Safelink and Lifeline Programs - Landlines and Cellphones for low income (Ron Paul, fast food)

[tinman01]

Originally Posted by nvxplorer

I don't assume that, but I do sense it in some of the "arguments" I read. I know of no one who supports abusers of the system - any system. However, screaming "welfare bums" is no different than the left screaming "capitalist pigs." Welfare cheats are no more reason to abandon certain programs than Enron and Madoff are reasons to abondon capitalism. Each of us pay, for everything, it all doesn't go to the government.

It's always class warfare.

I don't know anyone who thinks this way, but yeah, there are some extremists out there. The extreme right claims every worker who joins a union is evil. Extremists suck.

My grandmother used to say, "If a policeman pulled you over, you had to be doing something wrong." Her assumption was incorrect as well.

I can agree with most of your post.
I don't feel programs should be canceled. I feel we need better oversight and managment.
Its always class warfare but never higher than it is today. The class warfare should be against those elitists in DC who fail us daily but yet enjoy the best of benefits on the tax payers dime.
Unions. Unions tend to be inflexible and uncompromising. At times a needful thing. At others disaster waiting to happen. Teachers Unions? At least where I live. The big 3? No flexibility what will happen if the big 3 fold?

[KevK]

Originally Posted by Soccersupporter

I have been thinking of taking my family's cell phones away. With all the overages, etc.. we can't seem to get under $300.00 a month. Maybe I should apply for this benefit. Does it include texting because my kids are hooked.

You can get Tmobile anywhere and it has "family limits" which allows you to set up maximum usage for each member. I know because we have it and I don't have overages. Also, many places have Boost, Virgin, Metro PCS or Cricket which have unlimited minutes (Metro has 4 lines unlimited for $100). You should not be spending anywhere near $300 a month for family cell service. I have 4 lines and spend less than 1/2 that amount.

[KevK]

Originally Posted by Frankie117

Saganista, lets be honest here, who is going to employ a homeless person when at the moment they have a choice of the cream of the crop? Employers seek new hires for their benefit, not yours. If you are homeless (regardless of the circumstances that made you such), you are not successful or productive in the eye of an employer, making them less likely to hire you. Almost all potential employers require a permanent address, record of previous employment, and the associated paperwork. Who would hire someone who could not even receive their paycheck in the mail?

It is a vicious cycle that few are able to break.

The homeless are not all dirty bums wandering the streets. There are many homeless who live in cars, vans, motel to motel, relative to relative. Often they are quite clean and sober. They may have an address they can use to get mail (you can rent one for a few dollars a month) but not one where they live. You need to come out more often and meet some of the homeless. I have met many of them.

[KevK]

There are lots of conservatives that just like to bash the less fortunate. That is sort of what the Republican Party has become. Pick on the poor, pick on the workers! That is the new mantra of the GOP. No wonder Jack Kemp died!

[JoeMama2009]

Since when is a cell phone a luxury item? Anybody who calls a cell phone a luxury item is showing their age (55+ baby boomer). For your information, pay phones are not everywhere like they used to be in the 80's and 90's. Some neighborhoods have no pay phones whatsoever.

I do think it's the individual's responsibility to provide their own cell though, not the BIG GOV. I would be terrified to to make a call using a GOV cell phone. Chances are this is a way for BIG GOV to spy on poor people.

Hey, the economy is in the toilet. I heard somewhere like 25 million Americans get food assistance and the number is growing. If you don't like the fact that someone is on welfare than give them a job, not some bs 8.00 an hour crap job, but something where they can provide for themselves. I do however have a problem with illegal aliens who get welfare.

Think about this: why discriminate against a job seeker for having bad credit, criminal convictions, or because they take the bus? Not employing these people is putting them on welfare.

Oh and any parents reading this, don't lie to your kid and try to sugar coat reality. Tell them they will become a loser if they don't get good grades and continue to college and then get a 6 figure job. My parents lied to me throughout my younger years and had me believing you could survive with only a high school diploma, no college, and 6.00 an hour. My dad told me starting out with a company and sweeping the warehouse floor was a way to advance.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by KevK

The homeless are not all dirty bums wandering the streets. There are many homeless who live in cars, vans, motel to motel, relative to relative. Often they are quite clean and sober.

Very true, I worked side by side with a lady that I found out was homeless, but that wasnt the question, the question is, in todays society, will people hire someone known to be homeless over someone not known to be homeless? As an employer now, and someone who has been homeless in the past (house burned to the ground), All things being equal, I'd have no problem giving a job to someone who isnt homless because they have more to lose and one would assume might be willing to work harder, over someone who MIGHT be getting a job for the sole purpose of keeping their government benefits..

Originally Posted by KevK

There are lots of conservatives that just like to bash the less fortunate. That is sort of what the Republican Party has become. Pick on the poor, pick on the workers!

Speak hate, call others hateful, bash the right if you are faced with facts and a real discussion, that seems to be what liberals have become.

[ocexpo]

This is absolutely ridiculous! A welfare recipient deserves a few food stamps to pay for some bare essentials. NOT a free cell phone! This is the kind of crap I feared from a leftist government.

[Sinajana]

"Speak hate, call others hateful, bash the right if you are faced with facts and a real discussion, that seems to be what liberals have become."


"This is absolutely ridiculous! A welfare recipient deserves a few food stamps to pay for some bare essentials. NOT a free cell phone! This is the kind of crap I feared from a leftist government."


i agree with both of these points

[KevK]

Originally Posted by ocexpo

This is absolutely ridiculous! A welfare recipient deserves a few food stamps to pay for some bare essentials. NOT a free cell phone! This is the kind of crap I feared from a leftist government.

The poor deserve a dignified and minimum standard of living. These include shelter, food, clothing, water, lights, heat and AC in hot climates, health care, a bus pass and, yes, a basic phone. These are basic requirements for any meanningful existence and should be provided to everybody. We are not talking luxury stuff here.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by KevK

The poor deserve a dignified and minimum standard of living. These include shelter, food, clothing, water, lights, heat and AC in hot climates, health care, a bus pass and, yes, a basic phone. These are basic requirements for any meanningful existence and should be provided to everybody. We are not talking luxury stuff here.

More "entitlement" talk from the left...

p.s. the poor have it better than I do, I dont have AC, a cell phone, or health care, or a bus pass, and the rest I'm surely not ENTITLED to..