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.

(Washington Post)   Republicans look to send a stern message to Obama over his excessive time machine usage by canceling the "obamaphone" program that he secretly started when Reagan was president   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 155
    More: Obvious, obama, Republican, lifeline, usages, Energy and Commerce Committee, scrutiny, subsidies  
•       •       •

2256 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Apr 2013 at 10:03 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-10 08:28:45 AM
In other words they were fine when the money went to mainly rural people. Now that it might be going to urban people, they have a problem with it
 
2013-04-10 08:51:23 AM
It is probably time to reconsider the program, regardless of which evil political party is responsible for it.  Basic phone service is cheap and not as useful as it used to be.
Let's use that $2.2 billion/year to improve the Internet instead.
 
2013-04-10 08:52:43 AM
You mean the program that TRIPLED in size since 2009?
 
2013-04-10 08:53:02 AM
I'd be fine with the program being restricted back to landlines. I know I sound old, but I don't really see where cell phones are a necessity.
 
2013-04-10 09:02:22 AM

Sybarite: I'd be fine with the program being restricted back to landlines. I know I sound old, but I don't really see where cell phones are a necessity.


Would trimming it back to landlines have any cost-saving effect, other than just discouraging people from utilizing it though?  Cheap cell phones are cheaper than landlines, or at least very close in cost (I admit I haven't priced either lately).
 
2013-04-10 09:02:42 AM
The racial resentment associated with this program is nearly palpable.
 
2013-04-10 09:05:56 AM
CHANGE
CHANGE
CHANGE
CHANGE
OBAMAPHONE
 
2013-04-10 09:06:35 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: The racial resentment associated with this program is nearly palpable.


It's all part of the right-wing narrative that says Obama won by buying the votes of the poors and/or blah people with programs like this. He definitely didn't win because most voters rejected the Republican Party's hard-right stances and policies.  It was the Obamaphones.
 
2013-04-10 09:14:17 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: You mean the program that TRIPLED in size since 2009?


Do you have a link for that?
 
2013-04-10 09:36:00 AM

James!: tenpoundsofcheese: You mean the program that TRIPLED in size since 2009?

Do you have a link for that?


Does TFA not count?
 
2013-04-10 09:39:39 AM

serial_crusher: James!: tenpoundsofcheese: You mean the program that TRIPLED in size since 2009?

Do you have a link for that?

Does TFA not count?


I mean beyond a claim made by a republican looking to cut the program. Because besides the TFA I'm not finding anything in the googles.
 
2013-04-10 09:43:00 AM
Before all the wharblegarble starts over Obama phones, I'd like to point out that the US government regulation of telephones has been one of the most effective programs historically that the US government has ever been involved in. Everyone biatched about Ma Bell before it was broken up in the 80's, but the reality of the situation is that that government regulation of the telecommunications system in the US was directly responsible for the incredibly high market penetration of land lines (something like 98% of all households at its peak).

Now, we can debate the continued effectiveness of such programs, and whether we need them or not. But historically speaking, this program is nothing new, and similar programs have been enormously successful in delivering the economic and social benefits of telephone services to Americans who could not otherwise afford them.

Personally, I'd like the government to get out of the buying cell phones business, and get back into regulation, particularly regulating te geography of the broadband infrastructure. I'd love to see broadband aggressively regulated like telephone in the early days, with a big push to expanding the capacity of the network, particularly in forcing companies to build out to unprofitable rural areas. Such a thing is unlikely to happen in the modern political climate, so I haz a sad....
 
2013-04-10 09:45:34 AM

serial_crusher: James!: tenpoundsofcheese: You mean the program that TRIPLED in size since 2009?

Do you have a link for that?

Does TFA not count?


Purse strings?
 
2013-04-10 09:47:41 AM

Sybarite: I'd be fine with the program being restricted back to landlines. I know I sound old, but I don't really see where cell phones are a necessity.


You're interviewing for a crappy but available job. You're on the bus home from the interview because you rely on public transit. The manager at McCrap, where you interviewed yesterday, calls you to tell you you're hired. Because you have to transfer to another bus which is late, you're not home to take the call. Manager hires the next person on the list instead.
 
2013-04-10 09:50:11 AM
I love it when Republicans find a video on YouTube and base their political strategy on it!
 
2013-04-10 09:51:22 AM

BunkoSquad: Sybarite: I'd be fine with the program being restricted back to landlines. I know I sound old, but I don't really see where cell phones are a necessity.

You're interviewing for a crappy but available job. You're on the bus home from the interview because you rely on public transit. The manager at McCrap, where you interviewed yesterday, calls you to tell you you're hired. Because you have to transfer to another bus which is late, you're not home to take the call. Manager hires the next person on the list instead.


That seems very unlikely.  McManager is going to leave a message.

I think that in the long run maintaining cell infrastructure and handing out cell phones is going to be cheaper than keeping the land lines alive while everyone else is moving away from them.  Also, for an emergency having a cell to call 911 is going to be a lot more helpful than trying to find one of the few remaining pay phones.
 
2013-04-10 09:51:54 AM

BunkoSquad: Sybarite: I'd be fine with the program being restricted back to landlines. I know I sound old, but I don't really see where cell phones are a necessity.

You're interviewing for a crappy but available job. You're on the bus home from the interview because you rely on public transit. The manager at McCrap, where you interviewed yesterday, calls you to tell you you're hired. Because you have to transfer to another bus which is late, you're not home to take the call. Manager hires the next person on the list instead.


See also: your housing situation is precarious, but you can't interview without a reliable contact number.
 
2013-04-10 09:53:31 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/carlos-slim-obamaphones_n_19 5 5929.html


The free phone program is essentially a government payoff to the world's richest man. Socialism indeed.
 
2013-04-10 10:06:52 AM
Get a job you stupid poor person

Good luck getting a job without a telephone you stupid poor person

Go weave your own bootstraps and then pull yourself up by them
 
2013-04-10 10:12:07 AM
Chimpyphones!
www.democratic-republicans.us
 
2013-04-10 10:12:11 AM

2wolves: serial_crusher: James!: tenpoundsofcheese: You mean the program that TRIPLED in size since 2009?

Do you have a link for that?

Does TFA not count?

Purse strings?


Chief?
 
2013-04-10 10:13:26 AM

Sybarite: I'd be fine with the program being restricted back to landlines. I know I sound old, but I don't really see where cell phones are a necessity.


A lot of newer homes/apartments don't even have landlines. Mine doesn't, and since I'm renting, ripping out the walls to have one installed isn't an option. Honestly, subsidising landlines only would be about as useful as subsidising rabbit ear antennae or Betamax players.
 
2013-04-10 10:13:45 AM
Everybody should have to get a party line. PARTY.
 
2013-04-10 10:14:58 AM

CPennypacker: Get a job you stupid poor person

Good luck getting a job without a telephone you stupid poor person

Go weave your own bootstraps and then pull yourself up by them


Transportation
Appropriate clothing
Daycare

Good luck getting a job without those, stupid poor person.
 
2013-04-10 10:20:04 AM

Cletus C.: CPennypacker: Get a job you stupid poor person

Good luck getting a job without a telephone you stupid poor person

Go weave your own bootstraps and then pull yourself up by them

Transportation
Appropriate clothing
Daycare

Good luck getting a job without those, stupid poor person.


Public transportation
http://www.dcgoodwill.org/index.php/workforce-development/clothing-v ou cher-program
Public schools
 
2013-04-10 10:20:48 AM
I haven't had a landline since I was in undergrad, and I don't see any reason why I would get a landline in even the distant future. My cell phone covers me in any situation where I would conceivably use a landline (and more). The subsidized cell phone program may need to be changed since the underlying law is from the 1980s, but that doesn't mean that ensuring the least of us have a reliable form of communication is a bad idea.
 
2013-04-10 10:21:03 AM

Cletus C.: CPennypacker: Get a job you stupid poor person

Good luck getting a job without a telephone you stupid poor person

Go weave your own bootstraps and then pull yourself up by them

Transportation
Appropriate clothing
Daycare

Good luck getting a job without those, stupid poor person.


You're right, we don't have any of those
 
2013-04-10 10:22:26 AM
they had cell phones in the 1980's?
 
2013-04-10 10:22:31 AM

God Is My Co-Pirate: See also: your housing situation is precarious, but you can't interview without a reliable contact number.


This is the real reason it should apply to cellphones. Rent is hundreds of dollars a month. A cheap tracphone could be had for  dollars a month. Were I in dire financial straits, I would use what little money I had for a cellphone and access to shower facilities (cheap gym membership, YMCA or whatever). With those basics covered, I can maintain enough presence in modern society that I have at least a chance of pulling myself back up.
 
2013-04-10 10:22:42 AM
Any chance we can stop giving billions to the oil industry instead of buttfarking the poor and lower middle class?
 
2013-04-10 10:23:04 AM
"The program has nearly tripled in size from $800 million in 2009 to $2.2 billion per year in 2012,"

I don't suppose we'll ever find out what the cost of the program was in 2001 and then in 2005, will we?
 
2013-04-10 10:23:11 AM

Sybarite: I'd be fine with the program being restricted back to landlines. I know I sound old, but I don't really see where cell phones are a necessity.


If it weren't for old people, I wouldn't even be aware landlines still existed. The one jack in my apartment has been painted over; I doubt it's functional.

Actually, come to think of it, even old people are catching on. My grandma hasn't had a landline in years.
 
2013-04-10 10:23:13 AM

James!: BunkoSquad: Sybarite: That seems very unlikely.  McManager is going to leave a message.


. . . assuming, of course, that our destitute job applicant has splurged on an answering machine.
 
2013-04-10 10:23:49 AM
Tripled in size since 2009?  Or since roughly the time when GWB expanded it to cellphones?
 
2013-04-10 10:24:06 AM

SlothB77: they had cell phones in the 1980's?


Boy are you on a roll today or what? Did you miss the part of the article that talked about Bush expanding the program to include cell phones in 2008?
 
2013-04-10 10:24:14 AM

Sybarite: I'd be fine with the program being restricted back to landlines. I know I sound old, but I don't really see where cell phones are a necessity.


Yeah.  Homeless people looking for jobs are big users of landlines.
 
2013-04-10 10:25:36 AM

Chthonic Echoes: James!: BunkoSquad: Sybarite: That seems very unlikely.  McManager is going to leave a message.

. . . assuming, of course, that our destitute job applicant has splurged on an answering machine.


Wait, I'm still reeling from the revelation that landlines still exist outside of office buildings. Do answering machines still exist, too? Do they still use tapes? I haven't seen one of those in... I don't know. I can't even remember the last time I saw one and wasn't watching Seinfeld.
 
2013-04-10 10:26:01 AM

Sybarite: I'd be fine with the program being restricted back to landlines. I know I sound old, but I don't really see where cell phones are a necessity.


It doesn't sound like you're so much old as you haven't thought your plan all the way through.

The program isn't subsidizing a cell phone in addition to a landline.    The program helps provide phone service to households that lack it.

What possible reason would you have for restricting the program to landlines, when cell phones are so cheap and useful?
 
2013-04-10 10:26:27 AM
On the other hand, 2.2 billion at an average of $9.25 per service is like 238 million plans. That seems incredibly high.
 
2013-04-10 10:26:42 AM

DarwiOdrade: SlothB77: they had cell phones in the 1980's?

Boy are you on a roll today or what? Did you miss the part of the article that talked about Bush expanding the program to include cell phones in 2008?


Maybe it was his incompetent girlfriend who added the cell phones?
 
2013-04-10 10:26:58 AM

SlothB77: they had cell phones in the 1980's?


www.fgi.com
 
2013-04-10 10:27:22 AM

SlothB77: they had cell phones in the 1980's?


You are farking killing it today.
 
2013-04-10 10:27:23 AM

thurstonxhowell: Actually, come to think of it, even old people are catching on. My grandma hasn't had a landline in years.


My grandma is the single most technophobic person I know - she won't even use a space heater - but a couple of years back, she traded in her landline for a Skype phone.
 
2013-04-10 10:28:19 AM

DarwiOdrade: SlothB77: they had cell phones in the 1980's?

Boy are you on a roll today or what? Did you miss the part of the article that talked about Bush expanding the program to include cell phones in 2008?


That was conservative! SHUT UP
 
2013-04-10 10:28:50 AM

SlothB77: they had cell phones in the 1980's?


First, there were cell phones in the 1980s...but, the program didn't cover them.

Under the Bush administration, the FCC realized that cell phones were becoming more important than landlines, so the program was expanded to cover them.
 
2013-04-10 10:29:32 AM

Lady Beryl Ersatz-Wendigo: 2wolves: serial_crusher: James!: tenpoundsofcheese: You mean the program that TRIPLED in size since 2009?

Do you have a link for that?

Does TFA not count?

Purse strings?

Chief?


No, and I don't pretend to be one.
 
2013-04-10 10:29:36 AM
Iraq and Afghanistan cost $7 trillion, so I'd say we're about even, motherfarkers.
 
2013-04-10 10:30:01 AM
I pushing 60 and haven't had a landline in 6 years. On the rare occasion I need to fax something, I go to something like Kinkos. Luckily, most places with take an email with an attached scanned document.,
 
2013-04-10 10:31:31 AM
so, like acorn, republicans are going to kill a program because it helps black people. great.
 
2013-04-10 10:32:11 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: You mean the program that TRIPLED in size since 2009?


Gee, I wonder what happened in 08-09 which could have been responsible for lots of new people needing help from thethe government paying for basic services. Maybe something that some stimulative spending would help counteract?

Nah
 
Displayed 50 of 155 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report