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.
You don't have to even be poor any more to get free lunch in some places. Some schools give everyone a free lunch so the poor kids won't "feel bad."
ETA: I don't want any kids to feel bad, they can't choose their families. But it's absurd that we are now buying lunches for families who can afford them. We don't have the money to be frivolous.
Just like the lifeline program, the free lunch program is "self certify". Send that form back to school with the checkbox checked and that's it. Don't have to prove anything to anyone.
What the h*ll does this stupid rant about liberal or conservative have to do with this? There's a difference between a tax and a fee collected by industry--do you understand that? . According to the links on this thread, the phone companies aren't required to charge an additional fee to cover the program (they could pay for it out of pocket), but they have the authority to charge it, and they choose to charge it. They had a nice little racket going. They had zero federal oversight, they could send out phones without oversight, and they got a ton of customers who were guaranteed to pay. If that isn't a fox in the hen house scenario, I don't know what is. You guys are so busy trying to blame poor elderly people that you're not looking at who the real criminal is.
I seem to fall in between the two sides here. IMO the reason the oversight was almost non existent was so there would be no flak from the phone industry.
You provide the free phones and it will be profitable for you. As I stated earlier, in a larger scenario it's what caused the housing mess.
On the board was both a state telecommunications regulator, and state consumer advocate.
Why weren't either of these two looking after the taxpayers? (and yes this is a tax)
On the other hand is this a good example of why at least some regulations are needed? Yes it is.
Lol. The Left is always coming up with ways to waste money. Then when the bill comes due they want to whine about " banksters".
So true, and so funny in such a sad way. But you nailed it!
This week it's banksters. Who knows whose fault it will be next week, but you can rest assured with their ZERO RESPONSIBILITY mantra and lifestyle, never their own.
The OP doesn't seem very bright. Those 41% couldn't show they met the program guidelines and so were rejected and never received discount telephone service. To me, that sounds like the system of checks is working very well.
The OP doesn't seem very bright. Those 41% couldn't show they met the program guidelines and so were rejected and never received discount telephone service. To me, that sounds like the system of checks is working very well.
The U.S. government spent about $2.2 billion last year to provide phones to low-income Americans, but a Wall Street Journal review of the program shows that a large number of those who received the phones haven't proved they are eligible to receive them.
I think those in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones.
The OP doesn't seem very bright. Those 41% couldn't show they met the program guidelines and so were rejected and never received discount telephone service. To me, that sounds like the system of checks is working very well.
The OP seems a lot brighter than you or the other folks who didn't read and understand the article.
No there isn't when that mandated fee is put forward by the government.
Too bad that didn't go to the supreme court because it would have ended up like the Obamacare "penalty" that turned out to be a tax so it could be upheld.
When it's government mandated and controlled it doesn't matter who collects it because it goes right to the government. A wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf and a rose by any other name is still a rose.
Yes, this is a concept I saw myself struggling to explain to children. I never thought I would have so much trouble with adults. When the government does something, its not the market.
title
license
mandate
fee
fine
money manipulation
See any taxes?
All move money from either to da guberment or from one ( connected) party to another. The gand daddy of them all of course is land title. Its da guberments license to collect your own taxes.
The OP doesn't seem very bright. Those 41% couldn't show they met the program guidelines and so were rejected and never received discount telephone service. To me, that sounds like the system of checks is working very well.
That system should have been in place in 2008 when they switched over to cell phones.
the cost tripled from $800 million to over $2 billion in 4 years and the FCC did nothing to reign it in and would have done nothing if investigative journalism and Congress nailed them on the soaring costs.
There is no system of checks...that's the point.
The free lunch program is run the same way..people "self certify" that they qualify.
That program has soared as well over the past 4 years.
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.
. According to the links on this thread, the phone companies aren't required to charge an additional fee to cover the program (they could pay for it out of pocket), but they have the authority to charge it, and they choose to charge it. They had a nice little racket going. They had zero federal oversight, they could send out phones without oversight, and they got a ton of customers who were guaranteed to pay. If that isn't a fox in the hen house scenario, I don't know what is. You guys are so busy trying to blame poor elderly people that you're not looking at who the real criminal is.
