In 2008 the program was spending 818 million. In 2012 the amount was 2.2 billion. In addt' to the explosive growth 41% of the people receiving the phones could not properly prove they were eligible .

 

Not defending the program, but I would imagine part of the growth could be due to the logistics of cell phones. Families really only needed one house phone. You can make legitimate arguments for families having multiple cell phones, which of course would increase the amount of money spent on a program such as this. Now debating the merits of said program is an entirely different discussion.

I'll await STILL for someone to disprove what I've said.

 

If you ask 1,000 people "Which President started the program where poor citizens received free phones" you would get 999.9 of the saying President Obama. I thought that. Saw something on Twitter that alluded to President Reagan starting the program.

 

Turns out it was true.

 

I said it has become a "welfare queen" issue . Do a Google images search on "obama free phone" and tell me I'm wrong.

 

I said the Lifeline program started in 1985. It did.

 

I said it was expanded to include cell phones in 2005. It did.

 

So where exactly am I wrong? Everyone thinks this started in 2008. It didn't. That's my point.

From what I gather fraud by cell phone companies (those you see on the street corners) started due to poorly-worded guidelines when cell phones were added as well as (shocking!) poor oversight.

 

A fair debate is whether any citizen who cannot afford a landline or cellphone should be given one. President Reagan and Congress thought being connected was a necessity and thought poor folks should not be disconnected.

I'd imagine the numbers grew because a lot more people became eligible in 2008 due to the economic conditions at that time.

Anyone who was on BGP in 2012, it was discussed. Not a new program at all but apparently both Obama and Romney supporters thought it was. I believe that was because of the growth in dollars spent under Obama.

 

It was? I missed it.

 

No question there has been a huge growth in $$ allocated.

In 2008 the program was spending 818 million. In 2012 the amount was 2.2 billion. In addt' to the explosive growth 41% of the people receiving the phones could not properly prove they were eligible .

 

Phone companies saw tremendous opportunity due to poor oversight. Took advantage of it.

Not defending the program, but I would imagine part of the growth could be due to the logistics of cell phones. Families really only needed one house phone. You can make legitimate arguments for families having multiple cell phones, which of course would increase the amount of money spent on a program such as this. Now debating the merits of said program is an entirely different discussion.

 

The program intent was "one per household" but that has been a big issue.

For the record I'm good with land lines. Cell phones not so much unless the cost can be held the same for both. Then let it be a choice for the recipient.

For the record I'm good with land lines. Cell phones not so much unless the cost can be held the same for both. Then let it be a choice for the recipient.

 

It is currently a choice - a landline or a cell.

 

If we're OK with the concept as long as fraud is limited then I struggle with saying it can only be a landline.

It is currently a choice - a landline or a cell.

 

If we're OK with the concept as long as fraud is limited then I struggle with saying it can only be a landline.

 

As long as it's a one time thing and the costs are comparable. Landlines don't usually get lost or broken like cell phones do and my experience is that the service is cheaper. If you choose a cell and you lose or break it, that's it.

I'll await STILL for someone to disprove what I've said.

 

If you ask 1,000 people "Which President started the program where poor citizens received free phones" you would get 999.9 of the saying President Obama. I thought that. Saw something on Twitter that alluded to President Reagan starting the program.

 

Turns out it was true.

 

I said it has become a "welfare queen" issue . Do a Google images search on "obama free phone" and tell me I'm wrong.

 

I said the Lifeline program started in 1985. It did.

 

I said it was expanded to include cell phones in 2005. It did.

 

So where exactly am I wrong? Everyone thinks this started in 2008. It didn't. That's my point.

 

First you are correct the Lifeline program started in 1984 under Reagan as an obscure program with a very narrow reach.

 

What you left out was the massive funding and expansion started in 1996 under Clinton.

 

Also your 2005 date on cell phones is incorrect the first government contract with a cell phone provider was with Trac phone in 2008.

 

Now where the dispute comes in , who was responsible . Obviously the left wants to say Bush and the right wants to say Obama. In reality it's a little of both.

 

Now to heart of the matter and why I said your premise wasn't completely true is because the reason the Obama phone term stuck is because of the massive expansion of the program that saw over a 200% increase in spending in his first 18 months.

 

 

So again you conviently left out Clinton's part and had the wrong date for the first cell phone provider contractor.

The 2005 date was a false date passed around the net as well during the times of defending Obama about the program. I won't blame you because prominent reporters at The Hill and Politico used it.

 

They used a vague procedural change in 2005 that made cell phones possibly possible as when cell phones started. When in reality the contract for Trac phone was signed in 2008 and first phone wasn't distributed until then either.

First you are correct the Lifeline program started in 1984 under Reagan as an obscure program with a very narrow reach.

 

What you left out was the massive funding and expansion started in 1996 under Clinton.

 

Also your 2005 date on cell phones is incorrect the first government contract with a cell phone provider was with Trac phone in 2008.

 

Now where the dispute comes in , who was responsible . Obviously the left wants to say Bush and the right wants to say Obama. In reality it's a little of both.

 

Now to heart of the matter and why I said your premise wasn't completely true is because the reason the Obama phone term stuck is because of the massive expansion of the program that saw over a 200% increase in spending in his first 18 months.

 

 

So again you conviently left out Clinton's part and had the wrong date for the first cell phone provider contractor.

 

This link says the government gave people the choice of landline or cellphones in 2005.

 

https://www.fcc.gov/lifeline

 

 

"Since 1985, the Lifeline program has provided a discount on phone service for qualifying low-income consumers to ensure that all Americans have the opportunities and security that phone service brings, including being able to connect to jobs, family and emergency services. In 2005, Lifeline discounts were made available to qualifying low-income consumers on pre-paid wireless service plans in addition to traditional landline service. Lifeline is part of the Universal Service Fund."

 

 

"On January 31, 2012, the Commission adopted comprehensive reform and modernization of the Lifeline program. As a universal service program that fulfills Congress’s mandate to ensure the availability of communications to all Americans, Lifeline for the nearly 30 years, has helped tens of millions of low-income Americans afford basic phone service. Access to telephone service is essential for finding a job, connecting with family, or getting help in an emergency."

The 2005 date was a false date passed around the net as well during the times of defending Obama about the program. I won't blame you because prominent reporters at The Hill and Politico used it.

 

They used a vague procedural change in 2005 that made cell phones possibly possible as when cell phones started. When in reality the contract for Trac phone was signed in 2008 and first phone wasn't distributed until then either.

 

But it was approved for cellphones in 2005? Why does when the government contract bid was awarded matter?

Regardless who started the program, spending on it has gotten totally out of hand. It's turned into a party building and vote buying scheme IMO.