Free Cell Phones Are Now a Civil Right

[bonnie]

Wonder where the rights went of those that will end up paying for this. It must pay to be poor

Free Cell Phones Are Now a Civil Right

8:30 AM, August 1, 2011 ι Abby W. Schachter

Pennsylvanians on public assistance now have a new 'civil right' -- free cell phones. Meanwhile, the rest of us get to pay higher cell bills as a result.

Recently, a federal government program called the Universal Service Fund came to the Keystone State and some residents are thrilled because it means they can enjoy 250 minutes a month and a handset for free, just because they don't have the money to pay for it. Through Assurance Wireless and SafeLink from Tracfone Wireless these folks get to reach out and touch someone while the cost of their service is paid for by everyone else. You see, the telecommunications companies are funding the Universal Service Fund to the tune of $4 billion a year because the feds said they have to and in order to recoup their money, the companies turn around and hike their fees to paying customers. But those of use paying for the free service for the poor, should be happy about this infuriating situation, says Gary Carter, manager of national partnerships for Assurance, because "the program is about peace of mind." Free cell service means "one less bill that someone has to pay, so they can pay their rent or for day care...it is a right to have peace of mind," Cater explained.

Well, the telecommunications companies don't seem to love providing this 'right' to poor folks because they are trying to renegotiate the deal with the FCC. The telecommunications companies like Verizon and AT&T want more paying customers, but their desire to reform their deal with the feds dovetails nicely with the political ideology of the current FCC chairman Julian Genachowski, who like all Obama administration flunkies sees 'rights' where others see 'priviledges'. Just listen to how the agency put the question of providing broadband and cell service to those in rural and poor communities. "The goal of reform is to provide everyone with affordable voice and broadband," the agency said.

Between 14 million and 24 million Americans lack access to broadband, "and immediate prospects for deployment to them are bleak," the FCC said in a report last year. "Many of these Americans are poor or live in rural areas that will remain unserved without reform of the universal service program and other changes," the report said.

But who says that cheap or free broadband is anything more than a luxury?

Well, another Obama flunkie, Rahm Emanuel, that's who. As we reported in June , the new mayor of Chicago was all excited to proclaim the wonderful news of free internet service to poor kids in Chicago's worst neighborhoods. And how could Mayor Emanuel pay for this new 'civil right'? Well, because the federal government extorted the money from Comcast when it wanted to buy NBC-Universal. Once again FCC chairman Genachowski was all about "helping the kids" by forcing the internet provider to give poor kids free netbooks, laptops, and internet service, indefinitely. And who is going to pay for this gift? Well, of course the rest of us poor saps who actually pay our bills.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/fr...P#ixzz1TxtN9X5m

[Dr. Shane]

Not a bad idea. I can't say I go along with the concept of phone service being a right, but the idea of getting the private industry to provide free service to the low income without a government program involved is genus. Overall, I like what I read there. I am a bit concerned that 250 minutes is not enough but certainly companies cannot be asked to give away the farm. In reality, many of the poor will end up buying more minutes.

What I really like about this is it further combats poverty in America. That is really great. Our poor are among the richest in the world - and that is the way it should be. Other countries should look at what we are doing and use it as a template. Our poor have air conditioning, cable tv, cars, microwaves and most poor children don't have to share a bed with siblings. America is great. We have come a long way since even just 30 years ago.

[bonnie]

Not a bad idea. I can't say I go along with the concept of phone service being a right, but the idea of getting the private industry to provide free service to the low income without a government program involved is genus. Overall, I like what I read there. I am a bit concerned that 250 minutes is not enough but certainly companies cannot be asked to give away the farm. In reality, many of the poor will end up buying more minutes.

[Dr. Shane]

Well I am just tickled pink that some poor folks will have one less bill to worry about. Without a phone a person cannot even look for a job. Obama done himself good here.

[bonnie]

Well I am just tickled pink that some poor folks will have one less bill to worry about. Without a phone a person cannot even look for a job. Obama done himself good here.

Sorry,I don't believe you really believe what you are posting.

I think much of what you are saying is for effect.

However there are those that leech off others that think it is fine but they can't do that without someone in a position to forceably take what is not theirs

The ones getting the free ride don't worry to much as so many things are paid for them. The ones that it is harming tho are ones that work hard,many times two jobs, and pay their own bills.Their bill of course will go up and if it gets higher than they want or can pay they will simply not pay anything.

I know you are convinced without a cell phone there can't be a job hunt, but there is a life without a cell phone hanging off your ear.

For you(general) to demand what belongs to others because you are flat out to lazy,not ready, or what ever excuse is used today is theft.

But if you are the type of person that thinks that theft is great by all means you are entitled to your opinin

[Dr. Shane]

This isn't theft. This is charity. The economy is very dynamic so when we talk about the "poor" we are not talking about specific individuals that are set in poverty for life. Most people in poverty will move out of it during their lifetime. So programs like these are just lending a helping hand to someone while they are down. That is a good thing. There is no stealing going on. There is no leeching going on. There is just helping and caring.

[bonnie]

This isn't theft. This is charity. The economy is very dynamic so when we talk about the "poor" we are not talking about specific individuals that are set in poverty for life. Most people in poverty will move out of it during their lifetime. So programs like these are just lending a helping hand to someone while they are down. That is a good thing. There is no stealing going on. There is no leeching going on. There is just helping and caring.

Charity is freely given.The cost of the charity is not passed on to others.

What is taken by force from one and given to another is THEFT

[bonnie]

Those that demand the labor of others as their right.

Websters.....

Parasite,one who lives on another without making a fitting return

Leech

A person that clings to another with a view to gain

[Dr. Shane]

Charity is freely given.

The government gives freely. That is charity.

[bonnie]

The government has nothing to give. The government has only that which it takes from others.

[Tom Wetmore]

The problem is a growing segment of society that refuses to acknowledge that government is ours or our doing, as if it is something for which we take no ownership or responsibility, that government is something imposed upon us by some outside source beyond our doing or control.

What the government does, right or wrong, is the act of the people. It is not something apart from or alien to us. The government is of the people, by the people and for the people. It is us.

If the government goes to war, it is our war. If it goes to the moon, we did it. If the government builds roads, they are our roads. If the government gives to the poor, it is our charity. If it collects taxes, it is us collecting from us. The taxes it collects have been decided by us as our measure of participation for the collective good of the people.

It is not taking anything from you. You are participating in government as a citizen when you pay your taxes. If you do not like it, there are countries that have no organized government or tax system. Maybe you would like to try the alternative?

[bonnie]

The problem is a growing segment of society that refuses to acknowledge that government is ours or our doing, as if it is something for which we take no ownership or responsibility, that government is something imposed upon us by some outside source beyond our doing or control.

[bonnie]

It is not taking anything from you. You are participating in government as a citizen when you pay your taxes. If you do not like it, there are countries that have no organized government or tax system. Maybe you would like to try the alternative?

No,I would like the country that does not punish one to give to the other.

Government control on all fronts will soon be a reality. Who knows if there will be a reprieve in the current conditions.But somehow I don't think we are to applaud the actions that encourage laziness,a lack of work ethic,or personal responsibility.

Those with less are not exempt from any of the above.

[Tom Wetmore]

Thanks for validating what I said and confirming who I was talking about...

[Paula]

Bonnie,

Do you also object to your money being taxed in order to go to war?? Or is it ok to tax people for warmongering, but not for helping the poor???

[olger]

"It is alien to those that do not believe they are owed something and take from others. Unfortunately the takers are becoming more and more and they will continue to vote those like Obama into office so they can continue to take."

[Tom Wetmore]

That nail isn't being hit squarely on its head... A glancing blow at best.

[Dr. Shane]

The government has nothing to give. The government has only that which it takes from others.

No. The government has what the people agree to give it through elected representation. In the US, it isn't an "us" vs. "them". The people are the government. The government can take no more than the people authorize it to.

[bonnie]

Bonnie,

Do you also object to your money being taxed in order to go to war?? Or is it ok to tax people for warmongering, but not for helping the poor???

Depends on the reason for the war.

Just to correct your general statement of not wanting to help the poor.That is inaccurate.

The long term paying a healthy individual to do nothing but take is what I object to.

Those working two jobs already to care for their own and pay their bills. Now they can work a little harder and pay for free cell phone service for those not working.

I object to the single mother on our block living on the tax payer. She doesn't really want to clean house for 20.00+ an hour.She will leech off the taxpayer "till something better" comes along

I object to paying for another neighbors prescription drugs because they can't afford to. Yet they can afford a boat,motor home new pickup and now a 2500.00 52 inch screen. She wonders why I still work so hard,telling me"she really doesn't like to work much"

I object to the HUD program. Able bodied men laying on the couch with a beer telling my husband "man you work way to hard"

after they and their families had destroyed the home.The revamping of the home was free to them while the tax payer paid

Those that are hungry should be fed.They should also be led towards correcting the problems that put them there.

I object to those welfare recipients that protested at our capital that their civil rights were being violated because they were going to have to work.

I object to the chruch member that refused to work after four hours because I never told her she would have to work that hard.Welfare was easier.Her whining and crying at prayer request time in chruch was enough to make one throw up.Poor thing,she knew God was testing her and in the end he would provide winter clothing for her children.Finally someone did

[bonnie]

Each of us are given the same 24 hours a day. We don't all have the same talents and abilities,but we all have some.

Biblically there is nothing to indicate that a person has a right to the labor of others.

Those with more do have a responsibility to those without.That does not do away with the personal responsibility of those with less.

Whether it was the widow that gave two mites,all she had,or the servant with one talent that did nothing and was called "lazy and wicked" all can do something.It may be as insignificent in value as the two mites,or only one talent,but get off the backside and use it.

God says if a man/woman does not work,he shall not eat.How many are the taxpayer supporting that God says they don't deserve to eat.

Obviously we disagree,but I was taught that what others had was not mine. If had exhausted all options and it was a necessity it was not a shame to ask for help.The shame came if I abused those willing to help me by demanding more and more.

[bonnie]

"It is alien to those that do not believe they are owed something and take from others. Unfortunately the takers are becoming more and more and they will continue to vote those like Obama into office so they can continue to take."

That is why I think it foolish to count Obama out. There are more and more takers,taking from less and less givers.That is what Obama needs to be put in for another four years

[Paula]

Bonnie, I agree with you that there are some people who are poor who take advantage of the system. But where we part ways is, I believe they are in the minority. I believe MOST people truly need the help. I have many friends who clean houses. Some of my friends are EXTREMELY hard working and all the houses they have pay around 50 each time they go. They have to clean two houses a day (a full 10-12 hour day) to make 100 a day!! Hardly 20 an hour!! Then I have another friend who makes 200-250 per house. She works about 8 hours and makes a ton of money. She is no cleaner, no smarter and no more hardworking than the others... the point is, not all houses pay 20 an hour!!!

On the other hand, whereas you seem to believe the rich are always honest and right, and that they are unfairly having their money taken away from the them, I see things very differently. My mom worked from one of the richest men in South Florida. He paid 10million CASH for his yacht!! And yet he had a homestead tax exemption on his 20Million dollar waterfront house. Tell me, does that sound right to you? A man who spends 10 million on a boat, who has 3 cash paid bentleys and rolls royces in his garage, getting a yearly 300,000 tax exemption? Is that not welfare for the rich? Is that not welfare for those who do not need it!!??! How can someone be for one, but against the other?

[bonnie]

Bonnie,

Do you also object to your money being taxed in order to go to war?? Or is it ok to tax people for warmongering, but not for helping the poor???

Just in case you still don't get it.I grew up in a home without much but my parents always managed to help others.

Even in my teens it was not uncommon to come home and find a couple of strangers sleeping on our living room floor.Never could figure out where the folks always seemed to find them.

They were not sent away hungy,if they needed warnmer clothing there was usually something found.

But they were not intended as permanent houseguests,having their needs met by my parents while doing nothing to help themselves.

My husband and I have raised many children not our own.I have been a active part in providing baby clothes to young single moms,offering babysitting free,quilts for families.

The list is very long of those that need a helping handup/safety net.The list is longer of those that want the taxpayer to provide them a comfy hammock

[Dr. Shane]

It is not taking anything from you. You are participating in government as a citizen when you pay your taxes. If you do not like it, there are countries that have no organized government or tax system. Maybe you would like to try the alternative?

Recently a wealthy immigrant was complaining to me about the high property taxes he has to pay here. Of course he has options. He can sell his property and buy a humbler plot. Or he can always go back to his country of origin and see if he can be as successful there.

[bonnie]

Bonnie, I agree with you that there are some people who are poor who take advantage of the system. But where we part ways is, I believe they are in the minority. I believe MOST people truly need the help. I have many friends who clean houses. Some of my friends are EXTREMELY hard working and all the houses they have pay around 50 each time they go. They have to clean two houses a day (a full 10-12 hour day) to make 100 a day!! Hardly 20 an hour!! Then I have another friend who makes 200-250 per house. She works about 8 hours and makes a ton of money. She is no cleaner, no smarter and no more hardworking than the others... the point is, not all houses pay 20 an hour!!!