Your approval of the President so far

[musicman]

obamaphone anyone?

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/lllu.html

[sarahiki]

obamaphone anyone?

http://www.fcc.gov/c...facts/lllu.html

That's been around for years. It has nothing to do with Obama.

[west20th]

That's been around for years. It has nothing to do with Obama.

Please don't let the facts interrupt MM's Obama bashing.

[jmancuso]

Obama is doing his best to destroy the middle class. He wants to give it all the illegal mexicans.

Just more liberal entitlement crap. Welfare is good. Work is bad. Go see ACORN.

viva el presidente obama y el ACORN! ole!

[RedScare]

That's been around for years. It has nothing to do with Obama.

25 years to be exact, which would make it Ronniephone.

I wonder if the original poster is even remotely embarrassed that this program has been around for 25 years and was started during a Republican administration.

[Jeebus]

25 years to be exact, which would make it Ronniephone.

I wonder if the original poster is even remotely embarrassed that this program has been around for 25 years and was started during a Republican administration.

I think the embarrassment is that it went from being a home phone (anchored, proves a place of residence) to a cell-phone. Name one reason a poor person needs a cell phone instead of a home phone when it comes to ensuring communication with places like the doctors office or 911?

What about this?

http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/06/news/economy/jobs_october/?postversion=2009110609

I'm no fan of Obama, but I had hoped the stimulus would do better than this.

[barracuda]

25 years to be exact, which would make it Ronniephone.

I wonder if the original poster is even remotely embarrassed that this program has been around for 25 years and was started during a Republican administration.

But facts are inconvenient. Too many facts might undermine the irrational hysteria and rage directed at the President.

[RedScare]

I think the embarrassment is that it went from being a home phone (anchored, proves a place of residence) to a cell-phone. Name one reason a poor person needs a cell phone instead of a home phone when it comes to ensuring communication with places like the doctors office or 911?

Considering that the poor often are unable to "anchor", it is not surprising that they would be more likely to only have a cell phone. You might also bring your thinking into the 21st century. There are 271 million cell phones in the US. There are more cell phone only households than landline only ones. Cell phones are no longer a luxury item. The days of yuppies lugging Motorolas around are long gone, my friend.

http://www.acainternational.org/publications-wireless-and-landline-phones-6488.aspx

[RedScare]

What about this?

http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/06/news/economy/jobs_october/?postversion=2009110609

I'm no fan of Obama, but I had hoped the stimulus would do better than this.

If you thought the stimulus would cause the unemployment rate to stop on a dime and reverse itself, that is a reflection of your poor understanding of this recession, the effects of stimulus spending and the lagging indicator that is the unemployment rate. Thirty plus years of off-shoring manufacturing and converting to a consumer driven economy has set us up for this situation. I don't doubt that many Obama voters believed he could immediately turn it around, and there are certainly many Obama haters that blame him for not turning things around in 9 and a half months, but millions of ignorant Americans does not mean it could be done.

[barracuda]

^ To add to your point, most of the stimulus money has yet to be spent. It takes time to plan funded projects. Also consider that the economy has in fact started to grow again, and the stock market has rebounded. As more of the stimulus money is spent, we should start to see the unemployment rate come back down.

[Jeebus]

I guess I am dated in principles. I personally feel that if you get the needy a home-phone, then you are giving them access to the outside world FROM their home. The ability to call utilities, city services, doctor's offices, pharmacies, unemployment or employment placement, and 911.

With a cell-phone, as noted in this article (scroll to Leon Simmon's story), its less likely to be used for those purposes, but maybe just to socialize with others in a way that does nothing to improve the financial status of that person.

As for the stimulus, I just hoped that it would find a way to save and/or create more jobs than what it has. Considering all the pork ear-marks for all the politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle, I should have known better. I don't think that's from ignorance though, but rather foolish faith in my elected officials to genuinely care for the employment status of the average American citizen.

[RedScare]

What a terrible misuse of a phone, talking to friends and relatives. I just don't understand what gets into these poor people sometimes.

[Jeebus]

What a terrible misuse of a phone, talking to friends and relatives. I just don't understand what gets into these poor people sometimes.

I wish I didn't know you so that I could just assume that you were being sincere. It bothers me that you would openly infer that you're apathetic or even okay with someone misusing a tax-payer funded asset - and justifying it because they are "poor". I'm going to try and jump a reply ahead of you and also hope too that you wouldn't use the excuse that because politicians might do it (abuse tax-payer assets), then the poor should be able to, also. Two wrongs do not make a right.

I just don't see how having a cell phone is even necessary when a land-line is available. What about the homeless you ask? Why would they even need a cellphone if securing shelter has not even been accomplished yet? If they want to abuse the free phone to socialize with their friends and families, at least do it from home on the land-line. And if they don't have a home, then perhaps finding a home should be their first priority - and not getting a cellphone.

[RedScare]

I wish I didn't know you so that I could just assume that you were being sincere. It bothers me that you would openly infer that you're apathetic or even okay with someone misusing a tax-payer funded asset - and justifying it because they are "poor". I'm going to try and jump a reply ahead of you and also hope too that you wouldn't use the excuse that because politicians might do it (abuse tax-payer assets), then the poor should be able to, also. Two wrongs do not make a right.

I just don't see how having a cell phone is even necessary when a land-line is available. What about the homeless you ask? Why would they even need a cellphone if securing shelter has not even been accomplished yet? If they want to abuse the free phone to socialize with their friends and families, at least do it from home on the land-line. And if they don't have a home, then perhaps finding a home should be their first priority - and not getting a cellphone.

Common sense should not be confused with apathy. The same things that have made cell phones useful for 271 million Americans makes cell phones useful for the poor. Having a cell phone makes a poor person accessible when that potential job offer comes in. It allows the poor person access to 911 when she is walking home with her groceries...even if the phone is out of minutes. It allows the poor person to be accessible while walking their children home from school. It allows the poor person to do many of the things necessary to drag themselves out of poverty without having to sit at home waiting for a landline to ring.

Because you are not poor, and have your Blackberry or iPhone to play with, it has probably escaped your notice that their are cheap phones available for the poor to use. You probably haven't noticed either that payphones have virtually disappeared from the American landscape, making cell phones much more of a necessity. In fact, it is cell phones that drove payphones away.

I realize that in certain circles, it is believed that poor people should look and act a certain way. They should be forced to beg at churches, so that the benevolent rich may feel good when they are given a few cans of soup. They should stay off the streets, so that the upper middle class are not forced to realize what poverty looks like. And, they should use 100 year old technology, as new technology is reserved for the selfish narcissists to show off to their friends. I do not run in those circles. I do not spend my day angry that a few of my tax dollars may allow a poor person to receive healthcare, and I certainly do not mind that the 48 cents on my phone bill goes to spending $10 to give a poor person 68 minutes of cell time. And most of all, I do not sit around in my air conditioned home using my high speed internet to decide how poor people should use the cell phone my 48 cents gave them. If that is how you and your friends like to spend your spare time, then good for you. But, I wasn't raised that way, and I have far too little time left on this earth to spend it complaining that a poor person used my 48 cents to call his family.

I find it interesting that virtually every business magazine, newspaper and television show trumpets that we have entered the Information Age. Yet, while complaining that the poor should pull themselves from their poverty, some of us complain that the very tool of the Information Age, the very tool that the poor could use to escape poverty, is not a necessity to them. Talk about your Catch 22.

[sarahiki]

I wish I could hit that little green plus sign a few more times, RedScare.

[barracuda]

I just don't see how having a cell phone is even necessary when a land-line is available. What about the homeless you ask? Why would they even need a cellphone if securing shelter has not even been accomplished yet? If they want to abuse the free phone to socialize with their friends and families, at least do it from home on the land-line. And if they don't have a home, then perhaps finding a home should be their first priority - and not getting a cellphone.

I think it's just a question of mobility. The advantages of a cell phone are the same to a low-income folks as to a middle- or upper-income folks. If a low-income person has to work several jobs, pick up the kids after school, etc., a cell phone will allow them to function better than a landline phone.

[VicMan]

In regards to cell phones, in many poor countries cell phone development leapfrogged land line development. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2009-03-02-global-cellphone_N.htm

The poor in the United States and in other countries benefit from cell phones.

[jmancuso]

what good is a home phone to a homeless person? and who is to say they would not socialize on a home phone?

[bachanon]

If you thought the stimulus would cause the unemployment rate to stop on a dime and reverse itself, that is a reflection of your poor understanding of this recession, the effects of stimulus spending and the lagging indicator that is the unemployment rate. Thirty plus years of off-shoring manufacturing and converting to a consumer driven economy has set us up for this situation. I don't doubt that many Obama voters believed he could immediately turn it around, and there are certainly many Obama haters that blame him for not turning things around in 9 and a half months, but millions of ignorant Americans does not mean it could be done.

i made a similar point immediately after the election to a conservative friend: all of the people excited over the historic nature of an obama presidency and new to the process will soon be educated on the slow wheels of government. i thought reagan would change the world overnight if he were just in office (1984). that was the beginning of an enlightening and at times frustrating interest in politics. hopefully, the people excited with obama's election will continue to be interested in how government works.

[TJones]

I wish I could hit that little green plus sign a few more times, RedScare.

(Hands Sara a kleenex)......you got some BrownScare on your nose there dear.

[musicman]

The same things that have made cell phones useful for 271 million Americans makes cell phones useful for the poor.

Being useful and being a necessity are two different things. A cell phone is useful but sure isn't a necessity. Food is a necessity.

[AtticaFlinch]

Being useful and being a necessity are two different things. A cell phone is useful but sure isn't a necessity. Food is a necessity.

I think you missed this:

Common sense should not be confused with apathy. The same things that have made cell phones useful for 271 million Americans makes cell phones useful for the poor. Having a cell phone makes a poor person accessible when that potential job offer comes in. It allows the poor person access to 911 when she is walking home with her groceries...even if the phone is out of minutes. It allows the poor person to be accessible while walking their children home from school. It allows the poor person to do many of the things necessary to drag themselves out of poverty without having to sit at home waiting for a landline to ring.

MM, you're awfully long on criticisms yet awfully short on solutions. If not cell phones, then what? Land lines? Then that means we'd need to guarantee a fixed home base... which would cost more money. Do we altogether abandon the homeless rehabilitation and re-entry into society? Of course, then we taxpayers would incur all the incidental expenses associated with higher crime rates and other social ills caused by mass numbers of homeless having no way out of their situation.

You know why most dental insurance plans cover 100% of preventive care but very little of anything else? It's easier and cheaper to fix a problem when it's small than when it's grown out of hand. The same applies to this phone situation which you find so deplorable. These phones are a considerably cheaper method of solving most of this problem than putting your head in the sand and hoping the problem corrects itself. Of course it doesn't solve everything, but it's a better start than doing nothing.

Edit: Plus, this goes well beyond necessity and actually attempts to solve the problem. Why do just the minimal amount of work necessary when if we exert a bit more effort, we can actually do a good job?

[musicman]

MM, you're awfully long on criticisms yet awfully short on solutions. If not cell phones, then what? Land lines? Then that means we'd need to guarantee a fixed home base... which would cost more money. Do we altogether abandon the homeless rehabilitation and re-entry into society? Of course, then we taxpayers would incur all the incidental expenses associated with higher crime rates and other social ills caused by mass numbers of homeless having no way out of their situation.

You know why most dental insurance plans cover 100% of preventive care but very little of anything else? It's easier and cheaper to fix a problem when it's small than when it's grown out of hand. The same applies to this phone situation which you find so deplorable. These phones are a considerably cheaper method of solving most of this problem than putting your head in the sand and hoping the problem corrects itself. Of course it doesn't solve everything, but it's a better start than doing nothing.

in order to receive assistance you have to have a primary residence currently. that's another issue entirely. stating that this is for homeless rehabilitation is an exaggeration. if all it takes is buy a homeless person a cell phone to solve "most of this problem," i'm not the one with the head in the sand.

[AtticaFlinch]

in order to receive assistance you have to have a primary residence currently. that's another issue entirely. stating that this is for homeless rehabilitation is an exaggeration. if all it takes is buy a homeless person a cell phone to solve "most of this problem," i'm not the one with the head in the sand.

I guess you didn't understand that the phones were an attempt to address the problem head on rather than waiting for the problem to sort itself out. Perhaps I should be more clear to make that more understandable. By the way, a primary residence need be no more permanent than the Star of Hope. That said, what's your solution? How do you expect the homeless to get a job without a phone? Maybe we could purchase DeLoreans, get the speed up to 88 mph and send them back to 1955 when people did most of their communication face to face. Is your plan less expensive and more functional than a phone? What's your plan? Seriously, what do you propose?

Some people are great armchair quarterbacks, when they need offer nothing but criticism and their own skills are never utilized to bring any criticism upon itself.

[RedScare]

Being useful and being a necessity are two different things. A cell phone is useful but sure isn't a necessity. Food is a necessity.

Kinda like NASA?

[musicman]

Kinda like NASA?

perhaps. some people may find that nasa is not useful.

[AtticaFlinch]

perhaps. some people may find that nasa is not useful.

Sure. All that technology that was pioneered by NASA because it was too expensive for the private sector to pursue was certainly not useful. You know, the satellites, the microchips, your DirecTV NFL Sunday Ticket... You know, useless stuff. Some people are so myopic in their view of the world and its future, it would be laughable if they weren't taken so seriously.

Some people ignore all the pragmatic solutions brought by NASA and instead focus on what they consider money wasted - the Hubble Telescope, experiments in weightlessness on various organisms, etc. However, when looking at the longterm effects of these experiments (future space travel, exploration, commercial exploitation potential, scientific knowledge accumulation) these are vital steps. NASA is far from useless. It, along with the Russian program, provided undoubtably the most important advances in human exploration since the days of Vasco de Gama, Columbus and Magellan (which, by the way, were near-universally panned by the economists of the time as wasting valuable resources that would provide no economic value in return (but this is really what brought Europe out of the Dark Ages)).

[RedScare]

I can picture you chuckling at the previous response, music.

[AtticaFlinch]

I can picture you chuckling at the previous response, music.

I take it MM's employed by NASA?