Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now this part bothers me. I rent a room in a house with several other people. There is no landline in the house, everyone has their own cell phone (I have a cheap prepaid phone.)
If one person has a subsidized phone, why should that make everyone else in the house ineligible? If you're too poor to have your own housing, why should you be penalized for that?
That's a good question freemkt. I guess it's an old carryover from the old landline Lifeline program where you could only have 1 phone installed at an address.
Now this part bothers me. I rent a room in a house with several other people. There is no landline in the house, everyone has their own cell phone (I have a cheap prepaid phone.)
If one person has a subsidized phone, why should that make everyone else in the house ineligible? If you're too poor to have your own housing, why should you be penalized for that?
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,141,865 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
So if five people share a house, they're supposed to use 200 - A, -B, etc?
Why do all five people have to have a cell phone? Sorry... one land-line in the house costs less money for the taxpayers, yet still gives the residents access to a phone for free. So they can't play Words with friends or follow the latest Tweet?.... they can have access to that phone for emergency calls and other calls as necessary. It simply amazes me, that as bad as our economy is and as much as people gripe and complain about it, that most won't do a little cost-cutting. There was a day when most of us had ONE phone in our homes... an extension was a luxury only the rich could afford... and we did just fine.
Why do all five people have to have a cell phone? Sorry... one land-line in the house costs less money for the taxpayers, yet still gives the residents access to a phone for free. So they can't play Words with friends or follow the latest Tweet?.... they can have access to that phone for emergency calls and other calls as necessary. It simply amazes me, that as bad as our economy is and as much as people gripe and complain about it, that most won't do a little cost-cutting. There was a day when most of us had ONE phone in our homes... an extension was a luxury only the rich could afford... and we did just fine.
So one lucky person should get the phone and the other four unrelated adults should twiddle their thumbs?
You don't seriously believes the other four will be able to get messages through the person with the phone, do you? Nobody other than family is going to volunteer as messagetaker. That's why there is no landline in this house.
Here's another one; there's a heating assistance program which aggregates all incomes in a house. If there are five people in the house, they add everyone's income. It's based on the government poverty level, which means the income limit is much lower for five people sharing housing than it is for five people living separately.
What is the thinking here? The five people are splitting the heating hill evenly, does government think they're supposed to split the bill proportionally to their respective incomes?
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,141,865 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
So one lucky person should get the phone and the other four unrelated adults should twiddle their thumbs?
You don't seriously believes the other four will be able to get messages through the person with the phone, do you? Nobody other than family is going to volunteer as messagetaker. That's why there is no landline in this house.
Just HOW did we ever survive without a cell-phone? People still had roommates back 30 years ago believe it or not. We took messages for each other.
Quote:
Here's another one; there's a heating assistance program which aggregates all incomes in a house. If there are five people in the house, they add everyone's income. It's based on the government poverty level, which means the income limit is much lower for five people sharing housing than it is for five people living separately.
What is the thinking here? The five people are splitting the heating hill evenly, does government think they're supposed to split the bill proportionally to their respective incomes?
Why would any of the five be complaining? Their still getting off cheaper than the rest of us who pay our own 100%.
Seriously... what is so hard about a compromise. You really don't see this as being selfishness on your part? Instead of getting one phone, putting it in the house, and let's say having the government pay for it at 20.00 per month... it's better to let the government pay for 5 cells at 20.00 per month, because it's easier and more convenient for you? We've all had to make compromises and sacrifices in this economy.. and yet sharing a phone is to much for you to contribute to help ease the taxpayer's burden? I'm guessing that you must get such IMPORTANT calls going back and forth from your home to your job that an I-phone is necessary?
Not of their own doing though. It took investigative journalism to uncover the fraud/abuse and then some lawmakers in Congress to start asking questions. The FCC didn't "decide" on their own..they got called on it by Congress thanks to MSM stories of fraud and abuse.
Now imagine how many other program abuses are out there waiting to be uncovered ?
The problem is that our government takes a back seat approach and does nothing until problems like this hit the press and hard questions get asked. They are REACTIVE instead of proactive.
We'd be in a lot better financial shape if they did a better job of watching how tax dollars are spent.
Maybe the msm should start talking about fraud and abuse in Iraq.
Much more money and fraud involved.
Lifeline started out as a private company in the 80's.
FactCheck.org at <A href="http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/" target=_blank>http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/, which notes: "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." The federal "Lifeline" program was created during the Reagan Administration. Lifeline is a federal program created by the Reagan era Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1984. The program was enhanced under Telecommunications Act of 1996, which was supported on a broadly bipartisan basis in Congress. The FCC’s Low Income Program of the Universal Service Fund, which is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), is designed to ensure that quality telecommunications services are available to low-income customers at just, reasonable, and affordable rates. Lifeline support reduces eligible low-income consumers' monthly charges for basic telephone service.
Self certify ? Check a box saying you qualify and that's it..no verification ?
That's the rules the FCC put in place.
Why did it have to go on for 4 years and triple in cost before someone started asking questions ?
Don't get me wrong..I'm glad the FCC finally got on the ball on this.
But how do these idiotic program requirements get put in place to begin with ?
That's billions in wasted money we've lost over the years.
It took the MSM and Congress reacting to get the FCC to do something.
They seemed to be quite content just raising the USF each year to cover it.
You don't get mailed a free phone without signing up. The program does not work like that.
You have to sign up and self-certify.
41% are NOT elderly or dead. I'm sorry but I just don't buy that excuse you're giving.
The phone companies will not release their data so we don't know any information about those canceled plans.
You're making excuses for why the government failed. If any business operated like Fed programs do they'd be bankrupt within a year.
Stop making excuses and instead email your representative about these issues and call them out on it.
If the government is going to take on programs like this they need to do it right and from the start, not years and billions of lost dollars later.
Don't go blaming the phone companies for doing what the government told them to do.
The blame goes to the FCC 100%.
I can't disagree with one word of this. It does Democrats no good to pretend that there isn't massive waste and fraud in a lot of these government programs; not only the ones that serve the poor. Yes, there certainly are times that we are being taken advantage of as taxpayers.
So if five people share a house, they're supposed to use 200 - A, -B, etc?
Seems reasonable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just HOW did we ever survive without a cell-phone? People still had roommates back 30 years ago believe it or not. We took messages for each other. 
