I just recieved a free welfare phone!! I am not happy.

Even if you felt like paying, the phones and related service honestly aren't that expensive. The funny thing is, the one company that provides one of the cheapest contract-free pre-paid plans with roll-over minutes in the U.S.($100 yearly air-time works out to having a phone for $8/mo. Not only cheaper than other cell phones, but also many local-rate land lines.) is also the one that is providing the phone service for these free welfare phones. (And it's not AT&T btw, even though minutes are a big thing in their ads.) And from my experience service hasn't been bad either. Often I could get through when another family member with a much more expensive contract-based phone couldn't.

I'm not going to name the cell phone company involved but if you feel that bad about the welfare phone, you could just go to Walmart or Target and look in their electronics aisle to find the prepaid equivalent. Walgreen's and CVS probably carries the brand too. Look at the prices on the minutes cards and small print, and I think you can figure it out from there. (Maybe the paranoid might not like the name though.) Then you can shell out $100 from your own wallet for a whole year + initial cost of the phone, instead of feeling guilty about the "free" ride. It works perfect for an emergency phone, and since minutes roll-over, if you have it for more than a year you can do a bit more talking if you want. (I'm not a yacker, so I have a ton of minutes.)

Now whether or not the gov't tax dollars work out to that same rate is another question. Are they milking it, or are they still giving a good deal for the service provided on the taxpayers money? (Also leaves me wondering if my inexpensive phone is being subsidized by these welfare service ones? But I had it for a few years before "welfare cellphones" were even around.)

I think it's all the people that need cell-phones that aren't just simply phones with contract based service plans that really getting gouged in stupid-crazy ways. Much of the infrastructure is in place already, and the real cost of maintaining it and running the services are fairly minimal. Bandwidth is ridiculously cheap.

Just to clear up the "i'm not doing anything wrong" thing that you keep insisting on, If you had applied for the phone yourself you may not be doing anything wrong however, from the sites t and c's

While participating in the SAFELINK Program, a customer shall not be permitted to sell, rent, give away or in any way allow another person to use the cellular phone or SAFELINK Service provided to him/her by SAFELINK WIRELESS. IT IS A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL AND STATE LAW TO SELL OR GIVE AWAY THE SAFELINK CELLULAR PHONE OR SAFELINK SERVICE PROVIDED TO YOU BY SAFELINK WIRELESS

Violation of federal law does not equal not doing anything wrong

reply to post by liejunkie01


I'm with you on this, I don't totally agree with this program either. The fact of the matter is that landlines, although inconvenient, are still a viable and very inexpensive way to communicate as well as the pay-as-you-go cell phones. It's hard to determine who is really "needy" in this situation and who is just taking advantage. It's not as if people need cell phones to survive. I'll point out the obvious that cell phones do not fall under the categories of food, clothing and shelter that are the necessities of life.

Who is really benefiting from this program? Certainly not the taxpayer. I'll put my money on the cell phone companies. They want their piece of the pie too, just like all the other companies that have convinced the government to waste taxpayer money so that they can line their coffers.

I also have personal experience with these free phones, via my aunt, who is a long-time welfare recipient, and who admittedly learned a long time ago how to "work the system." Government handouts do not foster responsibility, as evidenced by the bank bailouts (and my aunt). Government handouts just create what TPTB wanted a long time ago: A Welfare State.

Here's a little anecdotal story: A few months ago my grandparents both died in a car accident. While afterwards trying to go through all of their belongings my aunt lost her free cell phone in a bag of clothes destined for the thrift store. A few days later while my mother and I were at the house we heard something electronic (my aunt had a strange ring tone) coming from the area of the bags of clothes. Thinking it was just one of my grandfather's hand held games we ignored it. My aunt soon realized she lost the phone, and on another visit, when my mother told her where the phone was, she shrugged her shoulders and said that she'd just report it lost and get another one! It was that easy to do and she'd already done this once before. The phone was right there, in a bag pointed out by my mother, and my aunt just looked at it and shrugged her shoulders. So there's taxpayer money down the drain. Money that was used to refurbish the phone and pay people to distribute them. There was no way we were going to get the phone for her. We'd already done enough catering to her as it was, and we all thought it was ridiculous that she couldn't take a minute out of her lazy life to bend over and pick it up out of a bag. So the phone went with the bag to the thrift store and probably ended up in the hands of one of the employees.

My aunt keeps close to the same ilk. This is a story that could easily be repeated among her acquaintance.

Originally posted by davespanners
Just to clear up the "i'm not doing anything wrong" thing that you keep insisting on, If you had applied for the phone yourself you may not be doing anything wrong however, from the sites t and c's

While participating in the SAFELINK Program, a customer shall not be permitted to sell, rent, give away or in any way allow another person to use the cellular phone or SAFELINK Service provided to him/her by SAFELINK WIRELESS. IT IS A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL AND STATE LAW TO SELL OR GIVE AWAY THE SAFELINK CELLULAR PHONE OR SAFELINK SERVICE PROVIDED TO YOU BY SAFELINK WIRELESS

Violation of federal law does not equal not doing anything wrong

Thanks for the info dave.
Now all you have to do is proove tha her letting "me use" the phone for emergencies for my CHILDREN is the same as giving me the phone as stated in your little snipit. She did not technically give it to me.

You do not know why she signed up for the phone.

It did not say anything about the same household.

I see you already have some stars.. Good for you.

or in any way allow another person to use the cellular phone or SAFELINK SERVICEprovided to him/her by SAFELINK WIRELESS.

You using the service to make any calls at all is a crime im afraid

I don't have a problem with the elderly or disabled having one of these phones. What I do have a problem with is young, able bodied people having access to a free phone with free minutes. It's just wrong. When I was growing up, we simply did not have a phone. If we needed to reach someone, we walked to a pay phone. Even in winter. That's how it was on the reservation and it still is. No special treatment, not even if you're old. As is, our old ones there die from hypothermia every year in their homes due to not being able to afford to pay for heat. So yes it boils my blood to see people getting free phones of all things.

Personally I do not like being tethered to a phone. It makes me nervous and it feels unnatural. I don't like being connected 24/7. When I see people with those blue tooth head pieces literally glued to their ear, it freaks me out. How do people live that way, I do not know.

Originally posted by davespanners

or in any way allow another person to use the cellular phone or SAFELINK SERVICEprovided to him/her by SAFELINK WIRELESS.

You using the service to make any calls at all is a crime im afraid

I do not know about that. I have recieved two phone calls when I have the phone. Both were from my girlfriend about the welbeing of my children. She got the phone for emergencies. This is her definition of emergencies.

Here is a definition of emergency.

An emergency is a situation that poses an immediate risk to health, life, property or environment.[1] Most emergencies require urgent intervention to prevent a worsening of the situation, although in some situations, mitigation may not be possible and agencies may only be able to offer palliative care for the aftermath

en.wikipedia.org...

I think that the well being of my children as stated by the definition of emergency here is more than enough reason to let me use the phone when she is at work and I have the kids. I am not sporting this thing out on the street here.

Thank you for caring enough about my topic to make it seem like I am scamming the system.


EDIT: I already cleared it up that I am not giving the number to anyone. This is an emergency phone only. So I will not be using the phone to call anybody but her or the authorities for an actual emergency.

If you need me to repeat it again I can.

reply to post by liejunkie01



The only problem that you seem to have is that your to scared to confront your girlfriend and give the phone back to her, how you stretch that to saying "we have to do something about this" and start talking about the the budget deficit is beyond me, and then when people tell you to take the only direct action you can actually take i.e. give the phone back to the company you come up with a million reasons why you can't

YOU have to do something about it, not we as WE are not claiming a free phone you / your girlfriend are.

Your worried that people being given a free service is effecting the budget deficit, YOU are claiming that free service and refuse to stop. What is ATS supposed to do about that?

Originally posted by davespanners
reply to post by liejunkie01

 

The only problem that you seem to have is that your to scared to confront your girlfriend and give the phone back to her, how you stretch that to saying "we have to do something about this" and start talking about the the budget deficit is beyond me, and then when people tell you to take the only direct action you can actually take i.e. give the phone back to the company you come up with a million reasons why you can't

YOU have to do something about it, not we as WE are not claiming a free phone you / your girlfriend are.

Your worried that people being given a free service is effecting the budget deficit, YOU are claiming that free service and refuse to stop. What is ATS supposed to do about that?

edit on 18-2-2011 by davespanners because: spelling

I know what you are about my friend. I have been on ATS for a while now.

I brought my story to share. If you do not like my story, then please go to another thread and harrass them.

You did not have to read my thread. You did not have to reply.....

But you did.

Do not take this out on me. I have read countless threads that are not worth a darn here on ATS.

I think that you are a star junkie. I noticed that you waited until I signed off to post your info. You did not post this while I was on ATS for several hours last night.

I know what you are about my friend.

ATS does not revolve around Davespammers. It is a public domain.

Originally posted by pauljs75
The funny thing is, the one company that provides one of the cheapest contract-free pre-paid plans with roll-over minutes in the U.S.($100 yearly air-time works out to having a phone for $8/mo. Not only cheaper than other cell phones, but also many local-rate land lines.) is also the one that is providing the phone service for these free welfare phones...

Now whether or not the gov't tax dollars work out to that same rate is another question. Are they milking it, or are they still giving a good deal for the service provided on the taxpayers money?

Please! This is the government we're talking about here. You know, the same people who pay $500 for toilet seats?

reply to post by liejunkie01


Nearly 50 percent of my posts on here are made in the introductions forum welcoming new members, a place where you can't even be given stars and most of the rest of the time I am in the chat room.

You have posted about an issue "free welfare phones" people are either going to be against such phones and thus disagree with you for having one, or they are going to be for them and disagree with you for criticising the system in the first place. How do you expect people to agree with a thread criticising a system that you yourself are using without disagreeing with you on one level or another? It's a logical impossibility

I agree with regards this particular phone - if you don't want it, hand it back. If only those who genuinely want/need the phones claim them then the cost to the taxpayer will be lessened. Notwithstanding which, I also fail to see the point in the scheme to start with (unless ..... dur dur dur dur dur ...... the phones are intended to allow TPTB to keep track of the poor so they're easier to round up ...... )

Of course, such a scheme would never work in Britain where only the very richest people don't carry a mobile phone and poor simply means you still carry last month's model

I just called a local Illinois Welfare office, and I asked if one was on benefits, does the state give welfare beneficiaries a free cell phone with up to 250 monthly minutes, and she said she had never heard of such a program. She had never heard of Safelink either.

Safelink must do this on their own for welfare beneficiaries then, why would the welfare lady tell me this, and the OP claim otherwise? OP is claiming the government and taxes pay for this program.

Whats the real deal?

reply to post by RANDOMguess


PRICELESS! It's sad but true...

reply to post by AntiNWO


Government departments that don't spend all their cash don't get funding next year!

Quick - spend it my son, spend it - for the love of God, spend it! $500 for a toilet seat? Ahhhh. We still have jobs for another 12 months.

If you don't want that phone give it back to your girlfriend and stop whining about it. She can't force you to take it. Since it bothers you so much that the program exists, the best thing you can do about it is make enough money to provide phone service for yourself so that your girlfriend won't feel she has to give you a phone.


Also, that phone was issued to your girlfriend, not to you. She is the one who qualifies for the program. By using it you may be violating the terms of the program. You might consider turning yourself in as well as the phone.

reply to post by liejunkie01


Dave is exactly right. You brought this to the board's attention; what did you expect? You complain abou the program, yet you are reaping the benefits of it? How did you get a phone intended for welfare recipients, when you are working? What did you do for emergencies before you got this free phone? You cannot complain about the program, while using the program. Stand up to your girlfriend; tell her, "Honey, we don't need this phone. We are not on welfare. If you want a phone for emergencies, I will get a phone from Target that will cost us 100 bucks a year. We should not be taking something we do not need."

Easy peasy.

ETA: As Dave said, you cannot seem to see a reason for welfare recipients to need these phones, yet you can find reasons for yourself, not a welfare recipient, to have the phone.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
I just called a local Illinois Welfare office, and I asked if one was on benefits, does the state give welfare beneficiaries a free cell phone with up to 250 monthly minutes, and she said she had never heard of such a program. She had never heard of Safelink either.

Safelink must do this on their own for welfare beneficiaries then, why would the welfare lady tell me this, and the OP claim otherwise? OP is claiming the government and taxes pay for this program.

Whats the real deal?

I thought that it was stated earlier in the post that tax payer money is not directly funding this program. I thought that I already cleared this up. I did acknowledge this issue in an earlier post. My girl friend has the phone and she recieved it. Take it for what it is worth.

I will remember all of the negativity the next time I wish to share a story of mine.

I admit that I should have picked a better headline for my topic.

And you wonder why people hoax this site so much.

Thank you all for your remarks.

I will repeat....This is why people hoax so much...You people are heartless.

This will be my final reply or post on my thread.


EDIT: I am tired of defending myself for statements that have already been stated. If people would take the time to actually read all of the posts on threads, this could be avoided.

I don't think hbt was trying to be mean... but the phone my ex had was not through welfare... because he didn't get welfare. He got ssi and food stamps.

This article is pretty informative...
www.masslive.com...
... apparently not only they get called welfare phone also obama phones.
I'm pretty sure they were around before obama got in office.

It says the are government supported, not government funded. Maybe the gov helps them get the phones through charity. They are based in miami and I think here is where the confusion is... when you apply for certain benefits, government agencies will sometimes introduce you to or suggest to you a program especially one that will help you get a utility... perhaps as a courtesy for both the payee and the company itself... since it is "government supported"....but that doesn't mean they have anything to do with how safelink is run.

This is probably just where a lot of phones get sent. Computers often get sent to largo florida but I'm not sure if they strip them for resources or send them to mexico for charity or something.

I am not being negative. You just don't like my questions and concerns. I have not attacked you. I and the others you are wrongly accusing of negativity are participating in a public forum on a public thread. Sorry you have to resort to name calling because that is sometimes a sign of weakness of position.