Guess who pays for this program? Legitimate cell phone customers. In other words, you and I.
The federal ‘free’ cell phone scheme for low-income individuals cost $2.2 billion last year, all of which came from fees added to the phone bills of paying customers.
And while there are some people who legitimately make good use of this program – emergency contacts for children and parents, or to receive job interview responses – there is a whole hell of a lot of this going on…
Via the Daily Mail:
Undercover video shot in May by a conservative activist shows two corporate distributors of free cell phones handing out the mobile devices to people who have promised to sell them for drug money, to buy shoes and handbags, to pay off their bills, or just for extra spending cash.
The ‘Obama phone,’ which made its ignominious YouTube debut outside a Cleveland, Ohio presidential campaign event last September, is a project of the Federal Communications Commission’s ‘Lifeline’ program, which makes land line and mobile phones available to Americans who meet low-income requirements.
Lifeline was a $2.19 billion program in 2012.
One exchange saw a man specifically tell an employee he was going to sell his taxpayer funded phone to buy heroin. To which the employee states, ‘Hey, I don’t judge’.
Every one of the individuals who claimed they would sell the phone as opposed to actually using it for legitimate purposes, was given a phone.
Nobody was turned down.
In fact, some were instructed to visit pawn shops to determine the phone’s value, or they are instructed to go home and deactivate the phone, sell it, and return to get another.
Watch below and read the rest of the report…
Well, I certainly didn’t believe it when I saw it.
Given a list of eight factors to vote on, Americans chose “too much welfare” as the root cause of persistent poverty. 24% of respondents chose government welfare, over six times as many people chose “lack of government funding”.
Via NBC News:
Two decades after President Bill Clinton promised to “end welfare as we know it,” Americans blame government handouts for persistent poverty in the United States more than any other single factor, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Thursday.
Given a list of eight factors and asked to choose the one most responsible for the continuing problem of poverty, 24 percent of respondents in the poll chose “too much government welfare that prevents initiative.”
Whether Americans are too dependent on government was a flashpoint of the presidential campaign last year, and shrinking government has been a focus of the Tea Party movement, which has risen since the election of President Barack Obama.
The fact that overwhelming amounts of welfare lead to a lack of initiative is indisputable. So I have a question for you, America.
Ahem…
Why the *#@! did you vote for the guy who promised more welfare, and by extension more poverty? Do you not recall the conversation initiated by Newt Gingrich involving ‘paychecks versus food stamps’?
No, Newt was pilloried for that tactic, chastised in the media for using racial tones, because in Liberal-land, only minorities are incapable of overcoming poverty.
Congratulations, America. You’re officially all racist too.
Last week we wrote:
New York Post columnist Cindy Adams wrote this random thought today – “Where did the Boston suspects get such money? To travel . . . to buy . . .”
Granted one has to assume they received funding from outside sources to carry out some of their actions.
But sadly, part of that funding at least came from the state of Massachusetts itself.
Perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps they didn’t need any more than their welfare benefits to fund six-month trips to Russia. A new report indicates that the Tsarnaev family received a shocking amount of welfare assistance from the state of Massachusetts – over $100,000.
Via the Boston Herald:
The Tsarnaev family, including the suspected terrorists and their parents, benefited from more than $100,000 in taxpayer-funded assistance — a bonanza ranging from cash and food stamps to Section 8 housing from 2002 to 2012, the Herald has learned.
“The breadth of the benefits the family was receiving was stunning,” said a person with knowledge of documents handed over to a legislative committee today.
The state has handed over more than 500 documents to the 11-member House Post Audit and Oversight Committee, which today met for the first time and plans to call in officials from the Department of Transitional Assistance to testify.
Taxpayer funded terrorism.
In other words, Tsarnaev hated Americans … except for when they were giving him money.
New York Post columnist Cindy Adams wrote this random thought today – “Where did the Boston suspects get such money? To travel . . . to buy . . .”
Granted one has to assume they received funding from outside sources to carry out some of their actions.
But sadly, part of that funding at least came from the state of Massachusetts itself.
Via the Boston Herald:
Marathon bombings mastermind Tamerlan Tsarnaev was living on taxpayer-funded state welfare benefits even as he was delving deep into the world of radical anti-American Islamism, the Herald has learned.
State officials confirmed last night that Tsarnaev, slain in a raging gun battle with police last Friday, was receiving benefits along with his wife, Katherine Russell Tsarnaev, and their 3-year-old daughter. The state’s Executive Office of Health and Human Services said those benefits ended in 2012 when the couple stopped meeting income eligibility limits. Russell Tsarnaev’s attorney has claimed Katherine — who had converted to Islam — was working up to 80 hours a week as a home health aide while Tsarnaev stayed at home.
In addition, both of Tsarnaev’s parents received benefits, and accused brother bombers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan were recipients through their parents when they were younger, according to the state.
The news raises questions over whether Tsarnaev financed his radicalization on taxpayer money.
In other words, Tsarnaev hated Americans … except for when they were giving him money.
JWF writes, “Since these maniacs were on the dole, did they use ObamaPhones to detonate the bombs?”
It’s important to note that despite this revelation, appalling as it is, there has to be other outside financial support. A six month trip overseas is not an inexpensive venture.
Perhaps they could start looking right there in Watertown, MA.
During the Republican primaries, Newt Gingrich was accused of using racial overtones by referring to President Obama as the “Food Stamp President”.
Apparently both facts and reality, are also racist.
Zero Hedge has reported on a fun fact about Obama’s reign as President – For every job created since he took office, roughly 21 people have gone on food stamps.
Via Zero Hedge (h/t Weasel Zippers):
… since his inauguration, the US has generated just 841,000 jobs through November 2012, a number is more than dwarfed by the 17.3 million new foodstamps and disability recipients added to the rolls in the past 4 years. And since the start of the depression in December 2007, America has seen those on foodstamps and disability increase by 21.8 million, while losing 3.6 million jobs. End result: total number of foodstamp recipients as of November: 47.7 million, an increase of 141,000 from the prior month, and reversing the brief downturn in October, while total US households on foodstamps just hit an all time record of 23,017,768, an increase of 73,952 from the prior month. The cost to the government to keep these 23 million households content and not rising up? $281.21 per month per household.
Zip adds:
To be precise, 20.57 new food stamp recipients for each job (841,000 net jobs vs 17.3 million new food stamp recipients).
Gingrich, in his campaign rhetoric, said in regards to the President that, “His failed economic policies have forced more Americans to apply for food stamps than any president in history.”
“I think he doesn’t want to defend his record of killing jobs. He doesn’t want to defend his record of putting people on food stamps,” Gingrich said. ”But paychecks vs. food stamps is a totally legitimate choice to offer the American people and one which I am determined to make a major part of the fall campaign.
Unfortunately we’ll never know what could have happened had America chosen a President who prefers jobs to food stamps. This is the new New Deal.
(c) 2013 MenRec.com - Site Maintained by Grassfire Lab
