Department of Health and Human Services:
2009 Annual Federal Poverty Guidelines

And, Guy--since I unwittingly have to promote this service everyday, tell me, honestly...you don't think this is part of the PLOT?? 

(I am just yanking Yogi's chain, but it does make me suspicious/skeptical of the real intentions of this program :)

Sounds like a great planet! You old dog :)

What's next, free cable?!

I know that sounds cold, but that was my first response when I saw this on TV.   I don't think the gov't should provide cell phones.  I'm all for food, shelter, heat, electricity, and educational supplements based on need.  I support gov't healthcare, though I cringe when I hear it's a "right." (to me it's a resource with a limited supply).   But I'm sorry, a cell phone is a "want" not a need, and I resent people expecting the gov't to provide wants in addition to needs.  Where do we draw the line?....this is a good spot.  My wife and I are working class and money's tight in our household.  We work hard to save (we don't have cable) and waited to get cell phones until only recently due to the expense.  I think a problem today is that people have their needs and wants mixed up.   I hope this distinction might be a silver lining in these hard economic times.  

Let gov't protect our rights, help provide for unfortunate's basic needs, but not cell phones.

This is the first I have heard low income people referred to as 'the unfortunates'. But, I don't get out much lately. 

But, a cell phone might be needed by those with any sort of disability because it would enable them

to call for help if help was needed.  It is difficult to find a public pay phone these days in some areas. 

If the government can offer cell phones to those who are not earning enough to purchase one I wouldn't object.

I actually wish I could get one.  My income is just above the cut off for most government services, but

not high enough to afford cable or a cell phone without reducing other expenses.  But, I see the advantage

of making phones available in this day and age.

  I agree Leland--btw, we do have a similar government sponsored program for cable. I don't have a problem with the phones, as a service, especially to our elderly residents.  Providing the phone free and 1 hour a month free is all well and good, but you know that this is just a catch--https://www.safelinkwireless.com/EnrollmentPublic/buy_airtime.aspx 

This is how capitalism justifies parasitism.  We see it every day in NEO.  Doing "good" to line our own pockets.  Creating large agencies that are beyond the scope of public scrutiny...to suck blood like the Port Authority and the Land Bank.  I know that this seems like a stretch...to link all of these efforts, but think about it.  Who runs Safelink and who is paying to run Safelink?

I am beginning to understand why my parents would never accept public assistance no matter how poor we were.  They knew that accepting something from the government would place a stigma on us that they did not want us to have.  After reading some of the posts here on ReoNeo I now understand what they were trying to avoid.  So many judges of those who fall below the poverty line, so much criticism and contempt for the poor.

W14R,

If your comment refers to me, I question who is judgmental.  I do not hold contempt for the poor.  I favor a hand up rather than a handout.   I work at MetroHealth after leaving the Cleveland Clinic because Metro's mission is more in kind with mine.  I serve at a monthly homeless breakfast and am active with Interfaith Hospitality Network (a housing program providing for families/children to keep them out of shelters).  Like your parents, there were times in my life (with young children) when I struggled and qualified for asistance and passed it up.  It was a matter of pride, though good to know if things got worse, there was a safety net.  You and I fundamentally disagree.  I don't believe you help the poor by giving them things.  I think it takes away incentive, engenders entitlement, and enables a cycle of dependence.  It also builds resentment as people are given entitlements that others have to pay for.   Afterall, these cell phones are not really "free." 

The cell phones are donated by Tracphone who probably gets a nice tax break (corporate welfare). There Lifeline plan offers either a discounted fee for a landline or limited cell phone service to people who fit the program. The goal is to make sure that the poorest people have access to telephone service. It is mostly used by the elderly and disabled residents, and again, while it looks like it is a service to the poor sponsored by the government, it is actually another subsidy of corporations I believe that any one who qualifies for food stamps should get them and use them. Ditto for other social services.  The only crime in being poor is being poor in the U.S. where we hand out break after break to the upper income people, and corpoarations and leave the rest of the popluation to argue over who deserves help, be it a hand out or hand up. While we fight it out, the top 5% income earners continue to enjoy life on the beach.

Why are there so many people that are down on this program? I personally have no qualms with a social program that puts cell phones in the hands of the less fortunate. I mean, it isn't like our taxes are going to providing the cell phones rather than doing something else. The program is funded by Telecom (which i am aware we fund through our cell phone bill), but its really a negligible fee. I mean, we don't even feel it. For whatever the fee may be, we are helping Tracfone put cell phones in the hands of those who otherwise cannot afford it. It is not like we are providing cable or DSL, we are providing a means of communication for people who, otherwise, cannout afford it. Really, it is a good cause and the program will do a lot of good. We just need to give it a chance. Just my thoughts.  

I'm a little confused about why everyone is against this program as well. I believe Safelink is an extremely helpful program for those who are struggling and trying to make an effort to get back on their feet. Safelink is NOT a free ride. It is doing a good thing, especially for those that are on welfare by giving the opportunity to become available to employers to soon work which would then help them get off of welfare. Phone bills are not cheap which I think we all can agree on. This government program is helping those in need and I think there should be no argument against that.

1) I support the positive part of this program regarding those who don't abuse the program. I've seen these phones be amazing resources for those who don't abuse them....

2) Sadly; like countless other programs; These phones are often used by the abusive people....drug dealers swap them out; addicts trade them for drugs; and they get stolen all the time by thieves requiring them to be replaced.

3) I totally love the respect of the one commenter regarding understanding the way folks are "Shamed" for getting public assistance when they are in trouble.

4) Lifeline is another resource that is supposed to help reduce the regular landline phone bills---but the phone companies use it abusively when they don't get the paperwork in time and they disconnect and charge multiple reconnect fees while they are waiting for the landline-lifeline papers to be processed---which results in the customer having hundreds of dollars in extortionist fees being added to their phone account and forced to pay if they want to sustain the service. AT & T has become an expert at this format of taxing the low income who get the USA Lifeline discounts of almost $13.00 per month.

So, the OBAMA PHONES as they are called on the streets---are a great way to avoid those landline taxations...

Always Appreciative,
"ANGELnWard14"