Mike Richards,I do wish you would stop it with that silly argument that
'not a single Senator' voted for the Obama budget. That just flat
didn't happen. What was rejected was a Jeff Sessions gimmick: a fake
budget proposal that he entitled "the Obama budget". This has been very
widely reported; the Senate did NOT reject any actual budget proposal from the
President. See, for example, the report from Jake Tapper of ABC News.
@Clydesdale -- You have no idea what Hitler was like I'm afraid.
Who cares if Reagan started it? Obama used it to his advantage. Had the
Republicans not raised the debt ceiling Obama could not have used it to buy so
many votes, which he did. Not just phones but food stamps as well. He's a
manipulator just like Hitler was. Didn't you see him threaten the elderly,
that he would cut off all social security checks if the debt ceiling
weren't raised? That's Hitler 101. "No, there's no such
thing as a person in American politics that could possibly do the things Hitler
did, and believe the same kinds of things Hitler did. That's simply
impossible. We have a balance of powers, it couldn't happen here in
re:the Truth"The Life line program is NOT a Reagan program,the
Life line program is a Democratic Congress program"The Life line
program (available in 30 states) was created in 1984 (during Reagan's
tenure) by the FCC, (not Congress) the program was enhanced by Congress under
the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Which party controlled Congress
in 1996? Republicans.
The Life line program is NOT a Reagan program, the Life line program is a
Democratic Congress program, just more democratic taxing and
spending.The Obama phone is legitimately the Obama Phone, and it certainly bought the vote of some,This article is more
left-wing nuttery, do we really need another crazy nonsensical
left-wing democrat analysis of republicans?
@christian24-7"Those people were told that the phones were from Obama.
"They aren't told that at all. They're told the phones
are from the program. "Not the republicans, because that lie
would give Obama and democrats more votes.Democrats? Yes, that makes
sense. Democrats would benefit from telling that lie. They would win votes, many
votes."Obamaphone is a word used to try and attack the program
as being an example of Obama taking tax money from others and using it to give
freebies to moochers. You know how I know this? Because we already have an
extremely prominent example of Republicans attaching the name Obama to something
they want to attack as a tax hike being used to give freebies to moochers.
Its' called Obamacare. Or as Democrats tend to refer to it... the
Affordable Care Act."They have no rights to use the
president's name and photo, unless..."Not true. There are
all sorts of anti-Obama websites around that use his name and photo. This just
happens to be one of them.
Silo,So the Obama phone page is only an information page, but
who's page is it? It says nothing other than Obamaphone.net.Do
we have to do this again?Who would have a page called
Obamaphone.net?It is clearly not a republican conspiracy page. That
would make no sense. (See previous post)It is not the phone
company's page. They have no rights to use the president's name and
photo, unless...The president and his party have given them
permission to promote it as President Obama's program and get the credit
and the votes.Or it is the Democrats own page to promote the free
phone program for their guy.Ta Da! Still a Democrat propaganda lie!
The pay-off was in votes, in this case.
@Christian 247First, Since you clearly have the internet do a google
search. The program was started under the Regan administration.Second, The
Republican campaign this whole election was to try and paint Obama supporters
and no good freeloaders. What better way than to lie about Obama starting a
program to give away free cell phone? I had plenty of my conservative friends
email me this urban legend email forward about how the country is going down the
tubes because OBAMA is giving away free stuff. It wouldn't fit into their
narrative this election to admit that is was actually Ronald Reagan that started
the free land line program and Bush that started the free cell phone program
Romney didn't lose because of the House of Representative, the media, Obama
gifts, rugged primaries, right-wing radio, lies (Obama had more than his share)
or self-inflicted wounds. All may have contributed but the truth is that we,
with eyes wide open, chose bondage over paying the price for freedom. Too many
people refuse to do what is required to prosper. They want the "good
life" today. Worse, they think they deserve it not because of any merit but
simply because they exist.Romney's message was that effort
leads to individual and national prosperity. But that's not a popular
message. We chose bondage to a government that promises cradle-to-grave care
that they have no hope of delivering.Since Johnson's great
society, we've seen ever increasing poverty and other social breakdowns
among minorities. In 1960, there were more two parent black families than white
familes. Today, black families are decimated and on the verge of extinction.
Housing, education, employment were more favorable to blacks before Affirmative
Action, Dodd-Frank, and other ill-conceived liberal initiatives. Black wealth
has decreased by $Bs.2012 voters ignored history. The carcass
we're feasting on is our own.
"Who would tell them that lie?" - Christian 24/7If only
there was some kind of search tool available to aid in that investigation.
Here, let me help.Perhaps the group telling that lie is the group
most likely to benefit from the government reimbursement for the program? For
instance, the following two sites show up as primary results when searching
google for 'obama phone'obamaphone dot netfreegovernmentcellphones dot netWhen you drill into those domains,
both link back to wireless providers...those who get guaranteed reimbursement
from the government. But of course, it's much more convenient when the
story is something that can be blamed on Obama...because lying is what a 24/7
Christian would do, correct.
Oh yeah, I forgot that if a Lib Dem says it, it must be fact. If a conservative
says it, it must be wingnut.Note the sarcasm, Silo.
First we listen for four years to these nay (neigh)sayers tell us that the first
election of Obama was a mistake that would not be repeated especially due to the
way he handled the economy. Then they put up a businessman with all the answers
on fixing everything and he get soundly beaten by the incumbent (except in Mike
R. tally which is by county). Now that they have been proven to be in the
minority again they carry on with mindless ways to make themselves feel better
like the free phones and gifts to voters (earmarks anyone?). Bobby Jindal tells
it like it is from their side of the aisle and still they don't listen...oh
yeah, I forgot he isn't in their voter demographic even if he calls himself
"Mountanman, way to own up! We know that the libs would never do that."
Christian 24-7What a pompous thing to say. When you present facts,
regardless of your political leaning, you are never in need of 'owning
Noodlekaboodle quote:"Regan did offer free phones to low income
people. Why isn't it called a Regan phone? Because the republicans are
trying to use it against Obama and it wouldn't look good for them to brand
St. Regan as a guy who give away free stuff."Really???? That
makes no sense.Now, for the sake of argument, I will just assume it
was a Reagan program as you say. Consider this: Someone
gave those people phones. Those people were told that the phones were from
Obama. Who would tell them that lie? Not the republicans,
because that lie would give Obama and democrats more votes. Democrats? Yes, that makes sense. Democrats would benefit from telling that
lie. They would win votes, many votes.Is it so hard to see the
Mountanman, way to own up! We know that the libs would never do that.By the way, Obama phones are the perfect Democratic plan, in that they follow
the Demos' MO.Take someone else's idea and someone
else's money, and use it to buy votes for you guys.
This letter is a perfect example of the class warfare being waged by the
righties. It's downright scary and not the kind of America I
want. Which is why I was so grateful that they were denied power!
The majority of the people from this great country placed the hate, the
rhetoric, and the class warfare from the right wing in the garbage. Which is exactly where this letter deserves to be thrown into. Pathetic.
@ Eric Samuelson. I looked into what you said and you are correct! My apologies
Not raising the debt ceiling would've crashed us into another recession and
the Republicans would've been squarely to blame for all the ensuing carnage
if they didn't immediately reverse position and agree to raise the debt
ceiling. No, doing what the letter writer suggests would've given Democrats
the House.@Mountanman"If you meant Ronald Reagan, why are
they not called Ronald Reagan phones instead of Obama phones? "Obama is typically given the credit/blame for the auto bailout but that was
started by Bush. Things aren't always ascribed to who started them. The
reason they're called Obama phones is because this was a conservative
attack directed at Obama to try and portray Democrats, and particularly black
people, as lazy moochers. The fact that Reagan started it or that it turned into
cell phones under Bush... well that's just an inconvenient detail
that's ignored by those who want to use it as an attack on Obama. Then
people pass along the incomplete information they were given.
MountanmanSorry, but no. The free phone program is called Lifeline and
was originated in 1984. And no, recipients do not pay for it, nor does the
federal government. It's paid for by telecommunication companies;
essentially it's a tax on them. So this letter is factually wrong, in
addition to being insulting.
Obama has no friends in Washington. The Senate handed him his hat as they
embarrassed him in front of the world when they told him that his budget
wasn't worth even one vote. He publically denounced the Court. The House
thumbed their collective nose at him.So what does he do? He flies
around the country telling us what fools we are for voting for our
Representatives.Some Democrats cheer him on. Did they go to school
together? Did they listen to the same extremist professors? More importantly,
do they realize that they are going to get the biggest tax increase of their
lives if Congress lets him increase taxes by $1.6 trillion. Raising taxes on
the rich will only raise raise taxes by a measely $60 billion a year. Go ahead.
Cheer him on, but first open YOUR wallets. Get used to being poor.
Just another example of a GOP program or idea that gets blasted the minute Obama
The phones Ronald Reagan promoted to the poor had to be paid for by the
recipients! Therefore, while they were accessed at a discount,they were not
free! Do some research before you bloviate!
What is most frightening about our country today is how many people, for
whatever reason, make no attempt to learn the TRUTH before writing letters or
starting to shout.Doing so is nothing but sheer stupidity.Unfortunately, stupidity seems to be highly contagious.
Mountainman writes "Ronald Reagan never, I repeat, never offered free phone
for anyone! Come on man, stop lying to yourself!"Unless of
course one takes the time to look into the "lifeline program" signed
into law by Ronald Reagan.
Keep it up, Republicans. This kind of bitterness and mendacity is ensuring
future Democratic election victories.
@Mountanman,PragmatistTry doing a little research, Regan did offer free
phones to low income people. Why isn't it called a Regan phone? Because the
republicans are trying to use it against Obama and it wouldn't look good
for them to brand St. Regan as a guy who give away free stuff. It's called
the LifeLine program. It was started in 1984, under the Regan administration.
However, it's not paid directly with tax money. If you look at your phone
bill and see the USF(universal service fund) fee that is where the money comes
from. Initially the plan only covered land lines, but in 2008 the Bush
administration extended the program to include cell phones due to the increase
in their use and the decrease in landline use. All Obama did was have the FCC
look into tighter regulation and an overhaul of the program due to a spike in
costs after cell phones were approved for the program. All of this info is
available if you search Obama Phone on the Snopes website.
Can Mr. Obama really blame the House Republicans for his financial problems when
he could not find a single friend in the Senate to support his budget. Are we to
believe that all one-hundred Senators are complete simpletons because they would
not vote for his budget?The House is the only part of government
that has kept us from bankruptcy. The House is the only part of government that
seems to know anything abut economics. The House refuses to let Mr. Obama bully
them into destroying this country.If Mr. Obama wants change, maybe
he should change his attitude. The only people who agree with him are those who
want some "rich guy" to pay their way through life.Let him
rant. He's just proving that he cannot negotiate and that his budget has no
merit. Wise people will ignore his tantrums.
Its scary that people actually believe stuff like this.
@ Pragmatist. Roland Regan? Who is Roland Regan? If you meant Ronald Reagan, why
are they not called Ronald Reagan phones instead of Obama phones? Ronald Reagan
never, I repeat, never offered free phone for anyone! Come on man, stop lying to
Seriously...I can't believe some of the letters that get published here.Makes for lots of laughs though.
Cell phones and food stamps..what a misinformed rant. The "Obama" cell
phone, where did that come from? It came from a government program that gives
certain low income people basic access to telecommunications. Where did this
program come from..who started it..wait, wait drumroll..Roland Regan. Yup,
it's a Roland Regan progam that has morphed over the decades from land line
access to cell phones. Bad mouthing food stamps who's use
increased in the middle of the worst economic downturn in 70 years is just
immoral. Especially when the downturn was caused by an internal failure of the
very economy that is suppose to provide food and shelter.
What it appears that Mr Crippen does not understand is that raising the debt
ceiling allows the govt to pay for things previously purchased.But,
stick with your erroneous narrative, if that makes you feel better.