Obama Myths . . .

[MaggieD]

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

I agree. I thought Liberals would rush in and talk about immigration and other things . . . I'm always surprised at DP.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

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

Good afternoon 2m. What about those 'Skins?

 

[MaggieD]

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.

I rather agree with you. But, then, check out the user name.

 

[CanadaJohn]

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

I hope that's true - but I also hope they're not getting some tax or other incentive to "subsidize" it. So, why's the government involved?

 

[Jack Hays]

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?

Here's why people have a problem with this program. Good evening, Maggie.:2wave:

[h=3]Me and My Obamaphones | National Review Online[/h]www.nationalreview.com/.../me-and-my-obamaphones-jillian-kay-melch...‎
Aug 1, 2013 - Me and My Obamaphones - Not on welfare or below the poverty line? Never mind — here's your free phone.eace

 

[sbrettt]

I rather agree with you. But, then, check out the user name.

LOL, I figured it was a reference to living in Alaska, but I think your right. Maybe he meant it the way you're implying.

 

[Jack Hays]

Good afternoon 2m. What about those 'Skins?

Redskins will next play the Cowboys to tie for first place in the NFC East.:mrgreen:

 

[sangha]

I agree. I thought Liberals would rush in and talk about immigration and other things . . . I'm always surprised at DP.

I'm not.

You could throw sushi into a shark tank and get a less frenzied response

 

[Comunitee]

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.

It's the timeless method of blaming "the other" for "what's wrong with me."

My greedy employer laid me off rather than pay for health insurance for his employees, so it must be the fault of the black/Jewish/Muslim/gay/immigrant guy a few desks down from me.

I haven't gotten a raise in five years, while prices have gone up; so it must be the fault of that poor person that I've never met and has never even been in the building where my job is.

And when I find out that it's actually the conservatives who are causing my problems, it's not their fault for doing that; it's the media's fault for telling me.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/images/smilies/New_Smilies/hammer.gif
:hammer:

 

[Oftencold]

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.

I have been penniless a number of times, and I am very thankful that no one made me a zoo animal in order to "help me."

What in the deepest pits of Gehenna is wrong with assigning the people who expect you to feed them to honest work? To have basic human expectations of them, is to see them as human beings. The alternative is to see them as pets with a vote.

My "position" is to see normal human beings in their prime employment years as potentially employable, competent, responsible and likely to respond positively to having a productive role in society. Which person do you suppose is likely to thrive over a lifetime? The one who lives for Public Assistance, or the one getting a paycheck, even if it's for gutting fish, which I've also done?

 

[sbrettt]

I have been penniless a number of times, and I am very thankful that no one made me a zoo animal in order to "help me."

What in the deepest pits of Gehenna is wrong with assigning the people who expect you to feed them to honest work? To have basic human expectations of them, is to see them as human beings. The alternative is to see them as pets with a vote.

My "position" is to see normal human beings in their prime employment years as potentially employable, competent, responsible and likely to respond positively to having a productive role in society. Which person do you suppose is likely to thrive over a lifetime? The one who lives for Public Assistance, or the one getting a paycheck, even if it's for gutting fish, which I've also done?

So have I, but we've been lucky. I think if either of us had the misfortune of being born in places like Detroit, we wouldn't be so lucky. The only place our positions differ is I wish to see people in poverty helped with basic necessities like food until they can get work.

 

[soccerboy22]

Here is a new myth for the thread. Obama was born in Kenya. Prove the myth is false: Obama Jokes About Birth Certificate Controversy - YouTube

 

[Oftencold]

So have I, but we've been lucky. I think if either of us had the misfortune of being born in places like Detroit, we wouldn't be so lucky. The only place our positions differ is I wish to see people in poverty helped with basic necessities like food until they can get work.

Detroit? What's difficult about that? Try being homeless and broke in rural Alaska.

But again, I favor taking these people to the multitudinous low skill jobs, and if they are able minded and able bodied, and don't want to take that work, I favor letting them go hungry. The public policy programs we've adopted don't work, are very expensive, devalue the perception of honor and self worth attached to work, and retard the economy.

 

[sbrettt]

Detroit? What's difficult about that? Try being homeless and broke in rural Alaska.

But again, I favor taking these people to the multitudinous low skill jobs, and if they are able minded and able bodied, and don't want to take that work, I favor letting them go hungry. The public policy programs we've adopted don't work, are very expensive, devalue the perception of honor and self worth attached to work, and retard the economy.

Yeah, in Detroit your threat isn't the weather. It's being killed or robbed. As I previously said, I'm all for putting people to work, but letting them starve to death? That's where you lose anybody with a little empathy.

 

[imagep]

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 like your idea about the payphones, and I am not particularly a supporter of "Obamaphones", but it occurs to me that it is the fact that these phones are cell phones and not landlines that seems to upset so many people. What they don't realize is that many households have forgone the landline phone, and the personal cell phone is the replacement - at about the same cost. It's simply progress, and progress is a good thing.

 

[imagep]

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...

I should have read your post before I posted mine.

 

[Oftencold]

I like your idea about the payphones, and I am not particularly a supporter of "Obamaphones", but it occurs to me that it is the fact that these phones are cell phones and not landlines that seems to upset so many people. What they don't realize is that many households have forgone the landline phone, and the personal cell phone is the replacement - at about the same cost. It's simply progress, and progress is a good thing.

Corrosion is progress. A forest fire is progress. Cancer is progress. Decay is progress. Progress is merely a state of affairs in which somethings advance. Sometimes it's good. Often it isn't.

The difference here is that a single payphone can serve scores of people, while cell phone don't, and are thus a far greater burden on the Productives.

 

[imagep]

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

Assuming that they were paid a decent wage and thus could afford to pay for it. I'd much rather us have more jobs, and higher paying jobs, than welfare though.

 

[imagep]

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.

Maybe the best way for a successful private company to "give back" is to pay a larger portion of our tax burden. Hmm.

 

[Oftencold]

Yeah, in Detroit your threat isn't the weather. It's being killed or robbed. As I previously said, I'm all for putting people to work, but letting them starve to death? That's where you lose anybody with a little empathy.

You aren't seeing people. Sane healthy people do not starve when the alternative is to be fed as wages for honest, harmless work. Ask yourself why you think that they would.

Admittedly, many who've been taught by the State to think of themselves as publicly owned livestock might have to get a little hungry to attain clarity of thought, but that too won't hurt them.

 

[imagep]

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.

So more government jobs is the answer? I'd tend to agree with that, but I never suspected you to be a socialist before.

 

[imagep]

Corrosion is progress. A forest fire is progress. Cancer is progress. Decay is progress. Progress is merely a state of affairs in which somethings advance. Sometimes it's good. Often it isn't.

The difference here is that a single payphone can serve scores of people, while cell phone don't, and are thus a far greater burden on the Productives.

So when your employer calls you on the neighborhood pay phone, needing you to come in early or to work an extra day, exactly what's the chance that you are going to be standing right there at that particular time?

Seriously, my kid is a college student, but he also works for a convenience store chain, on an "on call" bases. He gets paid a premium wage for being willing to work on an as needed bases, usually filling in for someone who has called in sick (or drunk or lazy). He wouldn't have this job if he didn't have a cell phone.

 

[sbrettt]

You aren't seeing people. Sane healthy people do not starve when the alternative is to be fed as wages for honest, harmless work. Ask yourself why you think that they would.

Admittedly, many who've been taught by the State to think of themselves as publicly owned livestock might have to get a little hungry to attain clarity of thought, but that too won't hurt them.

You seem to live in a fantasy world where we all get ice cream in the mail, and work is always available everywhere.

 

[Oftencold]

So when your employer calls you on the neighborhood pay phone, needing you to come in early or to work an extra day, exactly what's the chance that you are going to be standing right there at that particular time?

Seriously, my kid is a college student, but he also works for a convenience store chain, on an "on call" bases. He gets paid a premium wage for being willing to work on an as needed bases, usually filling in for someone who has called in sick (or drunk or lazy). He wouldn't have this job if he didn't have a cell phone.

Well, then, they probably ought to use some of the wages they get from their regular hours to acquire a cheap cell phone. You know, act like responsible human beings and take responsibility for themselves. Maybe they should learn the basic skill of calling in to work at the start of the day and see if extra hours are available? Just like people did for a hundred years or so, before the advent of inexpensive cell phones. However, I fail still to see why they have any right whatsoever to extort that money form their neighbors.

And let me invite those people who feel that their poorer fellows are in such need to volutarily reach into their own pocket to fund such programs, and to keep their hands out of mine. If you want me to contribute to a charity, ask me. When you use government, you are putting a gun to my head to get money from me, essentially, you are behaving as a highway robber. Remember, every single thing that the government does is backed by the concrete threat of deadly force, whether it's foreign policy, the scool lunch program, or zoning laws. If you don't comply, someone with a gun will be along presently to compel you. Would you take the gun in your own hand and force me to pay for someone's cell phone?

 

[Oftencold]

So more government jobs is the answer? I'd tend to agree with that, but I never suspected you to be a socialist before.

Not at all. You need only expel the illegal invaders, I favor doing so by placing a bounty one them, then transporting then to the employers who need work positions filled, and will be willing to house the Indigents. Give the employer a tax break for the first few months.

Government jobs are no answer.

Why in Earth did you assume that I meant government jobs?