Safelink and Lifeline Programs - Landlines and Cellphones for low income (drug, illegals)

[saganista]

Originally Posted by 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.

Characteristically vapid. You could always take the bus to a pay phone, you know. Otherwise, I see you are still running away as fast as you can from your initial tale of blinged out food stamp recipients. Just like all the others who try to promote that particular bag of hot air....

[thefinalsay]

I'm running away from what now? the fact that people who get food stamps have cash money to buy beer? yeah, it takes a phd to recognize that. I have never seen a welfare mom buy formula, then light up a cigarrette outside. that never happens. are you on the east side of mayberry or the west?

also, do you expect anyone here to take you seriously with your status? keep the illegals deport the republicans? um, really? this is why we are laughing at you.

Originally Posted by saganista

Characteristically vapid. You could always take the bus to a pay phone, you know. Otherwise, I see you are still running away as fast as you can from your initial tale of blinged out food stamp recipients. Just like all the others who try to promote that particular bag of hot air....

[nvxplorer]

Originally Posted by coastalrap

Take your property at gun point and give it to them?

Equally tongue in cheek, I'll ask you; are you a communist or just a good ol' right wing fascist?

I'm all for helping people who can't just not eh people who won't.

That's not a solution. What do you propose we do with them? Leave them to their own devices? Have you thought this through?

Very few people won't work. The number is miniscule. The cost to support them is miniscule. In an advanced society such as ours, it's more desireable that we each contribute a dollar or two per week rather than leave these people to roam the streets wondering where their next meal is coming from.

What is your point?

My point is clear. I'm trying to figure out what yours is. To all the people complaining about this phone service, the cost of this program can't amount to any more than a pack of gum per week per taxpayer. That's why some of us call you inhumane: You'd rather have that pack of gum than see indigent people get a worthwhile service.

[Frankie117]

Originally Posted by saganista

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???

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.

[kingchef]

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.

correct, it isn't illegal to own nice things, it is, however, immoral to take things that do not rightfully belong to you, e.g. public assistance or food stamps that are not justified legally, and all of the other social services benefits provided to those people by hard-working americans. theft, deceptive practices, and lying are always wrong. i personally know that applicants who receive public assistance must declare the ownership of a vehicle and its current value. the value of that automobile is one criterion for determining eligibility. how many fail to provide truthful documentation for their vehicles, whether it is valued at its current market value or whether it is properly and truthfully registered to the welfare recepient? i am simply dumbfounded by the last statement in the paragraph. why, in all the earth, would it be right for a welfare recepient to have an entitlement to a "very high car note"? that is simply insane!

[saganista]

Originally Posted by thefinalsay

I'm running away from what now?

This...

I heard something about this. the grocery store I shop at has a lot of people on food stamps shopping there. you would be shocked at some of the luxury items they have. I enjoy glaring at them.

Originally Posted by thefinalsay

...the fact that people who get food stamps have cash money to buy beer? yeah, it takes a phd to recognize that. I have never seen a welfare mom buy formula, then light up a cigarrette outside. that never happens. are you on the east side of mayberry or the west?

So, you are contending now that food stamp recipients are somehow criminal if they should choose to smoke or drink, or is it your plea that it was actually a six-pack of Milller and a pack of Newport's that you were referring to as some sort of luxury items that the rest of us would be shocked at? Mayberry is by the way a fictitious place, but given the amount of other made-up stuff that you seem to have taken for real, I can't be surprised at your apparent faith in it.

Originally Posted by thefinalsay

also, do you expect anyone here to take you seriously with your status? keep the illegals deport the republicans? um, really? this is why we are laughing at you.

The status notation merely confirms the fact that illegal immigrants continue, as they have for decades, to provide positive contributions to American society, while the Republicans have ceased to. It's a simple cost-benefit thing. If we are going to start investing in the mass deportation of people, it's the Republicans who need to go first.

[saganista]

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?

The laid-off project manager or network administrator is not in the pool of potential janitors, stock boys, or mail clerks. Many homeless people are.

Originally Posted by Frankie117

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.

Too bad we can't make everyone who becomes homeless go around for the rest of their lives wearing a Scarlet-U for unproductive and unsuccessful. It would make HR work so much easier.

Originally Posted by Frankie117

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?

I don't receive any of my paychecks in the mail, and believe it or not, homeless people were not created that way. Some of course are currently employed and nearly all have been. Nearly all also have fixed mailing addresses, whether those are provided by shelters, churches, government agences, or friends and family, and thanks to subsidized cellphone programs, many have phone numbers as well. I think you are a little too much in the company of those who see "homeless people" in terms only of a crude, inaccurate, and overwhelmingly negative right-wing stereotype.

Originally Posted by Frankie117

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

No one contends that it is an easy road back from being down and out. From a societal point of view, however, the eaiser we can make that road, the better off we are. What we have in this thread is a bunch of people who want to go in exactly the opposite direction. Make it as difficult as possible for these people to get back into the mainstream, then blame them for not having had the "spunk" necessary to overcome those needless obstacles. How dumb is that?

[thefinalsay]

I think you are a very logical person and I take you very seriously. someone who gets food stamps hasn't earned a six pack or a pack of newports. those are luxury items. so yes, if they have money for them, but still get food stamps, they are stealing from the system. also, mayberry is based on mt. airy north carolina. illegals do contribute lots to our country. like murder, rape, gangs, destroying our educational system, lowering property values, and so forth. I guess it's all those contributions that were the inspiration for putting all those democrats and illegals on mount rushmore.

Originally Posted by saganista

This...

I heard something about this. the grocery store I shop at has a lot of people on food stamps shopping there. you would be shocked at some of the luxury items they have. I enjoy glaring at them.


So, you are contending now that food stamp recipients are somehow criminal if they should choose to smoke or drink, or is it your plea that it was actually a six-pack of Milller and a pack of Newport's that you were referring to as some sort of luxury items that the rest of us would be shocked at? Mayberry is by the way a fictitious place, but given the amount of other made-up stuff that you seem to have taken for real, I can't be surprised at your apparent faith in it.


The status notation merely confirms the fact that illegal immigrants continue, as they have for decades, to provide positive contributions to American society, while the Republicans have ceased to. It's a simple cost-benefit thing. If we are going to start investing in the mass deportation of people, it's the Republicans who need to go first.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by saganista

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

Actually, since Bush does not write the budgets, this would be more of a Democratic Congress program, just like the rest of them..

Originally Posted by saganista

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???

Lets get real for a second, these programs are being used primarily by non homeless individuals. In fact, if your homeless you are NOT using one of these phones because you need an address to receive the phone delivered to.

Originally Posted by saganista

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.

People have been donating phones for years to those who are need 911 service for the purpose of self protection, domestic abuse is just one example. Those programs took place without taxpayers assistance and had NO taxpayers costs involved. Now lets discuss logistical analysis of charity vs taxpayers assistance, and then tell me where homeless people are having their phones delivered at.

Originally Posted by saganista

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

And where do you think homeless people will plug their cell phones in? That imaginary electricl service they have at their imaginary home?

Originally Posted by saganista

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.

Marginal costs are tiny when compared to the total revenue generated by a long term contract. Marginal costs become not so tiny when there is no revenue being generated. No different than ADT service, maybe we should be offering that service also to the poor and homeless

[KevK]

This is a good program. If we expect to mainstream these folks, they need basic things and a phone is pretty basic. You cannot find a job without a phone. When your kids are in school or daycare they expect you to have a phone to reach you. A phone is critical and I have no problem with the government providing one to the poor.