It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The idea of providing low-income individuals with subsidized phone service was originated in the Reagan administration following the break-up of AT&T in 1984. (It was expanded and formalized by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.) The program is paid for by telecommunications companies through an independent non-profit, not through tax revenue.
The president has no direct impact on the program, and one could hardly call these devices "Obama Phones," as the e-mail author does. This specific program, SafeLink, started under President George Bush, with grants from an independent company created under President Bill Clinton, which was a legacy of an act passed under President Franklin Roosevelt, which was influenced by an agreement reached between telecommunications companies and the administration of President Woodrow Wilson.
Originally posted by scorpiosin
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by kawika
You can afford internet access?
You don't need any free stuff.
26" chrome wheels cost more than internet access yet I see those cars outside our welfare offices all too often.
I LOVE the parents of today. Listener Mark sent me this email about what he and his wife tried to teach his children this Halloween. I LOVE it.
Wanted to let you guys know that my wife and I took last night teach our kids about redistribution wealth and their beloved teachers and public servants.
After our kids spent two hours running house to house in search of treats, they came home exhausted. Upon entering the house, we had them (3 boys, 1 girl) dump their respective candy onto the floor for inspection by the TSA (The Sugar Authority).
The TSA removed all the forbidden “in home” items (too long a list to include here, but essentially everything my Wife doesn’t like, totally arbitrary and without reason). They were then patted down to insure they hadn’t hidden any of the forbidden items in their costumes.
The piles were then evaluated for equality by the IRS (Illogical Resource Stabilization). The IRS discovered that the daughter had considerably less than the boys (she only worked for 1 hour and came home to watch TV) and the oldest son had the most. So the IRS took “a lot” from the oldest, “some” from the middle, and gave it to the daughter. This resulted in cries of “unfair” and “I worked for this” from the boys and a big smile (and hug of Thanks from the daughter).
After about 10 minutes of complaining the IRS official stated if they didn’t like it, The IRS would take all their candy and ground them for a month. They grumbled as they put what was left of their hard work back into their bags. The IRS official told them to stop, we weren’t finished yet. You see, you guys didn’t build this (Halloween), so we have to give some candy to the builders. Silence and wide stares filled the room.
In came the CTA (Candy Taking Aholes), SIEU (Sugar Ingesting, Exceedingly Underachievers) and host of other “builders”. The IRS official instructed the boys to put half their candy into their bag and give the rest to the IRS. As they did this they asked (quite loudly I might add) why their sister wasn’t doing the same. The IRS official stated that since she had less to begin with, she could keep what she has (for her self esteem). Additionally it was added, that since they worked so hard to get their candy, it was their responsibility to give some to those who chose not to work and they should feel lucky to do so. Again, because they didn’t build it.
My oldest son (12 years old) stated that if this is how it works, he’s staying home next year and watching TV. The other boys (aged 6 and 9) agreed. My daughter (11 years old) asked quizzically. “If we all stay home, who’s going to get the candy for the builders and me?”.
End of the Halloween Dream