$2 Billion Free Cell Phone Program - Life Line

[Daan]

Regardless of abuse of the fund, it's not a program started or expanded by the Obama Administration.

In 2008 the program cost $819 million. Under Obama's administration, it has exploded to $2.2 billion.

It's a government program supported by a "tax" added to the bills of those who actually pay for their cell phones and service.

Obama is the current President. He's now responsible.

.

[sigmalady]

.

Here's another article by the WSJ dated 2/11/2013.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...368122888.html

It does say that the FCC has new verification procedures that would save $2 billion over the next three years.

Is that government speak for the rate of increase would be less by that amount?

Sorry, but the government has a reputation of telling us that slower rates of increase are "cuts".

.

That's the same article that yb already posted.

[Daan]

That's the same article that yb already posted.

Is that a TOS violation?

My comments were different.

.

[sigmalady]

Is that a TOS violation?

My comments were different.

.

??? Did I suggest there was a violation?

[Daan]

That's the same article that yb already posted.

So what?

.

[sigmalady]

So what?

.

You presented it as though it was new information, not information that was already contained within the thread. Why are you so upset that you felt the need to respond twice to the same comment?

[musicmd]

You presented it as though it was new information, not information that was already contained within the thread. Why are you so upset that you felt the need to respond twice to the same comment?

I find it funny too.

[Daan]

You presented it as though it was new information, not information that was already contained within the thread. Why are you so upset that you felt the need to respond twice to the same comment?

I'm not upset. It's really comical that you just don't know what you're talking about.

That post and the one just before it are responses to post #15 where the poster said this was old news (November 2011).


In response I found this article from June 2012.
http://talk.baltimoresun.com/showpos...2&postcount=17

Then after more searching I found this even more recent WSJ article:
http://talk.baltimoresun.com/showpos...2&postcount=18

It did not occur to me just then that it had been posted earlier but that is irrelevant because my comments were different.


If you feel compelled to nitpick and look foolish, that's your problem.

BTW, the cretin in the video is a dishonest welfare cheat (30 free cell phones!!). That's not the fault of the telecom company.

Next.

[sigmalady]

I'm not upset. It's really comical that you just don't know what you're talking about.

That post and the one just before it are responses to post #15 where the poster said this was old news (November 2011).


In response I found this article from June 2012.
http://talk.baltimoresun.com/showpos...2&postcount=17

Then after more searching I found this even more recent WSJ article:
http://talk.baltimoresun.com/showpos...2&postcount=18

It did not occur to me just then that it had been posted earlier but that is irrelevant because my comments were different.


If you feel compelled to nitpick and look foolish, that's your problem.

BTW, the cretin in the video is a dishonest welfare cheat (30 free cell phones!!). That's not the fault of the telecom company.

Next.

Did someone say he/she wasn't a cheat? Did anyone object to your comments?