Uncategorized

Follow-Up File: Free Phones

Our recent story decrying the provision of free cell phone service to poor people – including two million people who aren’t sufficiently poor to receive the phones yet are receiving anyway – has generated some serious traffic (and some serious blowback). Also catching grief? The overwhelming majority of our readers…

Our recent story decrying the provision of free cell phone service to poor people – including two million people who aren’t sufficiently poor to receive the phones yet are receiving anyway – has generated some serious traffic (and some serious blowback).

Also catching grief? The overwhelming majority of our readers who agreed with us that government should not “subsidize cell phone service for the poor.”

“In a poll on their site, 93 percent of (FITSNews) readers want poor people to be unable to call 911 in case of an emergency,” one liberal Twitterer wrote.

Actually it’s 97 percent the last time we checked … but whatever.

And just this week we heard an advertisement for one of these free phones on a predominantly black radio station promising subscribers “1,000 free text messages a month.”

Unable to defend this program, the liberal Twitterers were irate that our website did not pin the blame for it on former president Ronald Reagan – whose Federal Communications Commission (FCC) initiated the “lifeline” concept back in 1984.

Wait … they had cell phones back in 1984? No … Reagan’s FCC pursued the concept with land lines.

Anyway … this omission enraged the pro-Lifeliners, who felt we were trying to impugn the integrity of U.S. President Barack Obama – under whose administration the tab for these free phones has risen from $819 million to $2.2 billion (and counting).

Funny. Our post didn’t even mention Obama but you know what they say … “if the guilt fits.”

“You’re too chickenshit to just come out and say that you hate poor people,” our Twitter critic alleged.

“I don’t hate the poor,” our founding editor fired back. “I hate governments that keep people poor in the name of justifying their never-ending expansion.”

And that, in a nutshell, is the debate: Is the greatest prosperity for the most people best achieved by government subsidizing dependency (i.e. food stamps, housing allowances, energy subsidies, free cell phones, etc.)? Or is it best achieved by lowering the size of government and permitting the free market to fill those needs?

Every metric we’ve seen points unambiguously to the efficacy of the latter and the failure of the former …

***

Related posts

Uncategorized

Spy Apps: Balancing Privacy And Practicality

FITSForum
Murdaughs

Buster Murdaugh Files Defamation Lawsuit

Callie Lyons
Uncategorized

Murdaugh Retrial Hearing: Interview With Bill Young

Will Folks

62 comments

Observant February 20, 2013 at 2:11 pm

I wouldn’t object if ALL the free phones could do would be to dial 911. I’m already tired of representatives of the “poor minorities” that haven’t learned how to dial properly and get my land line and my cell line “by mistake”.

Reply
Observant February 20, 2013 at 1:11 pm

I wouldn’t object if ALL the free phones could do would be to dial 911. I’m already tired of representatives of the “poor minorities” that haven’t learned how to dial properly and get my land line and my cell line “by mistake”.

Reply
? February 20, 2013 at 2:12 pm

It’s amazing to me that anyone would try to argue FOR free cell phones as a “right” in our society, regardless of who the responsible parties are.

Hell, what do I know? I’m a friggin weirdo but the standards of 98% of people here.

$2.2 billion in scratch though eh? That’s a pretty big number.

Maybe I shouldn’t be so hopeless, 97% against the idea in the context that a lot of progressives visit this site really is a pretty good number….even for an informal/unscientific poll.

Reply
? February 20, 2013 at 2:23 pm

edit: “BY the standards of”

Reply
Charlemagne, King of France February 20, 2013 at 3:37 pm

it reminds me of a quote i saw from one of the people who were so outraged by the columbia bus system cutting routes they said “we have the right to those buses” at the public hearing

Reply
Sarge February 20, 2013 at 10:19 pm

It’s not the cell phones – it’s the votes. Well, just the rental fee for the black vote on election days. Ask the Harpootlians and Toals of the world.

Reply
RHood2 February 20, 2013 at 2:12 pm

Please provide examples anywhere in the world where the private has “filled those needs”?

Reply
Nathan Rice February 20, 2013 at 3:17 pm

Define “needs”.

Reply
Charlemagne, King of France February 20, 2013 at 3:45 pm

here lies the real issue. there is no line between want and need anymore. some people just need the things other people have….isnt that against one of those 10 commandments i keep hearing about

Reply
Smirks February 20, 2013 at 4:00 pm

I would define the “need” of telephone service to fit the following:

*Use of phone service to help obtain a job, or use to contact employer for various needs.

*Access to 911 services.

*Ability to communicate with relatives.

Based on those needs, it is conceivable that a poor person should have affordable access to some kind of telephone service. Basic cell phone service with limited minutes really is not that expensive to provide, not compared to landline service either. The usefulness of mobility does not negate the underlying core need to be able to communicate under certain circumstances.

Beyond a certain point it isn’t so much a need as it is a luxury, and the current program crosses that luxury line, but that doesn’t mean the program is a total waste, nor does it mean that the free market will provide its own solution in absence of a government subsidized or mandated one.

In fact, the telecommunications industry has historically been adverse to rolling out services, telephone or otherwise, to anyone or anywhere that it didn’t deem profitable enough, which is part of the reason why they are so heavily regulated and why the USF exists in the first place.

http://transition.fcc.gov/wcb/tapd/universal_service/

Reply
EJB February 20, 2013 at 6:39 pm

How, pray tell, did we survive before telephones? Perhaps we should force earners to provide computers and internet to those that “need” to apply for jobs online. No, they can work for theirs as I worked for mine. I had three jobs at one time to pay my bills and I worked for free at times to get my foot in the door. It really is a big pain in the ass having to work that way but if I can do so can others.

Obama girl (praising the FREE ObamaPhone) isn’t suffering from anything but a severe case of “dragonass” and she can get two or three minimum wage jobs and work her way up, same as I did and she will appreciate it and take care of it for having EARNED it.

Reply
? February 20, 2013 at 1:12 pm

It’s amazing to me that anyone would try to argue FOR free cell phones as a “right” in our society, regardless of who the responsible parties are.

Hell, what do I know? I’m a friggin weirdo but the standards of 98% of people here.

$2.2 billion in scratch though eh? That’s a pretty big number.

Maybe I shouldn’t be so hopeless, 97% against the idea in the context that a lot of progressives visit this site really is a pretty good number….even for an informal/unscientific poll.

Reply
? February 20, 2013 at 1:23 pm

edit: “BY the standards of”

Reply
Charlemagne, King of France February 20, 2013 at 2:37 pm

it reminds me of a quote i saw from one of the people who were so outraged by the columbia bus system cutting routes they said “we have the right to those buses” at the public hearing

Reply
Sarge February 20, 2013 at 9:19 pm

It’s not the cell phones – it’s the votes. Well, just the rental fee for the black vote on election days. Ask the Harpootlians and Toals of the world.

Reply
RHood2 February 20, 2013 at 1:12 pm

Please provide examples anywhere in the world where the private has “filled those needs”?

Reply
Nathan Rice February 20, 2013 at 2:17 pm

Define “needs”.

Reply
Charlemagne, King of France February 20, 2013 at 2:45 pm

here lies the real issue. there is no line between want and need anymore. some people just need the things other people have….isnt that against one of those 10 commandments i keep hearing about

Reply
Smirks February 20, 2013 at 3:00 pm

I would define the “need” of telephone service to fit the following:

*Use of phone service to help obtain a job, or use to contact employer for various needs.

*Access to 911 services.

*Ability to communicate with relatives.

Based on those needs, it is conceivable that a poor person should have affordable access to some kind of telephone service. Basic cell phone service with limited minutes really is not that expensive to provide, not compared to landline service either. The usefulness of mobility does not negate the underlying core need to be able to communicate under certain circumstances.

Beyond a certain point it isn’t so much a need as it is a luxury, and the current program crosses that luxury line, but that doesn’t mean the program is a total waste, nor does it mean that the free market will provide its own solution in absence of a government subsidized or mandated one.

In fact, the telecommunications industry has historically been adverse to rolling out services, telephone or otherwise, to anyone or anywhere that it didn’t deem profitable enough, which is part of the reason why they are so heavily regulated and why the USF exists in the first place.

http://transition.fcc.gov/wcb/tapd/universal_service/

Reply
EJB February 20, 2013 at 5:39 pm

How, pray tell, did we survive before telephones? Perhaps we should force earners to provide computers and internet to those that “need” to apply for jobs online. No, they can work for theirs as I worked for mine. I had three jobs at one time to pay my bills and I worked for free at times to get my foot in the door. It really is a big pain in the ass having to work that way but if I can do so can others.

Obama girl (praising the FREE ObamaPhone) isn’t suffering from anything but a severe case of “dragonass” and she can get two or three minimum wage jobs and work her way up, same as I did and she will appreciate it and take care of it for having EARNED it.

Reply
Recovering Lobbyist February 20, 2013 at 2:18 pm

I am in favor of poor people having the ability to call authorities in an emergency. Hell, I will even pay for them to be able to call a few family members, within reasonable limits, on the taxpayer dime.

But that is not what this program has morphed into. People who are perfectly capable of paying for their own cell phone are getting one for free, and are getting a very liberal (pun intended) plan that allows them to call and text everyone and anyone.

Let’s call this what it is: a government-subsidized means for liberal political groups to be able to reach their base with political messages. And us conservative “rich” folks are paying for these groups to have the ability to screw us even further in the future.

And let’s not forget the biggest financial beneficiary of this program: the cell phone companies.

Reply
Recovering Lobbyist February 20, 2013 at 1:18 pm

I am in favor of poor people having the ability to call authorities in an emergency. Hell, I will even pay for them to be able to call a few family members, within reasonable limits, on the taxpayer dime.

But that is not what this program has morphed into. People who are perfectly capable of paying for their own cell phone are getting one for free, and are getting a very liberal (pun intended) plan that allows them to call and text everyone and anyone.

Let’s call this what it is: a government-subsidized means for liberal political groups to be able to reach their base with political messages. And us conservative “rich” folks are paying for these groups to have the ability to screw us even further in the future.

And let’s not forget the biggest financial beneficiary of this program: the cell phone companies.

Reply
Fish_Taco February 20, 2013 at 2:25 pm

I’m far from a Liberal buddy.I was simply pointing out that this bullshit really took off in 1984 under Reagan with free phone services to the poor. Both parties hands are all over this cookie jar.

Reply
Smirks February 20, 2013 at 3:14 pm

Reagan didn’t give out free cell phones though, but neither did Obama. The program was expanded to allow cell phones during the Bush administration.

“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.”

http://www.fcc.gov/lifeline

lol… “If the guilt fits…” Come on, Willie.

Reply
stickler February 20, 2013 at 3:30 pm

Let’s quit dancing around on this issue. If it were not for that viral video of the loudmouth black woman in Ohio yelling about her “Obamaphone,” this program would not be on anyone’s radar.

Reply
CUvinny February 20, 2013 at 6:17 pm

Who gives a shit if it is a land line or a cellphone? Land lines are a fucking dead technology.

Reply
Fish_Taco February 20, 2013 at 1:25 pm

I’m far from a Liberal buddy.I was simply pointing out that this bullshit really took off in 1984 under Reagan with free phone services to the poor. Both parties hands are all over this cookie jar.

Reply
Smirks February 20, 2013 at 2:14 pm

Reagan didn’t give out free cell phones though, but neither did Obama. The program was expanded to allow cell phones during the Bush administration.

“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.”

http://www.fcc.gov/lifeline

lol… “If the guilt fits…” Come on, Willie.

Reply
tomstickler February 20, 2013 at 2:30 pm

Let’s quit dancing around on this issue. If it were not for that viral video of the loudmouth black woman in Ohio yelling about her “Obamaphone,” this program would not be on anyone’s radar.

Reply
CUvinny February 20, 2013 at 5:17 pm

Who gives a shit if it is a land line or a cellphone? Land lines are a fucking dead technology.

Reply
Smirks February 20, 2013 at 2:35 pm

I thought cell phone carriers were not allowed to block 911 calls, period, even if they are not on any active plan. Is this not the case? I definitely know all carriers must allow 911 calls from non-customers who happen to be on their towers.

Reply
Smirks February 20, 2013 at 3:04 pm

Following up on my own post:

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-911-services

The FCC’s basic 911 rules require wireless service
providers to transmit all 911 calls to a PSAP, regardless of whether the
caller subscribes to the provider’s service or not.

So no, 911 can’t be blocked.

Reply
Smirks February 20, 2013 at 1:35 pm

I thought cell phone carriers were not allowed to block 911 calls, period, even if they are not on any active plan. Is this not the case? I definitely know all carriers must allow 911 calls from non-customers who happen to be on their towers.

Reply
Smirks February 20, 2013 at 2:04 pm

Following up on my own post:

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-911-services

The FCC’s basic 911 rules require wireless service
providers to transmit all 911 calls to a PSAP, regardless of whether the
caller subscribes to the provider’s service or not.

So no, 911 can’t be blocked.

Reply
Mike February 20, 2013 at 2:51 pm

Another well-intentioned government program that went a awry once the cash started flowing. Fits even wrote that 40% of the recipients are not eligible.

Then, how’d they get the freebies? From unscrupulous cell phone provides who gamed the system.

Sounds a lot like efforts to provide affordable housing for poor people, which when abused by unscrupulous lenders, caused the market collapse.

Or, like healthcare, with unscrupulous providers and insurers gaming the system.

This is America’s broken record. Someone tries to do good and greedy folks ruin it for everyone.

PS. This notion that a free market will take care all of societies needs is absurd. Oh, wait… maybe those liberal history books are wrong… perhaps the free market is what built our interstate highway system and provided electrical lines for the most rural parts of the country.

Reply
EJB February 20, 2013 at 4:47 pm

So, is it ok to bankrupt the country, letting the unscrupulous game the manifold programs, in hopes that the good intentions actually benefit the few truly needy and driving the cost for that/those truly needy people to an exorbitant per person amount?

By the way, the free market did used to take care of society’s ills. In the late 1800s there were a multitude of “mutual aid societies” that provided for the people that belonged to them. There were numerous church organizations that provided food for the needy. Even today there are a number of food banks and I‘ve talked to people that go to places like Harvest Hope and income isn’t verified, if you want it you get it (I also know at least one person that uses the food bank that does NOT need it).

If they get the phone it should be enabled for 911 ONLY, be a CHEAP flip phone, and tough toenails for other purposes.

Reply
Mike February 20, 2013 at 1:51 pm

Another well-intentioned government program that went a awry once the cash started flowing. Fits even wrote that 40% of the recipients are not eligible.

Then, how’d they get the freebies? From unscrupulous cell phone provides who gamed the system.

Sounds a lot like efforts to provide affordable housing for poor people, which when abused by unscrupulous lenders, caused the market collapse.

Or, like healthcare, with unscrupulous providers and insurers gaming the system.

This is America’s broken record. Someone tries to do good and greedy folks ruin it for everyone.

PS. This notion that a free market will take care all of societies needs is absurd. Oh, wait… maybe those liberal history books are wrong… perhaps the free market is what built our interstate highway system and provided electrical lines for the most rural parts of the country.

Reply
EJB February 20, 2013 at 3:47 pm

So, is it ok to bankrupt the country, letting the unscrupulous game the manifold programs, in hopes that the good intentions actually benefit the few truly needy and driving the cost for that/those truly needy people to an exorbitant per person amount?

By the way, the free market did used to take care of society’s ills. In the late 1800s there were a multitude of “mutual aid societies” that provided for the people that belonged to them. There were numerous church organizations that provided food for the needy. Even today there are a number of food banks and I‘ve talked to people that go to places like Harvest Hope and income isn’t verified, if you want it you get it (I also know at least one person that uses the food bank that does NOT need it).

If they get the phone it should be enabled for 911 ONLY, be a CHEAP flip phone, and tough toenails for other purposes.

Reply
SeneseLikeChaps February 20, 2013 at 3:06 pm

Man, do I have to explain this again?

It has nothing to do with handing out phones to poor people, black people or whatever other group. It is about the Telco industry doing anything it can to move into new markets and set the market up exactly the way they like it as the winds change (while getting a few sweet, sweet tax break that return more than their costs out of it). Making it a govt handout issue just makes it easier to distract everyone.

The poor, black or whatever is just another smoke screen to get you to talk about something else. Why else do you think Jim Clyburn’s daughter, Mignon is an FCC chairperson? It is so that she always asks the eternal question “What does this do for the black community”, so that just enough people get pissed off and it turns into a race or class issue. It is to guarantee that no one asks “Why are both of the lawyers argusing this matter before us on some Telco’s payroll (man AT&T knows how to play this game)?”. I’m not making this up. Go back to almost any hearing where she says “What does this do for the black community” and almost always both parties representing the matter are on some Telco’s dole, just like many of the FCC chairmen (McDowell will always have my ire).

It doesn’t matter if this began with Regan, Clinton or Rutherford B. Hayes, it is how this game is played. Complaining about someone other than you getting a deal just makes it easier. Don’t believe me, just Google this crap. Same game over and over again. Remember, OK players pay off one side, great players pay off all sides, get a tax break that is sweeter than their costs and manage to lock out their competition all in one stroke.

So please continue to jerk off over left and right, the lobbyists want you to.

Reply
SeneseLikeChaps February 20, 2013 at 2:06 pm

Man, do I have to explain this again?

It has nothing to do with handing out phones to poor people, black people or whatever other group. It is about the Telco industry doing anything it can to move into new markets and set the market up exactly the way they like it as the winds change (while getting a few sweet, sweet tax break that return more than their costs out of it). Making it a govt handout issue just makes it easier to distract everyone.

The poor, black or whatever is just another smoke screen to get you to talk about something else. Why else do you think Jim Clyburn’s daughter, Mignon is an FCC chairperson? It is so that she always asks the eternal question “What does this do for the black community”, so that just enough people get pissed off and it turns into a race or class issue. It is to guarantee that no one asks “Why are both of the lawyers argusing this matter before us on some Telco’s payroll (man AT&T knows how to play this game)?”. I’m not making this up. Go back to almost any hearing where she says “What does this do for the black community” and almost always both parties representing the matter are on some Telco’s dole, just like many of the FCC chairmen (McDowell will always have my ire).

It doesn’t matter if this began with Regan, Clinton or Rutherford B. Hayes, it is how this game is played. Complaining about someone other than you getting a deal just makes it easier. Don’t believe me, just Google this crap. Same game over and over again. Remember, OK players pay off one side, great players pay off all sides, get a tax break that is sweeter than their costs and manage to lock out their competition all in one stroke.

So please continue to jerk off over left and right, the lobbyists want you to.

Reply
Robert February 20, 2013 at 3:59 pm

Hate when you and others generalize people…..I’m liberal on many social issues, and I’m against the cell phone program. Like one other post, I’d agree with them for 911 use. But no one is entitled to a phone.

Reply
Robert February 20, 2013 at 2:59 pm

Hate when you and others generalize people…..I’m liberal on many social issues, and I’m against the cell phone program. Like one other post, I’d agree with them for 911 use. But no one is entitled to a phone.

Reply
LD February 20, 2013 at 4:06 pm

Who actually benefits from the “poor” having the cell phones provided to them? I’m sure the poor would prefer to have the $ 50 per month instead of a phone– so who gets the $ 50 per month (or whatever, phone companies are not giving this away)? My guess is AT&T, Verizon, etal like this. What do you think?

Sort of like food stamps– you think grocery store owners hate them? You think Coca Cola hates them? You think PepsiCo (Frito Lay, Pepsi) hates them? What about Nabiso?

If you are a shareholder in any company that provides goods or services that are provided to the “poor”, which are paid for by the government and you are totally against it– consider the “hypocrisy”.

We have a “flow up” economy not a “trickle down” economy.

Reply
LD February 20, 2013 at 3:06 pm

Who actually benefits from the “poor” having the cell phones provided to them? I’m sure the poor would prefer to have the $ 50 per month instead of a phone– so who gets the $ 50 per month (or whatever, phone companies are not giving this away)? My guess is AT&T, Verizon, etal like this. What do you think?

Sort of like food stamps– you think grocery store owners hate them? You think Coca Cola hates them? You think PepsiCo (Frito Lay, Pepsi) hates them? What about Nabiso?

If you are a shareholder in any company that provides goods or services that are provided to the “poor”, which are paid for by the government and you are totally against it– consider the “hypocrisy”.

We have a “flow up” economy not a “trickle down” economy.

Reply
Cush February 20, 2013 at 5:38 pm

“Every metric we’ve seen points unambiguously to the efficacy of the latter and the failure of the former …” Damn skippy fits. Socialism has never and will never work because the citizens do not work. Don’t produce anything and will reap what you sow. Is that what the powers that be want? A nation of nothing?

Reply
Cush February 20, 2013 at 4:38 pm

“Every metric we’ve seen points unambiguously to the efficacy of the latter and the failure of the former …” Damn skippy fits. Socialism has never and will never work because the citizens do not work. Don’t produce anything and will reap what you sow. Is that what the powers that be want? A nation of nothing?

Reply
Cush February 20, 2013 at 5:44 pm

Let’s honestly look at what this… pork barrel spending. Trading cell phones for votes. Why not install free land lines instead? It’s far cheaper. And since when does emergency dispatch utilize text messaging?

Reply
Cush February 20, 2013 at 4:44 pm

Let’s honestly look at what this… pork barrel spending. Trading cell phones for votes. Why not install free land lines instead? It’s far cheaper. And since when does emergency dispatch utilize text messaging?

Reply
CUVinny February 20, 2013 at 6:19 pm

“Wait … they had cell phones back in 1984? No … Reagan’s FCC pursued the concept with land lines.”

A stupid argument. A phone is a phone.

Reply
CUVinny February 20, 2013 at 5:19 pm

“Wait … they had cell phones back in 1984? No … Reagan’s FCC pursued the concept with land lines.”

A stupid argument. A phone is a phone.

Reply
Ken E. February 20, 2013 at 6:54 pm

FITS writes a followup and still doesn’t mention that most of the additional cost has come from fraud by private companies. Free market FTW!

Reply
? February 20, 2013 at 7:08 pm

Awww- come on Ken, govco buying cell phones from rent seeking companies for poor people with everyone else’s money has nothing to do with “free markets”.

Reply
Ken E. February 20, 2013 at 5:54 pm

FITS writes a followup and still doesn’t mention that most of the additional cost has come from fraud by private companies. Free market FTW!

Reply
? February 20, 2013 at 6:08 pm

Awww- come on Ken, govco buying cell phones from rent seeking companies for poor people with everyone else’s money has nothing to do with “free markets”.

Reply
JulesLynn February 22, 2013 at 12:29 pm

The perfect word for yet another goverment funded program for the poor “ENABLE” a word they use in rehab for the people who help and allow the addicted to continue with there use and addiction. That is exactly what the government has become for the poor. They enable them to stay poor…I mean who needs a job if everything just comes to you free.. I mean I’m starting to wonder why i work 40 hrs a week when I could just sit on my ass and have more. i mean shit the supposable poor eat way better than my family. I know this because I stand behind them at the grocery store and see two loaded down buggies and then I see the EBT card come out of a wallet loaded with cash by a woman with a new manicure and nails and then lug her grocerries out to her Escalade. Seems to me I might be better off poor than middle class!! Oh, wait I can’t b/c I didn’t get pregnant with 4 different babies daddies and stayed in school and went to college and did what I was supposed to do so, therefore I can’t get government assistance because I was responsible yet I live paycheck to paycheck for the state. I can’t get a raise b/c lack of funds but they get cell phones now.

Reply
JulesLynn February 22, 2013 at 11:29 am

The perfect word for yet another goverment funded program for the poor “ENABLE” a word they use in rehab for the people who help and allow the addicted to continue with there use and addiction. That is exactly what the government has become for the poor. They enable them to stay poor…I mean who needs a job if everything just comes to you free.. I mean I’m starting to wonder why i work 40 hrs a week when I could just sit on my ass and have more. i mean shit the supposable poor eat way better than my family. I know this because I stand behind them at the grocery store and see two loaded down buggies and then I see the EBT card come out of a wallet loaded with cash by a woman with a new manicure and nails and then lug her grocerries out to her Escalade. Seems to me I might be better off poor than middle class!! Oh, wait I can’t b/c I didn’t get pregnant with 4 different babies daddies and stayed in school and went to college and did what I was supposed to do so, therefore I can’t get government assistance because I was responsible yet I live paycheck to paycheck for the state. I can’t get a raise b/c lack of funds but they get cell phones now.

Reply
2big2fall February 23, 2013 at 9:25 am

Why did you remover my comment? Is it on another thread? This is just another example of Will doing his part to serve his masters by increasing class hatred…keep us at each other’s throats while our pockets are picked and our rights are trampled by those who would enslave us.

Reply
2big2fall February 23, 2013 at 8:25 am

Why did you remover my comment? Is it on another thread? This is just another example of Will doing his part to serve his masters by increasing class hatred…keep us at each other’s throats while our pockets are picked and our rights are trampled by those who would enslave us.

Reply
ME February 23, 2013 at 11:00 pm

I never realized that these “FREE” phones were actually paid in part by the $2.50 charge on my and all other paying customers cell phone bill. They aren’t free after all. We are buying these phones for them. Who Knew?

Reply
ME February 23, 2013 at 10:00 pm

I never realized that these “FREE” phones were actually paid in part by the $2.50 charge on my and all other paying customers cell phone bill. They aren’t free after all. We are buying these phones for them. Who Knew?

Reply
XX February 24, 2013 at 1:26 am

The original purpose of cell phones for the poor was to help them get jobs. In that case, shouldn’t the gov’t provide them with a Macy’s gift card to buy some interview suits and cab fares to job interviews?

Reply
XX February 24, 2013 at 12:26 am

The original purpose of cell phones for the poor was to help them get jobs. In that case, shouldn’t the gov’t provide them with a Macy’s gift card to buy some interview suits and cab fares to job interviews?

Reply

Leave a Comment