "Obamaphones" to the poor.

Fixed news conveniently leaves out the CEO of the company

From Huff Po:

The company's CEO, Frederick "F.J." Pollak, who is a major Obama donor, also makes a profit from the data plans and minutes beneficiaries of the Lifeline program buy.
 
2012-10-10 07:30:57 PM
Well I am more Infromed now.


Thank you Fox.
 
2012-10-10 07:31:59 PM

MyRandomName: OgreMagi: FTFA:

A Mexican telecom mogul who holds the title of world's richest man, and one of President Obama's top donors ...

Isn't accepting campaign donations from foreign nationals illegal?

Not if you keep donations under 200 to avoid reporting requirements.


By the way I remember Mitt being the only presidential candidate to fly to a foriegn country to go to a fundraiser this time around.
 
2012-10-10 07:33:14 PM

All2morrowsparTs: MyRandomName: OgreMagi: FTFA:

A Mexican telecom mogul who holds the title of world's richest man, and one of President Obama's top donors ...

Isn't accepting campaign donations from foreign nationals illegal?

Not if you keep donations under 200 to avoid reporting requirements.

By the way I remember Mitt being the only presidential candidate to fly to a foriegn country to go to a fundraiser this time around.


Yeah, but they were American expats in Israel. It's enough that his SuperPAC is littered with foreign money.
 
2012-10-10 07:33:32 PM
damn. we cant even use crappy phones from US factories?

oh wait, we shut pretty much all our manufacturing down?

hold the phone.
 
2012-10-10 07:34:24 PM

fiver5: Taking money, from ME, against my will, and using MY money to buy a phone and give it to someone else, is not capitalism, no matter who gets rich.


Why do you hate Ronald Reagan?
 
2012-10-10 07:35:16 PM
The USF also funds companies that provide telephone service to rural areas where it is cost prohibitive, and it is those companies that typically are the cause USF abuse and corruption.

Blaming low-income, elderly, or handicapped for USF abuse ... to me that is like blaming the flies for the dead chicken that the fox had killed.
 
2012-10-10 07:36:51 PM

Silly Jesus: Vectron: Conservatards hate it when government programs work the way they were intended.


[newnownext.mtvnimages.com image 607x310]

Free phones for trash?


At least now we know where you're posting from....
 
2012-10-10 07:36:59 PM

OgreMagi: FTFA:

A Mexican telecom mogul who holds the title of world's richest man, and one of President Obama's top donors ...

Isn't accepting campaign donations from foreign nationals illegal?


Ask Mitt. He is the one that went to a foriegn country for a fundraising dinner.
 
2012-10-10 07:38:38 PM

rooftop235: damn. we cant even use crappy phones from US factories?

oh wait, we shut pretty much all our manufacturing down?

hold the phone.


Sorry I had to pay for another elevator in my garage somehow. Those jobs had to go to China.
 
2012-10-10 07:39:29 PM

fiver5: Taking money, from ME, against my will, and using MY money to buy a phone and give it to someone else, is not capitalism, no matter who gets rich.


How about if it was wars instead of phones and Halliburton instead of poor people?
 
2012-10-10 07:41:22 PM
Anyone else notice this gem?

FTFA
: U.S. Rep. Tim Griffin, (R-Ark.), who has been one of the biggest critics of the Lifeline program's explosive growth, said he can't blame Slim for doing lucrative business with the federal government.

"I'm not against a company making a profit," Griffin said. "If they are making money off the program, the blame goes to the federal government for creating the program."


Is this a Republican saying corporations shouldn't make money off of government contracts?

I wonder how he voted regarding military spending?
 
2012-10-10 07:42:57 PM

fiver5: Taking money, from ME, against my will, and using MY money to buy a phone and give it to someone else, is not capitalism, no matter who gets rich.


Using tax money to subsidize roads, telephone lines, electricity, mail, etc. in low population areas where the infrastructure costs more than the return it provides IS a form of socialism, It will be hard to pry those services from the cold dead hands of red-staters.
 
2012-10-10 07:57:23 PM

Endive Wombat: Oh no. How will the right spin their anger one? See, they are against the "Obamaphones" but love capitalism. They like the idea of the rich getting richer, but this is a Mesican earning the money...which means the earned money is not staying in the US and going to a foreigner...wow, this will be a tough one for them


Obviously you DNRTFA.

U.S. Rep. Tim Griffin, (R-Ark.), who has been one of the biggest critics of the Lifeline program's explosive growth, said he can't blame Slim for doing lucrative business with the federal government.

"I'm not against a company making a profit," Griffin said. "If they are making money off the program, the blame goes to the federal government for creating the program."

In other words, he doesn't blame Carlos Slim for backing up a truck to load the money that the federal government is throwing out the warehouse door, he blames the feds for making it possible. Not what I'd say is a "tough one".
 
2012-10-10 07:58:25 PM

HairBolus: Using tax money to subsidize roads, telephone lines, electricity, mail, etc. in low population areas where the infrastructure costs more than the return it provides IS a form of socialism, It will be hard to pry those services from the cold dead hands of red-staters.


This would be a good start. The internet would get a lot better.
 
2012-10-10 08:00:52 PM

birdboy2000: Obama will apparently give me a phone now. What will Romney do for me?


Not take the money from somebody else to hand out free stuff to you. Oh wait, that's what he'll do for those of us who have to pay for your handouts. Never mind.
 
2012-10-10 08:02:36 PM

Saborlas: Considering the source of this article, I'm gonna whip out my Obamaphone and call bullsh*t.


/Reagan signed the bill into law, you idiots


Yup, he signed it in 84, then Clinton altered it a bit in 96, then Bush did in 08, but OBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMA and his damn time machine strikes again!
 
2012-10-10 08:05:03 PM
I suppose there's no point in trying to discuss the merits of campaign donors benefiting directly from administration programs.
 
2012-10-10 08:05:56 PM

Britney Spear's Speculum: OgreMagi: FTFA:

A Mexican telecom mogul who holds the title of world's richest man, and one of President Obama's top donors ...

Isn't accepting campaign donations from foreign nationals illegal?

Allow me.


Mexican telecom mogul who holds the title of world's richest man, and one of President Obama's top donors are both getting even richer from the U.S. government program that supplies so-called "Obamaphones" to the poor.

Fixed news conveniently leaves out the CEO of the company

From Huff Po:

The company's CEO, Frederick "F.J." Pollak, who is a major Obama donor, also makes a profit from the data plans and minutes beneficiaries of the Lifeline program buy.


Oops, I missread that paragraph. I stand corrected.
 
2012-10-10 08:06:18 PM

GoldSpider: I suppose there's no point in trying to discuss the merits of campaign donors benefiting directly from administration programs.


Go right ahead. I am sure it will be balanced with examples of all politicians doing it.
 
2012-10-10 08:06:57 PM

coeyagi: Go right ahead. I am sure it will be balanced with examples of all politicians doing it.


Oil companies.
 
2012-10-10 08:07:42 PM

Silly Jesus: Vectron: Conservatards hate it when government programs work the way they were intended.


[newnownext.mtvnimages.com image 607x310]

Free phones for trash?


...

Hoopido?
 
2012-10-10 08:10:44 PM

fiver5: Endive Wombat: Oh no. How will the right spin their anger one? See, they are against the "Obamaphones" but love capitalism. They like the idea of the rich getting richer, but this is a Mesican earning the money...which means the earned money is not staying in the US and going to a foreigner...wow, this will be a tough one for them

No need for spin.

Taking money, from ME, against my will, and using MY money to buy a phone and give it to someone else, is not capitalism, no matter who gets rich.


Then go complain to George W. Bush: Link
 
2012-10-10 08:11:11 PM

GoldSpider: I suppose there's no point in trying to discuss the merits of campaign donors benefiting directly from administration programs.


Did they donate to Reagan's campaign?

Did Obama's administration change to them for any sort of questionable reason or expand the project?

Did they contribute to Obama and only Obama or to multiple candidates (like most major corporate donors)?

Are these cheapass tracfones even a blip on the farking radar as far as percentage of the budget?

Oh right, none of that matters. What matters is OBAMA BAD!! OBAMA BAAAAD!!!!!11one
 
2012-10-10 08:11:25 PM

BSABSVR: fiver5: Taking money, from ME, against my will, and using MY money to buy a phone and give it to someone else, is not capitalism, no matter who gets rich.

So then defense contractors and cdw-g are not capitalism? or are you spinning and not thinking you're spinning because poors.


It isn't wealth redistribution and zOMG SOOOOOOOOOCIALISM! when fat cats get the money.
 
2012-10-10 08:14:25 PM

Vectron: Conservatards hate it when government programs work the way they were intended.


When the intent is to reward people for being losers, yes I do hate it.

Why bother working if you are going to get everything on someone else's dime anyway?

Reward the fail, America. Turn our country into the nation version of The Learning Channel.
 
2012-10-10 08:17:09 PM

StubhyGraham: Is it just me or does $70 billion seem too low to be the world's richest man?


The good folks that own, and operate the world's central banks, disapprove of your skepticism.
 
2012-10-10 08:17:36 PM

Satanic_Hamster: And by that you mean Reaganphones, right trollmitter?


They had free cell phones back then?

/yeah, cell.
 
2012-10-10 08:22:46 PM

TheBigJerk: Oh right, none of that matters. What matters is OBAMA BAD!! OBAMA BAAAAD!!!!!11one


I don't suppose it's possible that I dislike anything that smacks of influence peddling, regardless of what "side" is doing it.
 
2012-10-10 08:26:42 PM
For those who indicate that Reagan signed this cell phone thing, please be advised that we did not have the option in 1989. It's Obama that extended the Reagan bill to include cell phones in addition to land lines, or in favor of land lines.

Vast difference between using existing infrastructure to provide a land line and bringing in cell phones that require a burgeoning infrastructure (which is getting put in place now).

No political agenda here. Reagan was Repulican, Obama is a Democrat. Seems to work fine.

FTA: "This program is rife with waste and abuse," Griffin said. "It's set up in a way where people can receive multiple phones for free"

Typical point of view crap. Good times.
 
2012-10-10 08:27:14 PM

Silly Jesus: Vectron: Conservatards hate it when government programs work the way they were intended.


[newnownext.mtvnimages.com image 607x310]

Free phones for trash votes?


FTFY
 
2012-10-10 08:30:02 PM

Tumunga: Satanic_Hamster: And by that you mean Reaganphones, right trollmitter?

They had free cell phones back then?

/yeah, cell.


zev.lacounty.gov
 
2012-10-10 08:32:20 PM

SevenizGud: you are going to get everything on someone else's dime


img853.imageshack.us

This terrible situation which doesn't even remotely exist is truly going to ruin us.
 
2012-10-10 08:36:35 PM
Here is a pretty good run down of the program and how it actually (sort of) dates back to the early 1900s.


The Obama Phone?
FactCheck.Org
posted on October 29, 2009
[factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone] 

As to who is making money off of it? Well that is up for debate.....but you know somebody is.
 
2012-10-10 08:42:00 PM
 
2012-10-10 08:45:03 PM

the.swartz: It's Obama that extended the Reagan bill to include cell phones in addition to land lines, or in favor of land lines.


More than 56,000 low-income Treasure Coast and Okeechobee County residents now can receive a free cell phone and minutes, thanks to a government-subsidized program financed with a portion of most phone users' bills.

The phones are offered locally through Miami-based for-profit TracFone Wireless Inc.

A new company program, called SafeLink Wireless, gives a cell phone and 68 minutes a month for a year to low-income households for no cost, no fees and no contract.

Posted December 8, 2008 at 10:58 a.m.


Gotta love that magical time machine.
 
2012-10-10 08:45:23 PM

GoldSpider: TheBigJerk: Oh right, none of that matters. What matters is OBAMA BAD!! OBAMA BAAAAD!!!!!11one

I don't suppose it's possible that I dislike anything that smacks of influence peddling, regardless of what "side" is doing it.


Not you, not so far.

Maybe someday, but right now you're still going after Obama and his magical Time machine that he used to make policies during other administrations.
 
2012-10-10 08:46:12 PM

Tumunga: Silly Jesus: Vectron: Conservatards hate it when government programs work the way they were intended.


[newnownext.mtvnimages.com image 607x310]

Free phones for trash votes?

FTFY


I wonder if you'll slink away, or double down.
 
2012-10-10 08:46:53 PM
Three in a row, clearly we must all be working in tandem. It's a liberal conspiracy!!!11one
 
2012-10-10 08:48:18 PM

I_Am_Weasel: Ring ring ring ring ring ring ring
Obamaphone
Ring ring ring ring ring ring ring
Obamaphone
I've got this feeling, so appealing,
for us to get together and sing. Sing!

[www.myhero.com image 200x247]


Done in 6.
 
2012-10-10 08:49:04 PM
I like how this Fair and Balanced article accurately points out that this is a Reagan program, and that the expansion 4 years ago that changed it to cell phones happened before the end of Bush's term and that Obama hasn't touched it. Wait, what's that? It doesn't say either of those things, and spuriously implies that the expansion was under Obama by not mentioning Bush and calling them "Obamaphones?" I'm shocked!
 
2012-10-10 08:50:49 PM
Ah, yeah, the "Obama phone", the one that wasn't legislated by Obama at any point, isn't funded by the government, isn't managed by the government, is managed by a non-profit, non-political company, and was actually ordered to reform under Obama to lower system abuse? THAT Obama phone?

Yeah. That one. STFU and go home conservatards, your mom's calling. You don't look up a farking thing, and claim to be informed. Fark you all.
 
2012-10-10 08:58:02 PM

Cletus C.: Saborlas: Considering the source of this article, I'm gonna whip out my Obamaphone and call bullsh*t.


/Reagan signed the bill into law, you idiots

Shouldn't they be called Regaphones then? Why is Obama stealing the credit?



That's a good question. Why didn't the lady in the video call them "Reaganphones"? If she was so excited about the phone program, why not give credit where credit was due?


Hello.
i1223.photobucket.com
Yes, this is Reaganphone.
 
2012-10-10 09:11:30 PM
But Fox News isn't racist.

No siree!
 
2012-10-10 09:18:19 PM

GoldSpider: I suppose there's no point in trying to discuss the merits of campaign donors benefiting directly from administration programs.


We could discuss that, but which administration and whose campaign do you want to talk about? Hint: both the pejorative moniker and the article are misleading.
 
2012-10-10 09:28:11 PM

homelessdude: Here is a pretty good run down of the program and how it actually (sort of) dates back to the early 1900s.


The Obama Phone?
FactCheck.Org
posted on October 29, 2009
[factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone] 

As to who is making money off of it? Well that is up for debate.....but you know somebody is.


This is why I hate the ultra-right crowd in this country. They took a video of a what seemed to be an inebriated black woman talking about her "Obama Phone" and spread it around the internet to disseminate even more lies about our President. The way the video was used was both racist and beyond deceitful. But yet, the ignorant eat that shiat up without so much as googling "Obama Phone," in which they'd learn the truth. In the USA, truth isn't worth a penny anymore it seems.
 
2012-10-10 09:29:21 PM
I swear I heard this years ago...but why wasn't it talked about back then...

Oh I know why! It was a Snopes article! And if you're not happy that Ronald Reagan started the whole thing, well sad day for you.
 
2012-10-10 09:29:53 PM
TracFone ... makes $10 per phone for each device it provides to poor Americans.

What do they make on the ones they provide to rich Americans?
 
2012-10-10 09:37:20 PM
I AM REALLY UPSET THAT LEGISLATION SIGNED BY A REPUBLICAN, EXPANDED ON BY A REPUBLICAN IS BEING USED TO THE BENEFIT OF BLACK PEOPLE.
 
2012-10-10 09:38:33 PM

Tumunga: Satanic_Hamster: And by that you mean Reaganphones, right trollmitter?

They had free cell phones back then?

/yeah, cell.


It's the same program. So you'd be fine if they're land lines? You just want the government to fund outmoded technologies? How about horse and buggy assistance for poor people instead of bus passes or car loans?
 
2012-10-10 09:38:54 PM

fiver5: Endive Wombat: Oh no. How will the right spin their anger one? See, they are against the "Obamaphones" but love capitalism. They like the idea of the rich getting richer, but this is a Mesican earning the money...which means the earned money is not staying in the US and going to a foreigner...wow, this will be a tough one for them

No need for spin.

Taking money, from ME, against my will, and using MY money to buy a phone and give it to someone else, is not capitalism, no matter who gets rich.



But...

Taking money, from ME, against my will, and using MY money to buy a shiatload of bombs for a hobby war halfway around the world for the sole purpose of feeding juicy billion dollar contracts to "friendly" defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, Halliburton, and Raytheon is A-OK.
 
2012-10-10 09:41:37 PM

birdboy2000: Obama will apparently give me a phone now. What will Romney do for me?




Free haircut.
 
2012-10-10 09:53:17 PM

SevenizGud:

When the intent is to reward people for being losers, yes I do hate it.

Why bother working if you are going to get everything on someone else's dime anyway?

Reward the fail, America. Turn our country into the nation version of The Learning Channel.


Yes, it's far more American that we all work and pay more taxes so that those who need it the least can enjoy paying less taxes (or in some cases - like Romney's perhaps; although, we don't know now do we, since he won't release anymore tax returns - none). The "job creators" did us all a huge favor in the last four years by creating so many jobs to help bolster the economy...oh, that's right, those jobs were created overseas. Let's just keep rewarding Romney's bed-fellows and watch all that "trickle down" goodness they'll create. Let's let the poor get poorer. Perhaps, in a not so far off future, we can have children begging in the streets for food, the same children born to mothers who can't afford health insurance let alone birth control. Let's envision that entitled America where seniors and the disabled are left with no safety nets and school kids can receive sub par education from public schools terribly understaffed with teachers, the very ones Romney again said we don't need even after he said he'd support them in the debate (with such conviction, might I add). Let's tell our future potential college students to just go borrow money from their "used to be middle class but now can't afford shiat" parents for a college education. Let's just keep telling the folks who can't afford healthcare to go to the ER when they think they are dying - or better, yet, let's just let them die. And the list goes on.

As for rewarding the fail, America - we are a failed, impotent and lost country if we continue to buy the notion that we are being milked by the mooching poor, when, in reality, we're being duped by the ultra-ultra rich.
 
2012-10-10 10:16:45 PM

YoungSwedishBlonde: I AM REALLY UPSET THAT LEGISLATION SIGNED BY A REPUBLICAN, EXPANDED ON BY A REPUBLICAN IS BEING USED TO THE BENEFIT OF BLACK PEOPLE.

 
2012-10-10 10:41:27 PM
But. The Phone Program was started by Ronald Reagan?

It's not a Obama program...
 
2012-10-10 11:06:43 PM

BeesNuts: Tumunga: Silly Jesus: Vectron: Conservatards hate it when government programs work the way they were intended.


[newnownext.mtvnimages.com image 607x310]

Free phones for trash votes?

FTFY

I wonder if you'll slink away, or double down.


Gonna let it ride, son.
 
2012-10-10 11:09:45 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Tumunga: Satanic_Hamster: And by that you mean Reaganphones, right trollmitter?

They had free cell phones back then?

/yeah, cell.

It's the same program. So you'd be fine if they're land lines? You just want the government to fund outmoded technologies? How about horse and buggy assistance for poor people instead of bus passes or car loans?


No, I don't want the government buying votes. Free phone at their house? I'm in. Free cell phones, plus the phone at their house, they're buying votes, just like that Miss in the viral video. Her vote done been bought, and shiat.
 
2012-10-10 11:23:42 PM

Tumunga: No, I don't want the government buying votes. Free phone at their house? I'm in. Free cell phones, plus the phone at their house, they're buying votes, just like that Miss in the viral video. Her vote done been bought, and shiat.


So surely she'd vote for the party that wrote and signed in the law, right. Surely she'll vote for the party and president who expanded it, right. I mean, isn't this the Republican party buying her vote? It's there program after all.
 
2012-10-10 11:27:29 PM
Go fark yourselves, you farking racists pieces of shiat.
 
2012-10-10 11:41:42 PM
[clicking 'show posts from ignored users']

SevenizGud: Reward the fail, America.


upload.wikimedia.org

Carly Fiorina. Head honcho of Hewlett Packard, 2002-2005. Shipped a zillion jobs to China. HP stock lost half its value while she was in charge.

That's right. Neither capital nor labor benefited from her reign of error.

They paid her $20 million to go away. She ran for Congress, and Fox Izvestia talked her up like the second coming of Ronald Reagan. But not even Fox Izvestia could polish this turd -- Pelosi trounced her.

$20 million and a campaign endorsement from Fox Izvestia for gutting HP. You or I fail on that scale, we'll be pumping gas and talking on Reaganphones for the rest of our lives. Fiorina got more cash for her epic fail at HP than any of their engineers -- the ones who actually build the products -- will ever see, however successful.

But a $10 Reaganphone is "reward[ing] the fail".
 
2012-10-10 11:46:35 PM

fiver5: Endive Wombat: Oh no. How will the right spin their anger one? See, they are against the "Obamaphones" but love capitalism. They like the idea of the rich getting richer, but this is a Mesican earning the money...which means the earned money is not staying in the US and going to a foreigner...wow, this will be a tough one for them

No need for spin.

Taking money, from ME, against my will, and using MY money to buy a phone and give it to someone else, is not capitalism, no matter who gets rich.


Thing is -- there's not a single fact that I can make out in this entire article. It's pure 100% unadulterated, fabricated bull-shiat.
 
2012-10-11 12:11:08 AM
I worked for a Tracfone callcenter in Bogota, Colombia for a year from 2006 to 2007. I can tell you, that program predates Obama by a few years.
 
2012-10-11 12:35:22 AM

Endive Wombat: Oh no. How will the right spin their anger one? See, they are against the "Obamaphones" but love capitalism. They like the idea of the rich getting richer, but this is a Mesican earning the money...which means the earned money is not staying in the US and going to a foreigner...wow, this will be a tough one for them


It isn't "earning" when you cozy to government and get rich that way. We call that cronyism.

themoreyouknow.jpg

Sounds awesome until you realize that programs like this put people out of work. Hell, why pay a company like StraightTalk, MetroPCS or Cricket, who offer plans as low as $25/mo when you can just get a cell phone for free! People who work for those companies dont need jobs or customers. The Government also does this with assurance wireless, which offers 250 mins a month and a phone for free and MVNOs like Virgin (who uses Sprint's network) are all too happy to get the government check every month compensating them for their network usage. Thats wayyyy easier than marketing, paying for storefronts or hiring "employees"
 
2012-10-11 12:37:40 AM
'Obamaphones' are what we are renaming 'homophones', in order to be more sensitive to the homosexual community.
 
2012-10-11 12:46:57 AM
I'm sure, since it's a Fox News link, that it's gotta be true, hardhitting and cutting edge.
 
2012-10-11 01:21:51 AM

Tumunga: Her vote done been bought, and shiat.


images.huffingtonpost.com
"...a 20% tax break to the richest Americans, reductions in capital gains taxes, and cuts to entitlement programs that help the needy!"

www.thenation.com
"Sold! To the Mormon in the blue suit!"
 

What's the difference?
 
2012-10-11 01:24:16 AM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Carly Fiorina


F*ck that b*tch in the ass with a dick wrapped in barbed wire for what she did to the tech industry in this country.

Seriously. F*ck that piece of low-life sh*t.
 
2012-10-11 01:34:24 AM

o5iiawah: Sounds awesome until you realize that programs like this put people out of work


Not sure if seriously trolling, or merely uninformed:

1. Straight talk is TracFone. They're the same company.
2. MetroPCS and Cricket are independent providers who do not offer coverage in most rural areas; therefore, their services wouldn't work for a large portion of the population that needs this service.
3. Most people using this government program need it. As in, they could afford the $25-30 / month, but only if they switched to ramen noodles 5 times a week instead of 3. Many of them would not have phone service at all without this program, and the simple fact that they have some kind of phone service makes finding a job and caring for their children much, much easier.
4. The fact that this service increases cell phone usage actually puts more engineers, technicians, and customer service reps to work. Admittedly, TracFone's customer service is in India, but then so are the other providers you mentioned. The engineers and technicians by necessity must work here where the infrastructure is. (Since TracFone resells other network services like AT&T and Sprint, it's actually increasing the employment of their techs). What you said is analagous to saying, "Government provided roads cost Americans jobs, since a number of Americans could afford to pay to drive on toll roads."
 
2012-10-11 01:58:14 AM

fenianfark:

The program, which began in the mid-1980s, has exploded in the past four years after being expanded from supplying landlines to the poor to providing cellular phones.

.


The mid 1980's? Why I bet the uppity poors were demanding touch-tone phones instead of rotary! And those fancy Record-A-Call machines!!
 
2012-10-11 02:14:25 AM

Tumunga: Silly Jesus: Vectron: Conservatards hate it when government programs work the way they were intended.


[newnownext.mtvnimages.com image 607x310]

Free phones for trash votes?

FTFY


Yet somehow it didn't get Bush, Jr. (who signed the expansion to cell phones into law) elected for a third (illegal) term.

Since Obama took office as President, there has been exactly zero change to this program.

/ Out of curiosity, why is it considered "buying votes" when Dems promise not to cut existing programs, but its not considered "buying votes" when Reps promise to cut my taxes?
// Since I worked for AT&T, I'll just state the obvious: it's actually CHEAPER to provide a limited-plan cell phone to the poor than it is to provide full POTS landline service -- especially since many of these people aren't "house stable."
 
2012-10-11 02:22:18 AM

JadedRaverLA: I'll just state the obvious: it's actually CHEAPER to provide a limited-plan cell phone to the poor than it is to provide full POTS landline service -- especially since many of these people aren't "house stable."


For those who are uneducated enough to disagree with this statement, please check out land line service in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East and compare the prices to cell service. Geographically speaking, you simply can't get land line service in most areas outside of cities, but cell service is ubiquitous.

Also, in those countries, no one pays for incoming calls or text messages. We get scammed in the US.
 
2012-10-11 02:38:01 AM

fiver5: Endive Wombat: Oh no. How will the right spin their anger one? See, they are against the "Obamaphones" but love capitalism. They like the idea of the rich getting richer, but this is a Mesican earning the money...which means the earned money is not staying in the US and going to a foreigner...wow, this will be a tough one for them

No need for spin.

Taking money, from ME, against my will, and using MY money to buy a phone and give it to someone else, is not capitalism, no matter who gets rich.


1. Program started by Reagan

2. To get a job you need a phone.

3. It's not your money, I'm sure you love our military, we can say that your money is going towards defense, my filthy liberal money is going to social issues so quit complaining.
 
2012-10-11 03:05:46 AM
Obama signed a law extending the Bush tax cuts. Do we now call them "Obamacuts?"

No? He doesn't get credit for that in the right's media circle? Why not?

So why is "Obamaphone" so popular a phrase? Yes, I know the answer. But I want you knee-jerk assholes on the right who believe every single thing Fox tells you to think about that for a minute. And once you realize how full of sh*t (mostly by egregious omissions) just this one article is, what other goat turds are they selling you?
 
2012-10-11 04:28:15 AM

dickfreckle: Obama signed a law extending the Bush tax cuts. Do we now call them "Obamacuts?"


Well, Republicans have taken to calling the economic situation from 2008-2010 the "Obama Recession". I hope he owns the phrase when the economy starts booming again, just like he turned "Obamacare" around on the Republicans and now owns it.

Or at least gets people to call from 2011 to 2015 the "Obama Recovery".
 
2012-10-11 04:29:37 AM

dickfreckle: So why is "Obamaphone" so popular a phrase?


Actually, before being picked up by Fox News, the phrase was popularized by "urban" folks in much the same way as welfare and unemployment began to be called "Obama bucks".
 
2012-10-11 05:55:50 AM

ox45tallboy: dickfreckle: So why is "Obamaphone" so popular a phrase?

Actually, before being picked up by Fox News, the phrase was popularized by "urban" folks in much the same way as welfare and unemployment began to be called "Obama bucks".


Oh I know. I'm just wondering aloud. Tell you what, I'm going to start using "Obamacuts" and hope it takes off, just so his name is attached to something Fox and the rest of the right champion, causing widespread exploding of heads.
 
2012-10-11 06:25:36 AM

dickfreckle: Oh I know. I'm just wondering aloud. Tell you what, I'm going to start using "Obamacuts" and hope it takes off, just so his name is attached to something Fox and the rest of the right champion, causing widespread exploding of heads.


Too late. It seems "Obamacut" is already taken.

i.cdn.turner.com
 
2012-10-11 06:26:55 AM

ox45tallboy: MetroPCS and Cricket are independent providers who do not offer coverage in most rural areas


Both companies offer free roaming on sprint's nationwide network at no charge to their customers.

The fact that this service increases cell phone usage actually puts more engineers, technicians, and customer service reps to work

but only for TracFone, at the expense of other businesses who have to compete with each other and sell their products in the market.

ox45tallboy: Since TracFone resells other network services like AT&T and Sprint


No they dont. they purchase network allocation from ATT/Sprint since they have no network of their own. That is the definition of an MVNO.

Most people using this government program need it. As in, they could afford the $25-30 / month, but only if they switched to ramen noodles 5 times a week instead of 3. Many of them would not have phone service at all without this program, and the simple fact that they have some kind of phone service makes finding a job and caring for their children much, much easier.

Can I just ask what people are expected to do for themselves? Serious question...
 
2012-10-11 06:36:59 AM
OMG, poor people are getting a reduction in the cost of their cell phone service in order to make them more employable?

Lucky duckies!

Every time the RWers snidely refer to that low info voter going about "free phones" they are blowing a racist dog whistle.
 
2012-10-11 08:19:17 AM

Godscrack: Sleeping Monkey: Is there nothing that won't outrage the right?

[imageshack.us image 502x469]


...is that an Observer?
 
2012-10-11 08:20:36 AM

Tumunga: BeesNuts: Tumunga: Silly Jesus: Vectron: Conservatards hate it when government programs work the way they were intended.


[newnownext.mtvnimages.com image 607x310]

Free phones for trash votes?

FTFY

I wonder if you'll slink away, or double down.

Gonna let it ride, son.


As any red blooded American man should. Carry on. You've always impressed me with your deliberate innacuracy, why stop now.

/I actually keep you farkied because it's legitimately impressive.
 
2012-10-11 08:29:42 AM

o5iiawah: Both companies offer free roaming on sprint's nationwide network at no charge to their customers.


Haven't had Cricket since about 2001, but I know I couldn't get MetroPCS service in many places where Sprint phones worked fine. Also, they won't allow you to initialize the phone outside of their network. Furthermore, when I was staying with my sister in Spring Hill, TN this past summer, they killed my data connection because I had been outside their network too long (about 5 weeks at that point). No more web surfing or MMS.

o5iiawah: but only for TracFone, at the expense of other businesses who have to compete with each other and sell their products in the market.


Wrong. It puts techs and engineers to work on Sprint, AT&T, and T-Mobile networks, because that is who is actually providing the service.

o5iiawah: No they dont. they purchase network allocation from ATT/Sprint since they have no network of their own. That is the definition of an MVNO.


Now you're trying to split hairs, but you're actually defeating your previous argument regarding techs working for TracFone. They don't. They work for AT&T or Verizon or T-Mobile or Sprint, who handle all of the network outages and tower uprades and maintenance.

o5iiawah: Can I just ask what people are expected to do for themselves? Serious question...


Buy food.

Seriously, are you that upset over government providing communications assistance to needy people that can barely afford to eat? It's not like you can roll up to the welfare office in your Benz and cruise home to your 3-bedroom townhouse and grill some steaks while yapping away to some b*tches you met in the club all night on your free Android ICS touch-screen HD-capable smartphone. It's a cheap piece of crap phone with no features and only a couple of hours of talk time per month, but it vastly improves the quality of life for a lot of people, and it also can help them get a job and be reachable by other assistance programs like the VA and Social Security.

Why are you so upset that the government is helping people? Your post seems to come off as though you're in favor of killing off other government programs like PBS subsidies as well.
 
2012-10-11 10:12:07 AM

o5iiawah: Can I just ask what people are expected to do for themselves? Serious question...


No, I'm with you brother. I'd be much happier if poor neighborhoods in America looked like the streets of Calcutta.
 
2012-10-11 10:22:45 AM
You need a phone to get a job. Plain an simple. That was Reagon's intent. Minimal effor could be used to audit the system and remove some fraud. This should happen, but will not on cries of racism (aka any correction in the corrupt system that prevents minorities from taking advantage). Still, I don't have a problem with the program in principal. In practice is sucks. But this is government. They are corrupt and inept by nature.
 
2012-10-11 10:36:16 AM

ox45tallboy: TracFone's customer service is in India


TracFone's "customer service" is a lameass computer with no apparent way to get a human being on the line.

/Cue the Randroids telling us how that's what the Free Market® wants
 
2012-10-11 10:53:13 AM

ox45tallboy: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Carly Fiorina

F*ck that b*tch in the ass with a dick wrapped in barbed wire for what she did to the tech industry in this country.

Seriously. F*ck that piece of low-life sh*t.


I'm with you on that one. That b*tch farked up a lot of people's lives, and had the nerve to say "there's no job in America that's a God given right." Excuse me, but you nearly brought a company to it's knees with your ineptness, and you somehow "deserved" a $20M payout to go the f*ck away? Oh, and those expensive Gulfstream jets you bought off the backs of laid off employees so you can ride around in style to fark that company up?

Jackson Herring: Go fark yourselves, you farking racists pieces of shiat.


I with you on this one, too. And Silly Jesus is prolly an ITG, but when he is out and about, he knows to keep his yapper shut lest it get his ass beat mercilessly. Farking assbag.

And more to the point: WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THE GOVERNMENT MAKING SURE POOR PEOPLE HAVE A MEANS TO COMMUNICATE? And it hardly costs the average taxpayer anything? How can they effectively manage in today's world, like looking for a job, or calling for help?

You clowns are the same dipshiat assholes I see at military open houses, most of you likely have NEVER served, all out there whooping it up on "America #1" and "we kick ass" bullshiat. Why? Because you are jacking off to the latest expensive piece of gear....and you wanna buy more, even when we don't need it or can afford it. But it looks "cool" and you can jackoff to it at home while avoiding military service Good for you, defense contractors, and politicians.

Meanwhile, a poor American who got a subsidized phone to enable them to look for work or call for help is "killing" our economy and needs to be cut to "save money". And PBS, which transmits OTA, needs to get the chop, so that poor person who may have a child won't get free educational programming, since we have to buy another F-22 or another aircraft carrier.

I'd love to slap the whole lot of ya, but you ain't worth 1) the time, 2) my precious effort, 3) the privilege of my hand smacking you silly.
 
2012-10-11 03:46:44 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Tumunga: No, I don't want the government buying votes. Free phone at their house? I'm in. Free cell phones, plus the phone at their house, they're buying votes, just like that Miss in the viral video. Her vote done been bought, and shiat.

So surely she'd vote for the party that wrote and signed in the law, right. Surely she'll vote for the party and president who expanded it, right. I mean, isn't this the Republican party buying her vote? It's there program after all.


Nope. After all your whargblgble, you heard what party she's voting for, so your theorum just got, got, got pooped on by her.

Do you actually think that Obama is going to walk up to her and say, "Lady, that's not an Obama phone, that's a Reagan phone. If you having that phone is the reason you're voting for me, I don't want that vote. You vote for Romney. His party gave you that phone."

Yeah, that's gonna happen. So, an Obama Phone it is, and he's using it to garner the stupid votes. Just like a chicken in every pot.
 
2012-10-11 03:57:59 PM

ox45tallboy: Tumunga: Her vote done been bought, and shiat.

[images.huffingtonpost.com image 260x190]
"...a 20% tax break to the richest Americans, reductions in capital gains taxes, and cuts to entitlement programs that help the needy!"

[www.thenation.com image 260x180]
"Sold! To the Mormon in the blue suit!" 

What's the difference?


You don't have to use big words when buying the votes of the masses with a $10 phone?
 
2012-10-11 04:16:37 PM

BeesNuts: Tumunga: BeesNuts: Tumunga: Silly Jesus: Vectron: Conservatards hate it when government programs work the way they were intended.


[newnownext.mtvnimages.com image 607x310]

Free phones for trash votes?

FTFY

I wonder if you'll slink away, or double down.

Gonna let it ride, son.

As any red blooded American man should. Carry on. You've always impressed me with your deliberate innacuracy, why stop now.

/I actually keep you farkied because it's legitimately impressive.


Just between you and me, I like watching people get all red-assed in here.
 
2012-10-11 05:25:14 PM

Mi-5: ox45tallboy: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Carly Fiorina

F*ck that b*tch in the ass with a dick wrapped in barbed wire for what she did to the tech industry in this country.

Seriously. F*ck that piece of low-life sh*t.

I'm with you on that one. That b*tch farked up a lot of people's lives, and had the nerve to say "there's no job in America that's a God given right." Excuse me, but you nearly brought a company to it's knees with your ineptness, and you somehow "deserved" a $20M payout to go the f*ck away? Oh, and those expensive Gulfstream jets you bought off the backs of laid off employees so you can ride around in style to fark that company up?

Jackson Herring: Go fark yourselves, you farking racists pieces of shiat.

I with you on this one, too. And Silly Jesus is prolly an ITG, but when he is out and about, he knows to keep his yapper shut lest it get his ass beat mercilessly. Farking assbag.

And more to the point: WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THE GOVERNMENT MAKING SURE POOR PEOPLE HAVE A MEANS TO COMMUNICATE? And it hardly costs the average taxpayer anything? How can they effectively manage in today's world, like looking for a job, or calling for help?

You clowns are the same dipshiat assholes I see at military open houses, most of you likely have NEVER served, all out there whooping it up on "America #1" and "we kick ass" bullshiat. Why? Because you are jacking off to the latest expensive piece of gear....and you wanna buy more, even when we don't need it or can afford it. But it looks "cool" and you can jackoff to it at home while avoiding military service Good for you, defense contractors, and politicians.

Meanwhile, a poor American who got a subsidized phone to enable them to look for work or call for help is "killing" our economy and needs to be cut to "save money". And PBS, which transmits OTA, needs to get the chop, so that poor person who may have a child won't get free educational programming, since we have to buy another F-22 or another ...


faderjok.tastyspleen.net
 
2012-10-11 08:45:48 PM

ox45tallboy: Wrong. It puts techs and engineers to work on Sprint, AT&T, and T-Mobile networks, because that is who is actually providing the service.


No, those engineers are already hired and the network is already in place. They just sell off unused traffic to tracfone/virgin etc...

I work in telecom. You're humping a losing argument.

GranoblasticMan: No, I'm with you brother. I'd be much happier if poor neighborhoods in America looked like the streets of Calcutta.


I live near Camden. I'm sorry, were you trying to make an argument?

ox45tallboy: Haven't had Cricket since about 2001


Things have changed. government programs to distribute "free" wireless hurt small carriers and benefit large ones.
 
2012-10-12 01:40:28 AM

o5iiawah: No, those engineers are already hired and the network is already in place. They just sell off unused traffic to tracfone/virgin etc...

I work in telecom. You're humping a losing argument.


Sorry, dude, but you can't tell me that increase in usage does not also increase maintenance and wear and tear of equipment. The "losing argument" is someone who believes not only that this program is a waste of taxpayer money, but also believes that it costs American jobs, because if low-income people bought their own service instead (never mind the fact that many wouldn't be able to afford to do so), then the carriers would need to hire more maintenance techs and customer service reps because that service would somehow necessitate additional personnel that the same service paid by the government does not. This sort of logic is rather silly.

I agree. Your losing argument just got humped.
 
2012-10-12 01:42:33 AM

o5iiawah: Things have changed. government programs to distribute "free" wireless hurt small carriers and benefit large ones.


That's called the economic principle of "efficiency of scale." It is much cheaper for the government to deal with one company that is able to provide cell service across the country than to deal with multiple smaller companies that can only provide service in certain geographic locations.

Would you rather the program cost even more? Your logic seems rather flawed.
 
Displayed 131 of 131 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report