Safelink and Lifeline Programs - Landlines and Cellphones for low income (Congress, deportation)

[coastalrap]

Originally Posted by nvxplorer

Everybody isn't productive. Get over it.

Stomping your feet and screaming, sounding tough, mean and authoritative is not going to change society. Never has, never will.

There have always been and always will be people who either can't or won't produce enough to support themselves. What is your solution?

Take your property at gun point and give it to them?
I'm all for helping people who can't just not eh people who won't.

What is your point?

[NCN]

Originally Posted by idahogie

Keep going, righties. Prove to everyone what cold-hearted bastards you are.

A cell phone is often the only way that a poor or homeless person can get a job. How do you leave a phone number for an employer when you live in your car, or at a shelter? And how many minutes do they get? It's probably minimal, I'd bet.

Seriously, what's wrong with you people?

There is not one thing wrong with me except I am tired of trying to get through the grocery store without hearing trash that people are talking on their cell phones that I am probably paying for and I don't even own one myself.

What's wrong with you?

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by justNancy

First of all, Obama has/had nothing to do with starting these programs.

And people disagree with the program regardless as to who started it

Originally Posted by justNancy

Second, only a few states offer this program.

AT&T started out in a few states, whats the point? You think this wont/cant go nationwide?

Originally Posted by justNancy

Third, a person must be 135% below the poverty level of their state to qualify and already be on a government assisted program.

as if thats possible. I would assume you meant 135% above poverty level to qualify, not below, but I dont care if its 50% of poverty level, poor people are poor and because they are poor, they should lack some luxury items which give them an incentive to not want to be poor anymore.

Originally Posted by justNancy

Fourth, we are talking about 2 minutes a day for emergencies. If you used common sense, the reason why I used the words "bad in math" is that a city bus and a pay phone cost a heck of a lot more than a minute on a cell phone.

Wrong, even if we were talking about 0 minutes a day, the service cost money, you dont think the provider is getting paid regardless as to the number of minutes being used? So your argument to provide a luxury item to people free is that its cheaper than a pay phone? Well heck, lets hire some college kids to cut my grass, after all that cheaper then hiring professional landscapers to come out and do it, whats the point? if someone CHOOSES to take the bus or use a pay phone, it costs me nothing, the fact that it costs the end user more is not my responsibility.

Originally Posted by justNancy

Fifth, people are assuming we are talking about a fancy camera phone, that is, if they are using words like "luxury." I doubt if people who qualify for this programs have land lines. 2 minutes a day (or 60 minutes a month) is just to make sure someone who falls or has a heart attack can call for help. Imagine your apartment is on fire and you can't call 911 because you can't afford a phone. I guess some people here might suggest talking a bus (if there is one available) to call the fire department.

All cell phones, even those not active will dial 911, its a requirement. One does not need to pay welfare people to have ACTIVE phones in order to have them dial 911. EVERY SINGLE CELLPHONE, long as it has power will dial 911

Originally Posted by justNancy

Anyone who says "walk to a bus stop" after a person has had a heart attack must be full of hate or just plain stupid. So I don't get a mod cut here - I am not referring to any particular comment or city-data member. I am only expressing my opinion of those who feel using a phone an average of 2 minutes a day is a "luxury."

I'd say use your home phone, which they also get for a couple of dollars a month at everyone elses expense

Originally Posted by justNancy

Also, cell phones are free. It's the service that you pay for. Maybe you haven't figure that out yet. I supposedly have a "free" Sony, but I pay almost $50 a month with tax for it. Technology changes so quickly that cell phones aren't worth much after 6 months anyway. I have a GPS that cost me $300 and my sister just bought the same model for $130. Now, if you told me people are getting free navigational systems or cable TV, then I might join the opposition.

Cell phones are NOT free, they cost money to produce.. You receive one free in exchange for your CONTRACT which also is not free.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by nvxplorer

Where do you live. Everyone I know has a cell phone.

I dont, but thats by choice, I work from home and dont have the want to spend another $30+ on a phone that will not be used. In the same argument, I also dont wish my taxes to go up to pay for someone elses WANTS either..

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by monkeywrenching

whenever I see people on welfare riding around in vehicles costing more than my $28k SUV, or wearing expensive clothes, I do more than glare I report them to social services.

You report them to social services who end up doing nothing, in america its not illegal to own nice things, even if your on welfare. You cant have a high net worth, but you're allowed a nice car with a very high car note on it.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by thefinalsay

I am not at all surprised to learn that you haven't the slightest idea about the difference in income, and taxible income. you do realize that there are illegal ways to make money, and still get free money from the government right? I didn't think this was difficult to understand. where do you live? mayberry?

So, even though they were insufficient to keep you from misspelling the word "taxable", you would now have us believe that your mental powers are so vast as to allow you to tell not only which richly appointed persons in a grocery store check-out line are using food stamps, but which also in their spare time are engaged in some form of illegal enterprise. That's remarkable. We have so few people who make claims like yours where I live. The ones we do have all turn out to be idiots, but I'm sure that's a local phenomenon. But given the exceptional nature of your gifts, let me give you something else -- the 800-number at which any citizen might report suspected cases of food stamp fraud. Here it is: 1-800-446-1993. I'm sure you have also compiled lists of your keen obersvations of fraud related to TANF, CCDF, and Medicaid. No problem. They'll take those too. So do us all a favor. Given the deep levels of concern that you have over this widespread abuse of federal assistance programs that you so routinely encounter, the next time you come across a case of such, go to all the trouble of picking up the phone and reporting it. Is that really too much for a fellow taxpayer to ask?

[thriftylefty]

Originally Posted by thefinalsay

a cell phone is not a right. it has nothing to do with being cold hearted. should we start providing people with free cars? how about starbucks in the morning. where do we stop?

sorry poor parasites. it's called the city bus and a pay phone.

In kansas SRS does give welfare recipients free cars. I think the allowance is around $3000.00, thats why there are so many fly by night used car dealers in my city. I know of an individual who the sold the car or truck the welfare bought him. I know people who got their house cleaned by a case worker, I know of a man who got $7000.00 worth of roof repair on a house he owned (how does a poor person own a house?) There was also a case worker in Kansas who bilked the state out of $70,000.

[thefinalsay]

look out, it's the grammar police. actually, in order for me to do as you ask, that would mean I would have to have a phone. I don't have a cell phone. the government hasn't sent me mine yet. isn't that the topic of the thread to begin with? how bout we stay on topic m-kay? now make sure you log onto the huffington post so they can give your tertiary account of reality.

Originally Posted by saganista

So, even though they were insufficient to keep you from misspelling the word "taxable", you would now have us believe that your mental powers are so vast as to allow you to tell not only which richly appointed persons in a grocery store check-out line are using food stamps, but which also in their spare time are engaged in some form of illegal enterprise. That's remarkable. We have so few people who make claims like yours where I live. The ones we do have all turn out to be idiots, but I'm sure that's a local phenomenon. But given the exceptional nature of your gifts, let me give you something else -- the 800-number at which any citizen might report suspected cases of food stamp fraud. Here it is: 1-800-446-1993. I'm sure you have also compiled lists of your keen obersvations of fraud related to TANF, CCDF, and Medicaid. No problem. They'll take those too. So do us all a favor. Given the deep levels of concern that you have over this widespread abuse of federal assistance programs that you so routinely encounter, the next time you come across a case of such, go to all the trouble of picking up the phone and reporting it. Is that really too much for a fellow taxpayer to ask?

[saganista]

Originally Posted by pghquest

And people disagree with the program regardless as to who started it

The thread title begins "More Obama Welfare". This program would actually be "More Bush Welfare" if it were anybody's.

Originally Posted by pghquest

as if thats possible. I would assume you meant 135% above poverty level to qualify...

You might have done better by assuming "at or below 135% of the poverty guidelines". Since the income requirement was included verbatim in the OP, that shouldn't have been so much of a stretch.

Originally Posted by pghquest

So your argument to provide a luxury item to people free is that its cheaper than a pay phone?

The number of pay phones that exist to begin with has been cut by more than half over the past ten years, and given that the primary purposes of support programs include such things as helping jobless people to find employment and helping homeless people to find housing, giving a recipient a cellphone turns out to be one of the cheapest ways there is to provide the very sort of assistance that is most likely to mean that people will ultimately no longer need support. You are against this???

Originally Posted by pghquest

All cell phones, even those not active will dial 911, its a requirement. One does not need to pay welfare people to have ACTIVE phones in order to have them dial 911. EVERY SINGLE CELLPHONE, long as it has power will dial 911

So it would be fine to go to whatever trouble and expense in giving people cellphones and chargers so long as they didn't work for any number other than 911? Remind me never to contact you regarding any matter of logistical analysis.

Originally Posted by pghquest

I'd say use your home phone, which they also get for a couple of dollars a month at everyone elses expense

Yeah, every homeless person has a land-line hanging off the old shopping cart. You see that all the time.

Originally Posted by pghquest

Cell phones are NOT free, they cost money to produce.. You receive one free in exchange for your CONTRACT which also is not free.

Marginal costs of production are tiny, and there is no necessary relationship between unit cost and unit sales price. It's a good idea if total revenue ends up at least meeting total cost, but pricing schemes that incorporate some form of market segmentation are perfectly common. Unless you can establish some sort of "most favored consumer" relationship with providers of goods and services, all of those are free to charge you a lot and other people less if they choose to do so. Dont' like it? Whine. No wait...that's what you're doing already.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by pghquest

You report them to social services who end up doing nothing, in america its not illegal to own nice things, even if your on welfare. You cant have a high net worth, but you're allowed a nice car with a very high car note on it.

Under certain circumstances only, such that a particular car was necessary for work, or if say you'd had your legs blown off in Iraq and required expensive accommodations for medical reasons. For an average Joe or Jane, the income and resource limits tend to preclude ownership of any sort of high-end vehicle.