"OBAMA" PHONES ARE REALLY "REAGAN" PHONES!

Tea party favorite: Ronald Reagan: LET'S GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE!

http://colorlines.com/archives/2013/04/the_truth_about_so-called_obamaph...

No votes yet

The problem is there were no cell phones in 1985. So the article is wrong.

MikeyA

The point is taken, and sensible people like myself have long known it, but the reality is that they are Federalphones. The federal government has only grown larger under EVERY President lately. After all, how many welfare programs of any note did the so-called Conservatives put an end to, during 2001-2006 when they had almost total control of the federal government? You already know the answer: None. They allowed the welfare side of the nation-state to continue, while growing the warfare side.

Knows if there were cell phones or not, she is still tying to find out..

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

It didn't start with cell phones..........GEESH! "In 1985, President Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of the tea party, and his Republican-led FCC started Lifeline. The goal was straightforward: To make basic telephone service accessible to the vast majority of people living in the United States. Underpinning that goal was the fundamental idea that in 20th century having a telephone wasn’t a luxury but a necessity."

This is exactly true. And then when cell technology became cheaper and easier to deploy, the phone companies decided they didn't want to run landlines any more, which naturally means that the next step is cellular.

Verizon basically put up a fight against rebuilding some Sandy-damaged areas and wanted to deploy cellular tech instead of redoing their cabling and central offices because screw people with landlines. Kind of hard to get a Reaganphone landline when the phone companies will only do cellular... times and technology change but Republican ignorance doesn't.

Purnhrt I did read the article.

The problem is cell phones are not basic telephone service. It is very much a luxury. That's my point.

Under Reagan the program was to give people minimal ability to contact others. The current program is a expansion into a luxury. It is unnecessary and needs to be cut.

MikeyA

Bullshit Mikey.

Telephone companies want out of the landline business. Verizon spun off their landlines to Frontier and other companies. Verizon also tried to refuse to rebuild areas damaged by Sandy and stick residents with cell phones. Cell phones aren't a luxury. Then again, Fox News viewers like yourself think refrigerators are a luxury for the poors as well.

you have become. Many young adults have no land line. They only have cell phones. During crises, cell phones have proved to be vital links to getting help.

Really, Mikey! A cell phone is a "luxury" and a land line is a necessity? How 20th Century of you! And I thought that I was the old fogy here.

Dale, you berate me yet you did not show how cell phones are a necessity.

If it is not necessary to live then it is a luxury. "Everybody's doing it" does not make it a necessity. I've had to explain the same thing to my nephew and I will have to to my son in the coming years.

MikeyA

Mikey, you old fogy, you!

At least I can tell the difference between needs and wants.

MikeyA

And in the 1930s, there were people who said that the TVA was a waste of money because those rural folks don't NEED electricity. What is a necessity and what is a luxury changes over time.
And whether a cell phone for a child is a necessity or a luxury depends upon the child's situation. Our son was a "latchkey child" when he was in 4th grade. He used to walk his little, 1st grade sister home from school. It was only a couple of hundred yards, but they entered a house with no adult there. If that same situation presented itself to me today, would I get him a cell phone? You bet!! Would I consider that cell phone a "luxury?" Heavens no!!
The necessity for telephonic communication for ADULTS was recognized by the man who became the oldest ever to serve as POTUS in the 1980s! Reagan was elderly but seldom acted like an old fogy. But you do!

The need for telephonic communication is served with landlines.

The NEED is served.

You keep calling me an old fogy and behind the times. In actuality the opposite is true.

I favor cities who have adopted free wifi for it's citizens. It meets a minimal need. The internet promotes literacy, technological knowledge, and gives everyone the basic needs to communicate in todays age.

What I'm not advocating is high speed broadband sent to everyone's home. That is a luxury. The cities who have gone to free municipal internet I fully support.

MikeyA

Land lines served the telephonic communications well through most of the 20th Century. IT'S THE 21ST CENTURY, MIKEY! You old fogy! (Pssst...Mikey...keep this quiet, you know, just between you and me...I think this electricity thing is just a fad.)

You equate getting a cell phone to, "high speed broadband sent to everyone's home." You'll write ANYTHING to try to win an argument, even if it is totally nonsensical. Then you state that you favor municipal governments providing "free" internet services! FREE?? Who pays? Taxpayers? And which municipalities can better afford to supply these internet services? The wealthiest ones! That's fair!

Dale, first you haven't shown that cell phones are NOT a luxury.

Second, any municipality could choose to provide wifi. You do realize Akron does it. Even as Ohio cities go Akron is not the wealthiest. As counties go it's in the 12th in terms of wealth. It's a choice to provide a minimal service to all of the taxpayers. But those who get the most out of it is the impoverished. The smart inner city kid who's parents can't afford wifi yet the kid is able to do school research after the library has closed.

Third, I find it funny that you find wifi that all taxpayers can utilize appalling yet you advocate individuals getting cell phones on the dime of everyone else with a phone.

Our government should help those who cannot afford the minimal resources that is virtually required in our society. However those should be minimal in an effort to serve more people. Additionally you have not shown how a landline is inadequate. AC attempted to but failed to display it and I adequately showed how it is still relevant today and expanding.

I'm not wholly unfair on the issue as well. I like that the program is not a tax. It's a service charge. Meaning if I didn't want to pay it and I were willing to give up telephone and cell phone then I wouldn't have to pay into it. That is the right way to do things and I wish government would do more things like that.

MikeyA

Secondly, you misstated by position. I am NOT the one against social services. YOU ARE!! Once again, you're just making these assertions to win a debate.

Third, I guess you haven't assessed the costs. Landlines are going up in price while simple cell service is going down. You can purchase a Verizon cell phone for 99 CENTS and pay less than $19.00 a month for service. And that's with a cursory search!

Fourth, as I stated, many people are getting rid of their landlines all together. This is happening mainly among younger people. For example, neither of my adult children nor their spouses have a landline phone. YOU OLD FOGY, YOU!

Finally, if Summit County is "only" the 12th wealthiest in Ohio, that places it ahead of 76 others! I applaud their program. You and your ilk usually stand against such government programs. I congratulate you for finding a social program of which you approve! Some of your fellow conservatives might not like that, Mikey! What would Rush say?

I know what Rush would say!

"Mikey's a RINO! RINOOOOOO!!!!!!!!"

I have backed off nothing. Show me where I "backed off".

Second, I am not against social services. I believe they should be limited so they can serve more people.

Landlines are not going up in price, as I said they are converting to VOIP. So the cost on landlines is going up? http://www.att.com/shop/home-phone/landline.html#fbid=cVP6Byhn9Fm according to AT&T it's $24 a month. When I first got a landline it cost me almost $50 a month.

You stated that only wealthy cities can afford Wifi. Akron is not a wealthy city. Of those 76 counties it's ahead of most are rural and don't have a big city within it's boundaries. Cincy is ahead of Akron in wealth, does it provide wifi?

Like I said I don't approve of the program in total. It should still only be landlines. I said I see some merit in the program.

MikeyA

Mikey math: $24 is OK. $19 is a "luxury." ????

"I am not against social services. I believe they should be limited so they can serve more people."

That terrifies and enrages Liberals. They believe the government is an infinite source of money, which is why it didn't bother Obama to watch the public debt double under his reign. Borrowing trillions is just not an issue when you believe there's an infinite supply of it.

Once again, limited government is the issue. Liberals won't allow that. That's why everything is collapsing, culture-wise.

I tend to disagree with the writer's contention that federal spending is a "fake crisis." Or is she aware of $17,000,000,000,000+ lying around that we can use to pay off Washington's debt?

Patience is a great virtue.

I think the basis for this thread is that NOBODY has gotten anything out of this administration. No free stuff---zip, zilch, nada.

Everytime I read post like this I get the impression that conservatives think people who dont have jobs are evading paying taxes.

Your post makes little sense.

MikeyA

It makes lots of sense. You conservatives think people are jobless because they want to avoid paying taxes, not because they can't find jobs. You conservatives also think that the only tax that matters is the income tax, hence tax cuts for millionaires while the ordinary man gets screwed over by sales and property and fuel taxes.

Whatever happened to the Republicans' "laser-like focus on jobs" anyhow? Oh yeah, that's why there's been 50+ votes to repeal Obamacare and 0 Republican jobs bills.

That's why it all should come back to, "WE THE PEOPLE"! Both sides are shit, when it comes to the establishment. Both parties are playing the game in front of the people, then sit down and have a drink together,while keeping their power.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

Ah yes, and we come back to "Both Sides Are Bad So Vote Republican"

"You conservatives also think that the only tax that matters is the income tax[.]"

Not exactly. They care peripherally about the income tax. It's the general regime of taxes on anything that smacks of capital gains, that really gets their goats.

No more egregious example can be found than the 9-9-9 Plan, aka Herman Cain's Great White Whale. That stupid sonuvabitch actually proposed to make cap-gains taxes ZERO. Naturally that makes the rich make out like bandits.

A more sensible approach that is actually fair (fair as in 'fair', not fair as in 'screwing-you-over-but-not-me') is to considering all gains to be 'income', and all income is taxed at the same rate. OR, stop looking at incomes and only tax trackable transactions. Largely that means sales taxes.

Sadly, outside the tiny universe of Libertarianism, you just don't find anyone who believes in real tax fairness. So you tend instead to find progressives and regressives and exclusionists... the latter being the most extreme, since they believe in taxing others but not themselves.

See, I agree, "capital gains" should be taxed the same as income. But this LLLLibertarian "fair tax" or "sales tax only" bullshit is bullshit. Sales tax fucks over the poor and middle class, because regardless if you're taxing food or clothing or goods, a rich person and a poor person are going to have approximately the same minimum needs, but the poor person is spending a larger portion of their income on sales tax than the rich person. Rich people don't have to eat ramen noodles and shop for clothes at Goodwill, but they can if they want. Poor people can't afford organic, free-range, Kobe beef with truffles and bespoke suits. So for all your LLLLibertarian bitching about the unfairness of income tax, sales tax is just as bad.

And if you want to talk about taxable transactions, how do you feel about transaction tax on the sale of stock? Sounds like a winner to me, it'll slow down the trading and fix some of what's wrong with Wall Street and the banks.

Libertarians know about reality, AC. Rational policy always sets a floor or exclusion. There should be no exclusions beyond what's economically necessary, like saying you can earn up to $600/yr without needing to report it or pay tax on it. Floor exclusions need to be set since there's always a cost of compliance. This cost hits both taxed and taxer. There's no need to assess the impact of taxes on people and government other than that.

As for your example, the rich person buying "organic, free-range, Kobe beef with truffles and bespoke suits" is certainly paying a much higher price than the poor person eating hamburger and wearing a Goodwill sweatsuit. Rich boy's also heating and cooling more cubic feet of house. He's also driving more. Therefore rich boy's paying significantly more to the government in total tax revenue on that stuff. Isn't that what you Liberals wanted? Granted, here in Ohio we don't pay tax on food, but we're talking about a universally applied tax regime that's FAIR.

"And if you want to talk about taxable transactions, how do you feel about transaction tax on the sale of stock?"

I have a better question: Why isn't a stock sale counted as a sale that sales tax normally applies to?

You never seem to understand that when I say FAIR, I mean FAIR. Taxes and laws must be equally applied.

The reason it doesn't make sense AC is because he's talking about conservatives bemoaning people who don't work. Yet the thread is about a conservative president who established a program to help the impoverished get access to basic communication.

I totally support that.

Cell phones however are a luxury. It goes beyond basic communication. I do not support expanding the program beyond landlines for that reason. Same with over the air t.v. allowing them access to that. Cable and cell phones are luxuries and the government shouldn't be subsidizing them.

MikeyA

Cell phones are NOT a luxury.
You completely ignored my remarks on how the incumbent telcos are trying to get out of the landline business.

I know this is the HuffPo, but it's the first story Google popped up that does a half-decent job of going over the story with lots of links: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/fire-island-erupts-over-v_b...

Verizon wanted to get out of rebuilding land lines damaged by Sandy and go to cellular. How is cellular a fucking luxury if Verizon doesn't want to provide landlines to people who need "Reaganphones" aka "Obamaphones"?

Maybe you'll listen to that LLLLiberal bastion Forbes instead. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/09/28/crazy-for-obama-...

"In some instances, coverage may include discounts for cell phone service instead of land lines at primary residences because realistically, cell phone service is less expensive in some areas than traditional service. Eligibility and type of program may vary from state to state – and this is why there is a flurry of confusion about the program being a product of the Obama administration. In Florida, for example, cell phone service was added to the existing program – in 2008, the year that Obama was elected to office. The conclusion from many folks was that it was a new federal program. It was not. It was an expansion of the existing program and implemented on a state by state basis."

Would you like to retract your statement?

I will not retract anything.

The phone companies are getting out of the landline business not because it is cheaper to use cell phones but because they are more profitable.

Landlines yet will still exist. Right now they are converting over to VOIP. That too is very cheap and a growing industry. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/05/the-fastest-growing-...

So once again, yes. Cell phones are a luxury. You have yet to show any evidence that they are not a luxury.

MikeyA

"Landlines yet will still exist. Right now they are converting over to VOIP"

You're a fucking idiot as you have no idea what the hell that means. VOIP is not a fucking telephone landline. It is a fucking Voice Over Internet Protocol service. It is not a fucking pair of wires with -48volts DC and dial tone on it like a landline is. Since in your world The Internet is a luxury, VOIP is by extension a luxury too. How the fuck is someone going to get a "VOIP" "landline" without Internet? Answer: YOU FUCKING DON'T, IT'S TECHNOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, YOU MORON!

As for landlines being cheaper, you are a fucking idiot AGAIN. Which do you think is cheaper to maintain, a cell phone tower with a battery backup and generator, or a large cable plant of copper wires that must be supplied with electricity, along with remote switches and central office switches that must be supplied with electricity, very large battery backups, etc. etc.? Are you fucking aware of what the price of copper is? Do you fathom what the costs of maintaining the cable plant are like? Verizon WAS rolling out Fiber To The Home at great capital cost because they would save so much over having to deal with the increasing costs of maintaining an aging cable plant, until the fucking short-term profit-demanding Wall Street Bankster MFers threatened lawsuits and revolts since FTTH doesn't magically pay itself off in one year.

What the fuck is your M.O.S.? Potato peeler? Go talk to someone over in an IT field before you embarrass yourself again.

Which do you think has the greater cost to the fucking telco: having to run and maintain a pair of copper wires from a house back to a node or a central office for each customer that requires electricity to power it to be provided by said telco regardless of it being in use or not and sufficient field repair personnel and trucks to repair said lines, or sticking up some cell phone towers with overlapping coverage? We can safely assume the other costs for maintaining customer records and billing are approximately the same, if you think that matters.

You're not going to read this anyhow, because you'd have to admit you're an ignorant ass and a hypocrite, but:
http://www.sfbg.com/2013/01/22/end-landlines

""It's clear to us that companies like AT&T and Verizon are planning to get rid of their copper networks," said Paul Goodman of the Greenlining Institute in Berkeley, which conducts public policy research and advocacy. Telecom companies have spent years lobbying to retire those lines, arguing that they're expensive to maintain, which explains why they've been remiss when it comes to their upkeep.

"The phone companies are not repairing or maintaining old copper networks. They don't want the responsibility," Goodman explained."

Be a good little REPUBLICAN and tell me how much the UNION linemen cost AT&T and Verizon, then tell me that it's not cheaper for them to get out of landline business and go to cellular.

ah AC.

You write so much but say so little. For VOIP fiber would still be run.

Actually I've dealt with the costs of cell vs POTS. Laying new POTS lines is more expensive but we already have POTS infrastructure. Secondly that's why I said cell phones reap higher profits.

Where did I learn this? Building infrastructure in Afghanistan. We were able to outfit everyone with VOIP way easier than giving them cell phones or POTS lines.

I shouldn't be surprised you brought up potatoes. I can see you now "I like me than french fried taters... mmmm hmmm."

You still haven't shown how cells are not a luxury.

MikeyA

That's just fucking grand to know that fucking AFGHANISTAN gets US GOVERNMENT BOUGHT AND PAID FOR FIBER TO THE PREMISES BUT AMERICANS ARE STUCK ON FIFTY YEAR OLD COPPER WIRES.

Did you read the fucking article about Fire Island post-Sandy? What the FUCK are people supposed to do when the telco decides "fuck you, I'm not fixing or supporting POTS anymore", Mikey? Use fucking smoke signals?

I'm sick and tired of the language you keep using---you SCHLEMEIL!

Gman,

His language is a product of his frustration. In normal everyday life he's not used to people challenging him. He gets to spout off whatever b.s. he wants. But here, we challenge him. Some of us challenge him with direct facts. So what does he do? He attacks. Notice he challenged my qualifications, and how I would know such a thing. Well, unlike him, I'm a man who does things. When I challenge him, I do it with logic and facts. He can't contend with that. So what does he do? He attacks and curses. It doesn't offend me. It's actually a complement (for purnhrts sake) because he is acknowledging he can't contend with what I put forth as true.

MikeyA

Right, Chris called Billy out for saying bitch to AC, but this happens repeatedly without a word. I think AC intimidated Chris with his lawyer threats and whining about people picking on him.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

Don't worry, after November there will only be one more vote on the so called affordable health cars act. And probably several votes on building many more "super max"prisons.

Because it is not SOCIALIZMS! for the federal government to subsidize Corrections Corporation of America when the Republicans support it.

Lol

Lol every time a Republican advocates for any federal government program you scream socialism. I am begining to think you that word means something else.

MikeyA

Hey Mikey, answer this for me in reply to your comment: Why would Republicans be advocating for any federal government programs when they're all supposed to be for smaller government and less spending? OH SNAP! You just got TOLD!

I scream socialism because that's what YOU and THEY scream every time the government does anything. Why is it not socialism when Republicans spend billions on military stuff we don't need, just so the people in their districts keep their jobs with the defense contractors? GM and Chrysler bailouts = SOCIALISM! $2 trillion in spending for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan when SEAL Team 6 could have caught Osama 6 weeks after 9/11, plus untold billions more in "Homeland Security" spending to give Bumfuck PD "assault" (I use the word with extreme irony quotes because I know what bullshit the assault rifle ban was) and APCs for the SWAT team = KEEPING AMERICA SAFE FROM TERRORISTS & REGIME CHANGE & FINDING THE WMDS.

Forgive me if I sound like GZarthy for a moment but the chicken(hawk)(shit) Republicans won't let cuts to "defense" happen because a good chunk of America would find itself unemployed, and any time anyone, including any of their own (like RON PAUL) start tugging on the curtain to expose the giant military-industrial complex machine's workings to the sunlight, they pitch twenty kinds of fits on how daring to cut $1 measly BILLION from Defense is "hating the troops" and "letting the terrorists win" and "making America vulnerable" but cutting a few hundred million for Planned Parenthood and trying to restrict or ban access to birth control are FISCALLY PRUDENT THINGS. Because they must want more poor people having more welfare babies and cervical cancers, since they ALWAYS ignore the medium- and long-term consequences of such moves.

Sequestration was primarily cuts to the defense department. So your last paragraph is completely false. The rest of it I equate to the equivalent of the rantings of a lunatic.

MikeyA

Looking in the mirror again, are you?

you are Sofa King awesome! Mikey you are an idiot!

I've seen your posts. They are equivalent to a fifth grader's understanding of things. So when you insult me I take it as a complement. I did notice you can't confront anything I said with facts that would support your claim. Just namecalling. Why don't you go back to facebook where people think your posts are smart.

MikeyA

you are Sofa King awesome! Mikey you are an idiot!

it's compliment, not complement! Not only do you need to learn to read but you also need to learn definitions and word usage.

OOOOH a spelling mistake. As I've already stated I don't care about spelling/grammatical mistakes on here. I write informally on here. I end my sentences with prepositions, I use commas wrong. I don't care.

Please note you still have yet to provide any argument that shows I am incorrect.

MikeyA

"Dale, first you haven't shown that cell phones are NOT a luxury." This is a double negative...geesh!

Obviously you didn't read my previous post concerning grammar on here.

MikeyA

I think she tried to read it, but in Toledo one only needs to read at a THIRD GRADE LEVEL.

It's true that I have yet to meet someone on here to confuse her with a college graduate.

MikeyA

you think that is important....in order to understand what is being said, grammar, spelling, punctuation is important. Just writing things willy nilly is either laziness or ignorance. Neither is productive when attempting to make a point!

LOL

LOL

OMG I just used informal language twice. Notice I didn't write laughing out loud or oh my god.

I'm sure you understood what was said in both. Those are two examples of informal language that is not punctuated nor grammatically correct. That's what they are for.

In these too instances they have in the sake of brevity have been productive toward making a point. So how can that be? Laziness/ignorance being productive toward making a point.

Additionally you have used this same informality when posting (one of your favorite phrases is IMHO). So you are both wrong and a hypocrite.

In this posting I have also misspelled words and ended a sentence with a preposition. Yet I'm willing to bet you understood the point completely. Your attempt to be a spelling/grammar nazi is an effort to detract from my argument of which you've never countered.

MikeyA

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.