• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Myths . . .

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,663
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
First, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Conservative. I show my lean as Moderate because I wish to distance myself from some of the things my party is doing that I absolutely don't agree with.

But. Fair is fair. Here's the deal.

"What's the myth?" and!!!!!!

"What's your proof?

The Myth of the Obama Phone

There is no such thing. Subsidized phone service was begun by the FCC in 1984, under Ronald Reagan. It was significantly expanded under Bill Clinton. Although I'm confident the program is (and has been) abused since inception, it's something that's sorely needed. Imagine being homeless and not being able to afford a phone number. How do you get a job? How do you call for help? I support the program. It's subsidized in part by phone service providers and in part by the Federal government. There is no such thing as an Obama Phone.

And here's my proof:

snopes.com: Free 'ObamaPhones' for Welfare Recipients

And FactCheck.org says this:

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.

​So. Whatcha' got??

Wouldn't it be nice if this thread stayed on track?
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,799
Reaction score
20,472
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
To be fair, "Obama phone" came from an Obama supporter who was filmed answering a question about Obama and saying she wanted to get her Obama phone. It grew out of that widely played video. So, in fact, there was/is an Obama phone.
 

AlabamaPaul

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
8,834
Reaction score
2,812
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
First, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Conservative. I show my lean as Moderate because I wish to distance myself from some of the things my party is doing that I absolutely don't agree with.

But. Fair is fair. Here's the deal.

"What's the myth?" and!!!!!!

"What's your proof?

The Myth of the Obama Phone

There is no such thing. Subsidized phone service was begun by the FCC in 1984, under Ronald Reagan. It was significantly expanded under Bill Clinton. Although I'm confident the program is (and has been) abused since inception, it's something that's sorely needed. Imagine being homeless and not being able to afford a phone number. How do you get a job? How do you call for help? I support the program. It's subsidized in part by phone service providers and in part by the Federal government. There is no such thing as an Obama Phone.

And here's my proof:

snopes.com: Free 'ObamaPhones' for Welfare Recipients

And FactCheck.org says this:



​So. Whatcha' got??

Wouldn't it be nice if this thread stayed on track?

The program is funded by every paying phone user through fees and taxes...
 

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,663
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
The program is funded by every paying phone user through fees and taxes...

Your point being? Everything is paid by something, for God's sake.

To be fair, "Obama phone" came from an Obama supporter who was filmed answering a question about Obama and saying she wanted to get her Obama phone. It grew out of that widely played video. So, in fact, there was/is an Obama phone.

Only in that woman's mind. There is no such thing.

Obamaphone is still catchy. ;)

:lol: :lol:
 

AlabamaPaul

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
8,834
Reaction score
2,812
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Your point being? Everything is paid by something, for God's sake.



Only in that woman's mind. There is no such thing.



:lol: :lol:

No, everything is NOT paid for, hence the debt...
 

Oftencold

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,044
Reaction score
2,202
Location
A small village in Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
First, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Conservative. I show my lean as Moderate because I wish to distance myself from some of the things my party is doing that I absolutely don't agree with.

But. Fair is fair. Here's the deal.

"What's the myth?" and!!!!!!

"What's your proof?

The Myth of the Obama Phone

There is no such thing. Subsidized phone service was begun by the FCC in 1984, under Ronald Reagan. It was significantly expanded under Bill Clinton. Although I'm confident the program is (and has been) abused since inception, it's something that's sorely needed. Imagine being homeless and not being able to afford a phone number. How do you get a job? How do you call for help? I support the program. It's subsidized in part by phone service providers and in part by the Federal government. There is no such thing as an Obama Phone.

And here's my proof:

snopes.com: Free 'ObamaPhones' for Welfare Recipients

And FactCheck.org says this:



​So. Whatcha' got??

Wouldn't it be nice if this thread stayed on track?
I agree that the program shouldn't be call "Obamaphones." It shouldn't exist at all. People got along fine without cell phones forever. If the poor are thought to need immediate access to phones, subsidized payphones in poor neighborhoods was the proper answer.
 

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,663
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I agree that the program shouldn't be call "Obamaphones." It shouldn't exist at all. People got along fine without cell phones forever. If the poor are thought to need immediate access to phones, subsidized payphones in poor neighborhoods was the proper answer.

I disagree. I have no problem at all with the poor having a phone number to call their own. How do you EVER find a job if no one can call you back? Stand at the payphone for days on end? Doesn't sound to productive to me. Cheapskate. ;) ;);)
 

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,657
Reaction score
15,929
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

AlabamaPaul

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
8,834
Reaction score
2,812
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I disagree. I have no problem at all with the poor having a phone number to call their own. How do you EVER find a job if no one can call you back? Stand at the payphone for days on end? Doesn't sound to productive to me. Cheapskate. ;) ;);)

I think the problem arose when the program to include cell phones. If it were left at landlines, I don't believe there would be a big issue...
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,799
Reaction score
20,472
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I disagree. I have no problem at all with the poor having a phone number to call their own. How do you EVER find a job if no one can call you back? Stand at the payphone for days on end? Doesn't sound to productive to me. Cheapskate. ;) ;);)

I think you're softening on us Maggie.

What else is not considered a necessity for the government to provide? How about free public transit or free cars to ensure poor people can get to those jobs the free phone allowed them to get?
 

sbrettt

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Messages
2,724
Reaction score
783
Location
Prospect park, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I agree that the program shouldn't be call "Obamaphones." It shouldn't exist at all. People got along fine without cell phones forever. If the poor are thought to need immediate access to phones, subsidized payphones in poor neighborhoods was the proper answer.

Eh, that's not really true in present. Cell phones are a must have for work. You could also say people were all right without internet, but in reality internet is also very important in today's society.
 

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,663
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I think the problem arose when the program to include cell phones. If it were left at landlines, I don't believe there would be a big issue...

Yeah, those homeless people have such convenient places to put them. ;)

I think you're softening on us Maggie.

What else is not considered a necessity for the government to provide? How about free public transit or free cars to ensure poor people can get to those jobs the free phone allowed them to get?

I might be softening, CJ. *shrug* But when I think of a homeless woman with a couple of kids or a guy desperate for SOME kind of job, thinking of them getting a freebie cell phone with 70 minutes a month, it doesn't seem like a bad investment.
 

Comunitee

Active member
Joined
Sep 24, 2013
Messages
256
Reaction score
59
Location
Central Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
First, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Conservative. I show my lean as Moderate because I wish to distance myself from some of the things my party is doing that I absolutely don't agree with.

But. Fair is fair...

Imagine being homeless and not being able to afford a phone number. How do you get a job? How do you call for help? I support the program. It's subsidized in part by phone service providers and in part by the Federal government. There is no such thing as an Obama Phone.

I'm glad to hear (or, rather, read) you say that. Let me ask you a related question: What's your opinion of public transportation?

Where I live, a lot of jobs, and I believe a majority of those that are actually listed in newspaper classified ads, are in industrial parks and other areas that are not on (or just off) bus and train routes. How is someone supposed to get there, even for a job interview?

Increasing public transportation increases access to jobs, thus makes it easier for people who are not "lazy" (to use a common conservatives' term) to get where they need to go. But, traditionally, conservatives oppose it, and favor the automobile, because they tend to be beholden to the oil industry. They love cars -- though they don't love the United Auto Workers. (Conversely, liberals have had the problem of confusing the interest group supposedly supporting a group of people with the group of people themselves.)

So, if you (not necessarily the originator of the thread) are a conservative, and you want people to get jobs, you should be in favor of ways to make that easier -- and this way doesn't have them holed up at the unemployment office, taking courses that end up doing not a lick of good. (I know, I've been there, thankfully not recently.)

I know, building and/or improving public transportation is expensive. But building and/or improving roads is, too. These are things that fall under the category of "It's gotta be done, or else we're up the creek."
 

AlabamaPaul

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
8,834
Reaction score
2,812
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yeah, those homeless people have such convenient places to put them. ;)

If they're homeless, they have no place to charge the phone... :doh

Seriously though, I don't think the homeless are major participants in the program, and a multi-box voice mail system at the closest shelter could suffice...
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Your point being? Everything is paid by something, for God's sake.


The point being that it's still a welfare program paid by the same people that otherwise would pay for it.
 

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,663
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I'm glad to hear (or, rather, read) you say that. Let me ask you a related question: What's your opinion of public transportation?

Where I live, a lot of jobs, and I believe a majority of those that are actually listed in newspaper classified ads, are in industrial parks and other areas that are not on (or just off) bus and train routes. How is someone supposed to get there, even for a job interview?

Increasing public transportation increases access to jobs, thus makes it easier for people who are not "lazy" (to use a common conservatives' term) to get where they need to go. But, traditionally, conservatives oppose it, and favor the automobile, because they tend to be beholden to the oil industry. They love cars -- though they don't love the United Auto Workers. (Conversely, liberals have had the problem of confusing the interest group supposedly supporting a group of people with the group of people themselves.)

So, if you (not necessarily the originator of the thread) are a conservative, and you want people to get jobs, you should be in favor of ways to make that easier -- and this way doesn't have them holed up at the unemployment office, taking courses that end up doing not a lick of good. (I know, I've been there, thankfully not recently.)

I know, building and/or improving public transportation is expensive. But building and/or improving roads is, too. These are things that fall under the category of "It's gotta be done, or else we're up the creek."

I don't think we can afford to build transportation systems that cost hundreds of millions (billions) of dollars in order to better serve people who can't afford cars. If a route calls for public transportation in general? That's something else again. But if the user base isn't there? No.Way.
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,799
Reaction score
20,472
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yeah, those homeless people have such convenient places to put them. ;)



I might be softening, CJ. *shrug* But when I think of a homeless woman with a couple of kids or a guy desperate for SOME kind of job, thinking of them getting a freebie cell phone with 70 minutes a month, it doesn't seem like a bad investment.

That's fair - but I'd rather see Apple or Verison or some other multibillion dollar corporation give back to their communities by doing this. After all, they are making 100s of billions, if not trillions off the American taxpayer so they can afford to give something back.
 

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,663
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
That's fair - but I'd rather see Apple or Verison or some other multibillion dollar corporation give back to their communities by doing this. After all, they are making 100s of billions, if not trillions off the American taxpayer so they can afford to give something back.

Actually, according to the FactCheck "proof" I provided, it is 100% subsidized by carriers. *shrug*
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,339
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If they're homeless, they have no place to charge the phone... :doh

Seriously though, I don't think the homeless are major participants in the program, and a multi-box voice mail system at the closest shelter could suffice...

I have always thought the homeless should be painted to match the buildings in front of which they sleep. Good afternoon, AP.:2wave:
 

Oftencold

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,044
Reaction score
2,202
Location
A small village in Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Eh, that's not really true in present. Cell phones are a must have for work. You could also say people were all right without internet, but in reality internet is also very important in today's society.

Then they ought to find a way to pay for them, or have a legal guardian appointed, since they can't care for themselves.

I've had it and more with the notion that it's up to those of us who work and struggle, and somehow find a way to hold down jobs to make pampered zoo animals out of people who refuse to work. We have millions of illegal invaders in this country to fill the very low skill jobs that people who think that they "deserve" "free" cell phones believe that they are too good to perform.

Round them up. Take them to farms, or to fish processing plants, or to cattle ranches or to landfills and put them to work. It won't kill them. And then they can get their own cell phone and leave the rest of us alone.
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,528
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Gee, Maggie starts a thread about Obama myths and mentions Obamaphones, which are a myth, and now all the rightwingers want to talk about Obamaphones like why it's OK to call them Obamaphones, what's wrong with the Obamaphone program, and on and on

No wonder she doesn't want to be associated with conservatives
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I agree that the program shouldn't be call "Obamaphones." It shouldn't exist at all. People got along fine without cell phones forever. If the poor are thought to need immediate access to phones, subsidized payphones in poor neighborhoods was the proper answer.

If you a provide a service and people become dependent on it many people think that either your business should be public or your service should be provided to certain people at the expense of everyone. Phone service is just as much an example of this as healthcare, education or the Internet.
 
Last edited:

sbrettt

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Messages
2,724
Reaction score
783
Location
Prospect park, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Then they ought to find a way to pay for them, or have a legal guardian appointed, since they can't care for themselves.

I've had it and more with the notion that it's up to those of us who work and struggle, and somehow find a way to hold down jobs to make pampered zoo animals out of people who refuse to work. We have millions of illegal invaders in this country to fill the very low skill jobs that people who think that they "deserve" "free" cell phones believe that they are too good to perform.

Round them up. Take them to farms, or to fish processing plants, or to cattle ranches or to landfills and put them to work. It won't kill them. And then they can get their own cell phone and leave the rest of us alone.

I hate this thinking that people in poverty are an abstract nagging concept, but it makes sense with your position. The only way one could speak of people the way you have is to de-humanize them.
 
Top Bottom