More government inefficiencies......

[carlfense]

Here is a current link to the phones in question.

http://obamaphone.net/

The program is old. Very. Initially started for folks with land line issues and progressed to cell phones under GW.

Any program, over seen by the Feds is wrought with fraud. Welfare, medicare (google durable medical goods fraud), food stamps, WIC, EBT, SS, etc..... This program is simply one that someone has decided to point out.

For the record approx 35% of Americans qualify for this phone. Started by RR, enhanced by Clinton, cell phones added under GB and tracphones came online with Obama.

No politician, R or D, ants to get tough on the issue. Hell some oppose an actual Govt issued photo ID to vote. Most are against drug testing for those on welfare or getting unemployment benefits. IMO, you are receiving federal funds, you are now a federal employee. Subject to the same requirements. Think it infringes on "your rights", don't accept the fed money. Selling your EBT card or WIC for cash to strangers, easy fix. Photo on voucher with thumb print verification much like banks when cashing checks. You are not in the system associated with card you can't use it. Food stamps at 4-1 at the local convenience store etc....Phone fraud, a national database as it is FCC funding (Fed monies) then enter the name, DOB, SSN etc of the person getting the phone. You get one. Lose it, go hit CVS and buy the next one on your dime.

It comes down to hard choices. Is America ready to make them.

Why do they call it an Obamaphone? Those fake websites crack me up.

 

[lo country]

Here is a current link to the phones in question.

http://obamaphone.net/

The program is old. Very. Initially started for folks with land line issues and progressed to cell phones under GW.

Any program, over seen by the Feds is wrought with fraud. Welfare, medicare (google durable medical goods fraud), food stamps, WIC, EBT, SS, etc..... This program is simply one that someone has decided to point out.

For the record approx 35% of Americans qualify for this phone. Started by RR, enhanced by Clinton, cell phones added under GB and tracphones came online with Obama.

No politician, R or D, ants to get tough on the issue. Hell some oppose an actual Govt issued photo ID to vote. Most are against drug testing for those on welfare or getting unemployment benefits. IMO, you are receiving federal funds, you are now a federal employee. Subject to the same requirements. Think it infringes on "your rights", don't accept the fed money. Selling your EBT card or WIC for cash to strangers, easy fix. Photo on voucher with thumb print verification much like banks when cashing checks. You are not in the system associated with card you can't use it. Food stamps at 4-1 at the local convenience store etc....Phone fraud, a national database as it is FCC funding (Fed monies) then enter the name, DOB, SSN etc of the person getting the phone. You get one. Lose it, go hit CVS and buy the next one on your dime.

It comes down to hard choices. Is America ready to make them.

Why do they call it an Obamaphone? Those fake websites crack me up.

Because that is what folks do. They don't look up the facts. Kind of like Obama not "cutting medicare when the AHCA cuts 716 billion. Or the fact that the basis for Ryans Medicare plan was actually a Clinton idea or that his budget actually also increases our deficit approx 3.6 trillion while Obama's increases it approx 7.2 trillion. Statistics and "facts" can now now be found with the click of the mouse to "prove" ones points.

My linking the above was the first sight that google found. It is actually quite informative and not a bash on Obama at all. It explains the history, funding etc.....

Here is another in case folks on the board want one.

http://www.freegovernmentcellphones.net/

 

[carlfense]

Because that is what folks do.

That doesn't mean that you have to embrace the derp. It's not an Obamaphone, right?

My linking the above was the first sight that google found. It is actually quite informative and not a bash on Obama at all. It explains the history, funding etc.....

Here is another in case folks on the board want one.

http://www.freegover...cellphones.net/

And here is the real site if anyone wants it.

http://www.fcc.gov/g...gible-consumers

(BTW . . . it sure doesn't look like the program matches the hype. An average discount of $9.25 on a single phone line? That's it? Wow. That's not quite scammers and beggars being handed iPhones, is it? :lol: )

 

[lo country]

Because that is what folks do.

That doesn't mean that you have to embrace the derp. It's not an Obamaphone, right?

My linking the above was the first sight that google found. It is actually quite informative and not a bash on Obama at all. It explains the history, funding etc.....

Here is another in case folks on the board want one.

http://www.freegover...cellphones.net/

And here is the real site if anyone wants it.

http://www.fcc.gov/g...gible-consumers

I call it an Obama phone. Is that what it is? No. Did he invent it? No. Who cares. I do not. Just like the AHCA is not actually called Obamacare. Again, I do not care. I am not going to get into some juvenile argument over semantics.

 

[carlfense]

I call it an Obama phone.

Why? :lol:

EDIT: Nevermind. I see why you call it an Obamaphone. Because Rush Limbaugh coined the term. Awesome.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/06/22/what_we_re_up_against_the_obama_phone

Just like the AHCA is not actually called Obamacare.

You don't see the difference between calling the ACA Obamacare and calling this program Obamaphone? Really?

 

[Comish]

It looks like your video is from March. It also looks like since that date the FCC has been cracking down on the abuse.

http://www.11alive.c...ell-Phone-Abuse

Does that somewhat alleviate your concerns?

Not really. It's good that there is some awareness and action, but history tells me abusers will find a way.

I think a form of penalty for abusers might be a deterrent, because currently there is no incentive NOT to try and scam the system.

So . . . government acting to prevent the fraud that you're complaining about doesn't change your opinion?

That leads me to believe that you aren't against fraud. Instead, you are ideologically opposed to the program and use fraud as an excuse to attack it.

You said this:

If we can't control the fraud in this fairly benign program, how can we hope to cut the waste in gigantic agencies....?

I showed that the agency is in fact acting to control and eliminate fraud. Now you seem to be saying that you don't really care.

Strange.

Of all the back and forth discourse we’ve had Carl………this statement of yours really should get the Gold……

That leads me to believe that you aren't against fraud

You Got Me! I’m totally undressed! The cat is out of the bag! Yes, it’s true….I’m virulently PRO-FRAUD! I’m searching relentlessly for more areas we can perpetrate fraud. No stone unturned. NO government program unscathed. In fact, I’m considering running for Lincoln City Council on the “More Fraud Now” ticket. If you’d like to contribute to my campaign, PM me and get on the wagon…..

 

[lo country]

I call it an Obama phone.

Why? :lol:

EDIT: Nevermind. I see why you call it an Obamaphone. Because Rush Limbaugh coined the term. Awesome.

http://www.rushlimba...the_obama_phone

Just like the AHCA is not actually called Obamacare.

You don't see the difference between calling the ACA Obamacare and calling this program Obamaphone? Really?

Actually I first heard it in the environment I work. Not from some right wing talk host, but an actual recipient of said phone. He used it, he had the free phone so for me it stuck. Simple as that.

It is also in the Urban dictionary, so you know it is legit.

I don't see any difference. The AHCA was, IIRC correctly, was called Obamacare as "negative". It also appears to now be widely accepted by both sides of the aisle.

 

[carlfense]

Actually I first heard it in the environment I work. Not from some right wing talk host, but an actual recipient of said phone. He used it, he had the free phone so for me it stuck. Simple as that.

Yeah! Just like that Limbaugh caller . . .

It's quite the coincidence that your story matches almost perfectly with the transcript from the Limbaugh program . . . right down to the same fake "obamaphones.net" link. Quite the coincidence indeed. Nothing to do with a right wing talk host! :lol:

I don't see any difference. The AHCA was, IIRC correctly, was called Obamacare as "negative".

The ACA was championed and signed by Obama. The Lifeline program was a George W. Bush era program.

I really can't tell if you're joking but I truly hope that you are.

 

[carlfense]

 

[lo country]

Actually I first heard it in the environment I work. Not from some right wing talk host, but an actual recipient of said phone. He used it, he had the free phone so for me it stuck. Simple as that.

Yeah! Just like that Limbaugh caller . . . :lol:

That's quite a coincidence.

I don't see any difference. The AHCA was, IIRC correctly, was called Obamacare as "negative".

The ACA was championed and signed by Obama. The Lifeline program was a George W. Bush era program.

I really can't tell if you're joking but I truly hope that you are.

The whole discounted phone program actually started under Reagan with land lines. It expanded under Clinton and included cell phones under Bush. Right or wrong, the name has stuck. It is also currently used by many of those who are the recipients. As for my experiences with the origin of the "Obamaphone", you have no idea of any of my experiences, friends, work environment, etc.... Nor do I know yours. I don't listen to Rush.

Hillary Clinton coined Obamacare during the Dem primaries as a negative (alleged to have coined term). Republicans picked it up as a negative term as well. Obama did not coin the name even though he passed the legislation. The term, started as a negative, now appears to be universally accepted. That is the meaning of my above.

To get back on track, there is no govt program, started by any party that is fraud free. It seems to go hand in hand with any govt created or supervised program. Sad, but true.

 

[carlfense]

Of all the back and forth discourse we’ve had Carl………this statement of yours really should get the Gold……

That leads me to believe that you aren't against fraud

You Got Me! I’m totally undressed! The cat is out of the bag! Yes, it’s true….I’m virulently PRO-FRAUD! I’m searching relentlessly for more areas we can perpetrate fraud. No stone unturned. NO government program unscathed. In fact, I’m considering running for Lincoln City Council on the “More Fraud Now” ticket. If you’d like to contribute to my campaign, PM me and get on the wagon…..

You missed the context didn't you? :lol:

Well, let's try this again.

You said this:

If we can't control the fraud in this fairly benign program, how can we hope to cut the waste in gigantic agencies....?

I provided a link that shows that the FCC is actively addressing this fraud. You replied by saying that it doesn't lessen your concern.

So what exactly are you looking for? You said that you're concerned about fraud. The FCC agrees that fraud needed to be addressed and came up with a plan to combat fraud. How does the FCC doing what you said that you wanted not change your opinion?

 

[carlfense]

I don't listen to Rush.

But you parrot his "Obamaphone" derp nonetheless?

Hillary Clinton coined Obamacare during the Dem primaries as a negative (alleged to have coined term).

If you believe that I guess I can see why you call Bush's cell phone program "Obamaphone" (which is totally NOT because Limbaugh said to call them Obamaphones.)

 

[Comish]

Of all the back and forth discourse we’ve had Carl………this statement of yours really should get the Gold……

That leads me to believe that you aren't against fraud

You Got Me! I’m totally undressed! The cat is out of the bag! Yes, it’s true….I’m virulently PRO-FRAUD! I’m searching relentlessly for more areas we can perpetrate fraud. No stone unturned. NO government program unscathed. In fact, I’m considering running for Lincoln City Council on the “More Fraud Now” ticket. If you’d like to contribute to my campaign, PM me and get on the wagon…..

You missed the context didn't you? :lol:

Well, let's try this again.

You said this:

If we can't control the fraud in this fairly benign program, how can we hope to cut the waste in gigantic agencies....?

I provided a link that shows that the FCC is actively addressing this fraud. You replied by saying that it doesn't lessen your concern.

So what exactly are you looking for? You said that you're concerned about fraud. The FCC agrees that fraud needed to be addressed and came up with a plan to combat fraud. How does the FCC doing what you said that you wanted not change your opinion?

Sorry if I don't immediately do cartwheels when a government agency SAYS they are going to combat fraud and have a plan. How many politicians over the ages have campaigned on the promise to cut the fraud?

Probably 100%. Yet we still have fraud. Wow! What could possibly have happened?

The fact that you believe saying something is tantamount to doing something probably explains why you have more confidence in our President than I do. He has promised to do many things.

IF this particular program succeeds in reigning in fraud just like they promise, I'll be the first to apologize and admit I was wrong. In the interim, I prefer actual results. What a novel concept.

 

[lo country]

I don't listen to Rush.

But you parrot his "Obamaphone" derp nonetheless?

Hillary Clinton coined Obamacare during the Dem primaries as a negative (alleged to have coined term).

If you believe that I guess I can see why you call Bush's cell phone program "Obamaphone" (which is totally NOT because Limbaugh said to call them Obamaphones.)

I "parrot" the folks I am around and interact with. The same folks who have the phones. Nothing more, nothing less. So I am out. See you in the football forum.

 

[carlfense]

Sorry if I don't immediately do cartwheels when a government agency SAYS they are going to combat fraud and have a plan.

Who said that you have to do cartwheels? Simply acknowledging that they are addressing the problem would be a good start.

IF this particular program succeeds in reigning in fraud just like they promise, I'll be the first to apologize and admit I was wrong. In the interim, I prefer actual results.

I prefer waiting to see whether something actually works before assuming that it is a failure. You know . . . preferring actual results instead of a hunch? Or did you mean something different than that?