The 41 Percent (Of Cell Phone Scammers)
We knew the federal government provided food stamps, housing allowances, energy subsidies, unemploymYou must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
We knew the federal government provided food stamps, housing allowances, energy subsidies, unemploymYou must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
20 comments
This program has been in operation since Reagan signed it into law. It was expanded to include cell phones by GWB and the Republican congress. It really is amazing that you didn’t know any of this stuff until recently.
And it looks like the fraud is being committed by private companies looking to make a buck from the government.
Probably connected to the Koch brothers somehow.
This program has been in operation since Reagan signed it into law. It was expanded to include cell phones by GWB and the Republican congress. It really is amazing that you didn’t know any of this stuff until recently.
And it looks like the fraud is being committed by private companies looking to make a buck from the government.
Probably connected to the Koch brothers somehow.
Ken E.,
Sic Willie has been too busy whoring for Howie and his voucher scam to have noticed this bit of OLD news.
Ken E.,
Sic Willie has been too busy whoring for Howie and his voucher scam to have noticed this bit of OLD news.
Even in 3rd world countries people manage to have a cell phone before they have running water. Leave it to USA to make a non-problem into a transfer of money without any accountability.
Even in 3rd world countries people manage to have a cell phone before they have running water. Leave it to USA to make a non-problem into a transfer of money without any accountability.
FITS do you have any information (or do you care) about corporate welfare? I’m not talking about tax breaks, but pure subsidies to corporations and how this amount of money compares to the amount we spend on “welfare goodies to poor people.” I’m just curious – I’m too busy working to pay for corporate and “poor people” welfare, but I think it would be good to put things in perspective.
FITS do you have any information (or do you care) about corporate welfare? I’m not talking about tax breaks, but pure subsidies to corporations and how this amount of money compares to the amount we spend on “welfare goodies to poor people.” I’m just curious – I’m too busy working to pay for corporate and “poor people” welfare, but I think it would be good to put things in perspective.
I think a better solution for cell phone service for poor people would be for government to work with the telecom industry to set up a very low-profit cell phone service plan through all major carriers that is only available to the poor. The person should then have to pay the cost of the service, be allotted 250 minutes, and should either indicate they wish to be able to pay for any additional minutes at a nominal per-minute rate, or have no service after the 250 minutes are up.
Government doesn’t have to fund it, people still have to pay for their phone, companies are mandated to do it and can’t rip off taxpayers to increase their bottom line.
I also think people who become unemployed should be eligible for this plan, and if under a contract with a cell phone company, should be allowed to suspend (not void) their contract for a definite amount of time or until they are employed once again, whichever happens first.
Hi there – the government actually doesn’t fund the program. It is paid for by the Universal Service Fund. In no way does the program increase the national deficit.
While there are companies out there that are abusing the system, there are also companies who are following the rules and taking steps to make sure they are reducing as much fraudulent activity as possible.
Also, there are now rules in place that require people receiving the service to recertify once every year, providing proof of eligibility. If they aren’t eligible, the companies are given X amount of time to shut off their service.
Thanks for the information.
One note, the USF is ultimately paid by the consumer, so essentially it is a tax/fee, although it is only assessed on people who pay for phone service. It doesn’t contribute to the deficit so long as the USF can actually cover the program with its funds. If it had insufficient funds, either it would have to draw money from elsewhere or shut down.
I still think there’s better ways to accomplish affordable phone service for the poor. There are also better uses of the USF, such as improving telecommunications infrastructure in rural areas. Just my opinion.
I think a better solution for cell phone service for poor people would be for government to work with the telecom industry to set up a very low-profit cell phone service plan through all major carriers that is only available to the poor. The person should then have to pay the cost of the service, be allotted 250 minutes, and should either indicate they wish to be able to pay for any additional minutes at a nominal per-minute rate, or have no service after the 250 minutes are up.
Government doesn’t have to fund it, people still have to pay for their phone, companies are mandated to do it and can’t rip off taxpayers to increase their bottom line.
I also think people who become unemployed should be eligible for this plan, and if under a contract with a cell phone company, should be allowed to suspend (not void) their contract for a definite amount of time or until they are employed once again, whichever happens first.
Hi there – the government actually doesn’t fund the program. It is paid for by the Universal Service Fund. In no way does the program increase the national deficit.
While there are companies out there that are abusing the system, there are also companies who are following the rules and taking steps to make sure they are reducing as much fraudulent activity as possible.
Also, there are now rules in place that require people receiving the service to recertify once every year, providing proof of eligibility. If they aren’t eligible, the companies are given X amount of time to shut off their service.
Thanks for the information.
One note, the USF is ultimately paid by the consumer, so essentially it is a tax/fee, although it is only assessed on people who pay for phone service. It doesn’t contribute to the deficit so long as the USF can actually cover the program with its funds. If it had insufficient funds, either it would have to draw money from elsewhere or shut down.
I still think there’s better ways to accomplish affordable phone service for the poor. There are also better uses of the USF, such as improving telecommunications infrastructure in rural areas. Just my opinion.
‘bama phone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio
‘bama phone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio