Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-18-2013, 01:41 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,531,102 times
Reputation: 27720

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
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.
When government mandates a third party collect money on their behalf it's "not a tax".
People are so delusional and so gullible NOT to see it's a tax.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-18-2013, 01:42 PM
 
16,545 posts, read 13,461,752 times
Reputation: 4243
You think this is bad, which it is, I know a couple of people that tried to cancel their food stamps and welfare money because they got a job. After 4 attempts to cancel, they still get them.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2013, 02:31 PM
 
3,620 posts, read 3,837,946 times
Reputation: 1512
i see this as an attack against the poor by the op, yet she refuses to go after whites who are the majority of the takers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2013, 02:38 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,531,102 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtc08 View Post
i see this as an attack against the poor by the op, yet she refuses to go after whites who are the majority of the takers.
Well neither the phone companies nor the FCC have released any stats on Lifeline subscribers.
How did you come up with "majority are White" ?

Racist much ?

If you are poor, like the 59% that submitted proof then your phone/plan were not canceled.
The rest..assume they are scammers that cannot prove they are poor or only have one subscription per household.

I'm not buying your crap about how I'm attacking the poor. Go peddle that sob story on someone else.

41% of $2 billion is significant money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2013, 12:51 AM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,477,048 times
Reputation: 9074
The pool of eligibles is fluid and constantly changing. I think a lot of the 41% were once eligible and then lost eligibility (got a job, etc). Obviously there was no tracking to drop those who became ineligible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2013, 08:18 AM
 
Location: Fredericktown,Ohio
7,168 posts, read 5,369,489 times
Reputation: 2922
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
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.
Thanks for bringing this up they can call it what they want but it is still a tax. I have tried to get out of it and I was told if I did not want to pay I would not get a phone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2013, 08:35 AM
 
Location: FL
20,702 posts, read 12,544,412 times
Reputation: 5452
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow View Post
I would LOVE to see how many of numbers that were disconnected also show up on registered voter lists for a certain political party.
Do you know when this started? Do you know who started it?

Lifeline Program for Low-Income Consumers | FCC.gov
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2013, 08:40 AM
 
Location: Annandale, VA
5,094 posts, read 5,176,681 times
Reputation: 4233
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
We always hear.."just a few bad apples"

41% is no chump change. 41% of the 6 million lifeline subscribers cannot/have not provided the FCC with eligibility requirements. And the FCC initially thought a mere 15% were scamming the program.

The top phone companies providing lifeline plans have refused to give the number of plans they dropped because of this.

The FCC finally cracked down last year and demanded that subscribers provide verification of eligibility or they would be dropped.

Lifeline cost $800 million in 2008 and soared to $2 billion in 2012.
41% is more than a "few cheaters" ..that's so close to half that it should shock people.
And the FCC instituted this with "self certify" requiring no documentation.
Just sign up and check a box...no one will verify your eligibility and no one will turn you down.

They found DEAD PEOPLE with phone plans. You want to talk about corrupt programs then look no further than our own social welfare programs.

Millions Improperly Claimed U.S. Phone Subsidies - WSJ.com
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.
..
Suspecting that many of the new subscribers were ineligible, the Federal Communications Commission tightened the rules last year and required carriers to verify that existing subscribers were eligible. The agency estimated 15% of users would be weeded out, but far more were dropped.


A review of five top recipients of Lifeline support conducted by the FCC for the Journal showed that 41% of their more than six million subscribers either couldn't demonstrate their eligibility or didn't respond to requests for certification.
..
The FCC until last year allowed consumers to self-certify, without requiring documentation, that they met federal poverty guidelines. Subscribers didn't have to recertify once they were enrolled in the program, and there were few checks on whether households signed up for more than one cellphone.


Here's an article about cell phones being mailed to dead people. The program is that popular:
2 Dead People Got Free Phones, and 1 GOP Lawmaker Eyes an Opening - NationalJournal.com

It would be cheaper for the phone companies to reinstall all the payphones they have removed over the years. Put them in every public gathering place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2013, 08:47 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,531,102 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donna-501 View Post
Do you know when this started? Do you know who started it?

Lifeline Program for Low-Income Consumers | FCC.gov
I am the OP of this thread and I intentionally left out politics of D vs R and never once mentioned "Obamaphone" either.

I know when the program started.

I also pointed out that it switched to cell phones in 2008 but didn't change the rules under which one could get a phone. The program worked when it was landline because you couldn't get more than one installed. But cell phones are a different story and the FCC didn't change their rules and it got out of hand..cost tripled to over $2 billion in 4 years.

As they say..better late than never as we should see that cost go down to $1 billion or under now that they got called on it and reformed their qualification process.

And this is a good thing because the FCC is moving to providing smart phones and data service next (they already have pilot programs testing this). Imagine the costs if they continued with this 'self-certify' process ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2013, 08:51 AM
 
Location: FL
20,702 posts, read 12,544,412 times
Reputation: 5452
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
You know..it was landline phones. They went cellphone in 2008 and didn't revamp the program to deal with cellphones.

How many multiple landline phones do you think they could get for free ?
Pretty hard to scam that program since the line/phone are fixed and couldn't be hidden if you wanted 5 more lines installed.

The government just doesn't care because it's not their money and they'll just ask for more money to cover increasing costs. They have no incentive to watch costs. The way government funding works is that if you don't use it this year you won't get it next year.
The cellphones started in 2005 and it is either or, but not both. One discount per household.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top