Did you vote today?

Judged:

1

1

1

HOLD THE PHONE wrote:

<quoted text>
Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)(D-Mo.) has been taking a closer look at the program since she personally received an invitation to apply for a free, government-subsidized cell phone in the mail. McCaskill has asked the FCC to investigate Lifeline. As a result, the FCC is building a database to see if a subscriber has more than one subsidized phone. In other words, until recently, such a database didn’t exist.
(MORE: The FCC, which announced the changes by using the euphemism that it is “modernizing” Lifeline, has set a goal of saving $200 million on the program in 2012. After eliminating nearly 270,000 of the duplicate subscriptions discovered in the audit last year, the FCC said it has already “saved”$33 million
Read more: http://moneyland.time.com/2012/02/08/how-to-g...

Judged:

1

1

1

HOLD THE PHONE wrote:

<quoted text>
• Verizon Communications, SBC Communications Inc., AOL Time Warner, General Electric Co./NBC,
News Corp./Fox, Viacom Inc./CBS, Comcast Corp., Walt Disney Co./ABC, and the National
Association of Broadcasters, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, and the United
States Telecom Association together gave nearly $45 million in federal political donations since 1997.
Of that total,$17.8 million went to Democrats and $26.9 million went to Republicans.
• These eight companies and three trade associations also spent more than $358 million on lobbying
in Washington, since 1998, when lobbying expenditures were first required to be disclosed.
http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2...

Judged:

1

1

1

BARNEYII wrote:

<quoted text>
ONCE AGAIN, spreading Republican propaganda, do you lie on purpose or are you "too lazy to put the proper measures in place" to do some fact finding of your own?
Q. Has the Obama administration started a program to use "taxpayer money" to give free cell phones to welfare recipients?
A: No. Low-income households have been eligible for discounted telephone service for more than a decade. But the program is funded by telecom companies, not by taxes, and the president has nothing to do with it.
FULL ANSWER
Welfare recipients, and others, can receive a free cell phone, but the program is not funded by the government or taxpayer money, as the e-mail alleges. And it’s hardly new.
How It Works
SafeLink Wireless, the program mentioned in the e-mail, does indeed offer a cell phone, about one hour’s worth of calling time per month, and other wireless services like voice mail to eligible low-income households. Applicants have to apply and prove that they are either receiving certain types of government benefits, such as Medicaid, or have household incomes at or below 135 percent of the poverty line. Using 2009 poverty guidelines, that’s $14,620 for an individual and a little under $30,000 for a family of four, with slightly higher amounts for Alaska and Hawaii.
SafeLink is run by a subsidiary of América Móvil, the world’s fourth largest wireless company in terms of subscribers, but it is not paid for directly by the company. Nor is it paid for with "tax payer money," as the e-mail claims. Rather, it is funded through the Universal Service Fund, which is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company, an independent, not-for-profit corporation set up by the Federal Communications Commission. The USF is sustained by contributions from telecommunications companies such as "long distance companies, local telephone companies, wireless telephone companies, paging companies, and payphone providers." The companies often charge customers to fund their contributions in the form of a universal service fee you might see on your monthly phone bill. The fund is then parceled out to companies, such as América Móvil, that create programs, such as SafeLink, to provide telecommunications service to rural areas and low-income households.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-ph...

Judged:

1

1

1

BARNEYII wrote:

But plenty of GOP Congresses and the last Republican president had opportunities to reform or repeal the act long before Barack Obama came on the scene, and didn’t think it was worth their time. Calling the phones “Obamaphones”—Rush didn’t invent the term, but he just gave it wide-exposure—is pure misinformation. It would be more accurate to call them Clintonphones or Gingrichphones, or even more accurately, just one more well-intentioned government program that seemed like a good and affordable idea at the time. To label the program an Obama vote-buying scheme is an outrageous and indefensible lie, and intentional deception by Rush Limbaugh.
There are plenty of valid criticisms to be made of President Obama and his administration. Making false accusations like this just makes it easy for media flacks and Kool-Aid drinkers to discredit all critics and all critiques.
http://ethicsalarms.com/2012/02/10/rush-limba...

Judged:

1

1

1

One On Every Post wrote:

The Universal Service Fund (USF) was created by the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1997 to meet Congressional universal service goals as mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The 1996 Act states that all providers of telecommunications services should contribute to federal universal service in some equitable and nondiscriminatory manner; there should be specific, predictable, and sufficient Federal and State mechanisms to preserve and advance universal service; all schools, classrooms, health care providers, and libraries should, generally, have access to advanced telecommunications services; and finally, that the Federal-State Joint Board and the FCC should determine those other principles that, consistent with the 1996 Act, are necessary to protect the public interest. As of the first quarter of 2012, the USF fee, which changes quarterly, equals 17.9 percent of a telecom company's interstate and end-user revenues.[1]

guest wrote:

Buddy bice if u sell highdroes to him watch it cause he goes to the laws everytime he buys them. From someone and turns them in.and i know who selling them to him.and he went to laws and tolded on u.and u know who u are.so dont be supurised when the law bustes your ass.cause buddy tolded on u.he got some people busted a couple of years ago for the same thing.

Judged:

1

1

1

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
It's a TAX no matter how you look at it. Just because it is labeled a fee doesn't mean it is not a tax. The sooner people realize just how much in taxes we all pay the sooner we can get to a fiscally responsible America where we all have more money in our pocket.

Judged:

1

1

1

guest wrote:

<quoted text>"ONCE AGAIN, spreading Republican propaganda, do you lie on purpose or are you "too lazy to put the proper measures in place" to do some fact finding of your own?"
A: No, you hold a monopoly on that.
Proof:
"Q. Has the Obama administration started a program to use "taxpayer money" to give free cell phones to welfare recipients?"
Reality check never said the "Obama administration" started it. You didn't it to shamelessly divert from the topic at hand.

Judged:

1

1

1

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
Is this another "Bush's fault" argument? No one is saying that Obama started the program but somehow now there are free phones popping up all around us where there used to be none. You can either listen to what Obama says about equality and make the connections or you can just continue to keep your head down in the sand. My guess is that you will choose the sand.

Judged:

2

2

2

khjgf wrote:

hey barn, it has been my observance that loud mouthed people are usually short and have small dongs. They have to make up for their short comings. BTW I did not vote today, neither did you!

Judged:

2

2

2

BARNEYII wrote:

<quoted text>
As a matter of fact, I put my absentee ballot in the mail today, so yes I did vote today.

Judged:

2

2

2

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
You can spin it however you want. I never said Obama initiated it. I said that it is being pushed by the democrats. I didn't mention it in my post because of the source but, I asked the guy that offered a free phone to me, who he worked for. TIFWIW but he said this is a big push by Obama to get as many free phones for people as possible. Again, consider the source. You said that this was not funded by the government or taxpayer money. That is just flat out wrong. The FCC (A government agency) set up the Federal Universal Service Fund (enacted in 1996 under Clinton which the last time I checked was a democrat)which is a fee (or tax) on every phone bill (home or cell) in America for advanced universas service in places like classrooms, libraries, healthcare providers ect... Somewhere along the way it got transformed into something it was never intended to be (imagine that!!!) which is having this fund provide free cell phones to individuals. This is where the money for the free phones and services comes from. Now, I don't know about you, but I believe that people who pay taxes, otherwise known as taxpayers that have a phone of some sort are all paying the universal service fee that is funding the free phone program. I actually noticed on my phone bill a Arkansas universal fee which is probably along the same lines but I haven't looked into it yet. As much surfing for material as you do you should have run across this. Maybe you did and edited out the truth portion of your post. Who knows? Whatever you did it sure changed the truth from what it really is.

Judged:

2

2

2

BARNEYII wrote:

<quoted text>
"Is this another "Bush's fault" argument"
Hell no, it's an another, OBAMA'S AND DEMOCRATS FAULT, argument"
You should know, you started it.
You say, and I quote;
This is just another example in a long line of examples of Democrats wanting to do well but being too lazy to put the proper measures in place to stop things like this or doing the proper research to know what they are getting into before they launch it.
END QUOTE.
This law has been around since 1997, how many times over the years have you contacted your Congressman or Senator to object to this law?

Judged:

2

2

2

BARNEYII wrote:

<quoted text>
Well Einstein, you had a lot to say about that post, not to know what it said.
Quote: I actually noticed on my phone bill a Arkansas universal fee which is probably along the same lines but I haven't looked into it yet.
End quote.
DUH- of course that what it was.
Now read what the post said:
Quote;
"The USF is sustained by contributions from telecommunications companies such as "long distance companies, local telephone companies, wireless telephone companies, paging companies, and payphone providers." The companies often charge customers to fund their contributions in the form of a universal service fee you might see on your monthly phone bill".
End Quote.
Now notice, the post used the words "often charge" and "you might see on your monthly phone bill"
Now if that was a Fed Tax as you say, it would not be at the company's discretion to charge it, it would be mandatory.

Judged:

2

2

2

khjgf wrote:

hey barn, it has been my observance that loud mouthed people are usually short and have small dongs. They have to make up for their short comings. BTW I did not vote today, neither did you!

Judged:

3

3

3

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
The "LAW" was never intended for individuals as if they were institutions but rather institutions made up of individuals. There is a big difference. And yes it was Obama that made such a hard push to give out phones to individuals as they would an institution. Your extreme pro Obama stance causes you to be hypersensitive to any criticism of him. Even to the point of completely changing someone elses post because it may have hit a nerve which apparantly doesn't take much.