• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Free cell phones for welfare recipents?

The earliest I knew about this was back in 2005ish. It was at that time entirely funded by taxpayers dollars. I was rather perturbed to see the service now being advertised on TV. Eventually a TV will become "essential" because without it how are people going to find out about programs like free cellphones n stuff.
 
I'm not reading through all this, but in this day and age, a cell phone is an essential. Don't use your "age" as an excuse, because the argument can be used by everyone that ever lived.

"Electricity isn't an essential. A telephone isn't an essential. Medicine isn't an essential." Not to mention, it isn't much of an argument to begin with. Times are always changing. People thought computers would never be used on a big scale by the public. Look at it now.

It's just your definition of "cell phone" that distorts the reality a bit. Remember, a cell phone can still be a free flip phone from VZW and not the $199 you may have paid (on contract, $700+ off contract). A cell phone plan is not necessarily a 900 minute plan with unlimited data and text worth $100+. It can be a $30 plan for a family of four.

Let's the the most recent event, the tornadoes in Western Alabama (as well as other places around the country). Who got hit? A buncha college kids in Tuscalooser, and the poor parts of Birmingham. So imagine if they didn't have their cell phones to contact family and friends? Hell, even the pictures and video were valuable. You don't need a Thunderbolt with 4G to do all this; this can be done with a cheap, feature phone.

There are, however, cases where I see people pumping $5 of gas and paying in change while they're talking to someone on their iPhone 4 (complete with leather case and Bluetooth headset) that I feel that there's some "cheating" going on in regards to the system. But what can you do? I see nothing wrong in handing (legitimate) recipients the phone and not the money, or the choice, to buy whatever they see fit. Of course they'll choose a smartphone with data and a $100+ monthly bill(which they aren't paying for). Who wouldn't?
 
Sorry a cellphone isnt needed to live a normal life. Its a luxury plain and simple. I remember when people said they couldnt live without a beeper. Where are they now? Do I really need a cellphone to survive? No I dont. just like I dont need a tv, internet, all those items are luxuries. So a person thats on state assistance dont need a cellphone provided for them. They need to call 911? They can do it from a lan line that is dead. Its law that states you cant deny anyone access to 911. So any dead line with a phone attached can call 911.
 
coonster said:
Let's the the most recent event, the tornadoes in Western Alabama (as well as other places around the country). Who got hit? A buncha college kids in Tuscalooser, and the poor parts of Birmingham. So imagine if they didn't have their cell phones to contact family and friends? Hell, even the pictures and video were valuable. You don't need a Thunderbolt with 4G to do all this; this can be done with a cheap, feature phone.
Click to expand...

You can go to the Red Cross and use their phones. You can go to the police station and ask to use their phone to contact your relatives. You can place a collect call from a pay phone. The path of the tornado showed a small line of destruction the tornado followed. If you go a few blocks outside the direct path of the tornado there's still houses in tact other than a few shattered windows. The entire town was not whiped out.

Also, what does having poor have to do with getting hit by a tornado or any natural disaster? If they're rich suddenly it's no big deal? Rich or poor, if someone dies they're gone forever regardless of money.

While the tornado wasn't a city destroying disaster, if the disaster is big enough the cell phone towers are going to be whiped out along with the land line. Having a cell phone vs land line is not going to make a difference in a natural disaster where everything is whiped out.

Even then, how often do natural disasters happen? How many welfare cell phone recipients will there be that never encounter a natural disaster? 99% of them.
 
Dark Jedi said:
Sorry a cellphone isnt needed to live a normal life. Its a luxury plain and simple. I remember when people said they couldnt live without a beeper. Where are they now? Do I really need a cellphone to survive? No I dont. just like I dont need a tv, internet, all those items are luxuries. So a person thats on state assistance dont need a cellphone provided for them. They need to call 911? They can do it from a lan line that is dead. Its law that states you cant deny anyone access to 911. So any dead line with a phone attached can call 911.
Click to expand...

Before you say that, try to live my life sans a cellphone:D. I know what you are saying and it is true. For the vast majority, a cellphone is not needed.
 
ParishL31 said:
You can go to the Red Cross and use their phones. You can go to the police station and ask to use their phone to contact your relatives. You can place a collect call from a pay phone. The path of the tornado showed a small line of destruction the tornado followed. If you go a few blocks outside the direct path of the tornado there's still houses in tact other than a few shattered windows. The entire town was not whiped out.

Also, what does having poor have to do with getting hit by a tornado or any natural disaster? If they're rich suddenly it's no big deal? Rich or poor, if someone dies they're gone forever regardless of money.

While the tornado wasn't a city destroying disaster, if the disaster is big enough the cell phone towers are going to be whiped out along with the land line. Having a cell phone vs land line is not going to make a difference in a natural disaster where everything is whiped out.

Even then, how often do natural disasters happen? How many welfare cell phone recipients will there be that never encounter a natural disaster? 99% of them.
Click to expand...

How often do tornadoes, hurricanes, and just general disasters happen? It's such a silly question, you can go look up the answer.

I went to Birmingham. The wealthy live in the hills. There was minimal damage there. It was the poor parts of the city, where no wealthy person lives. What are you getting at by asking what social class has to do with it? God doesn't hate poor people or love the wealthy, but the unpredictable nature of natural disasters happened to hit the poorer part of town.

Where are you getting your images of the town? The ****ing TV? Use the Red Cross's phone? You mean when they're in town days after the disaster? Have you seen footage other than that shown on TWC? You really think, with the mass looting going on, a gas station or a business will just open the door when you knock? Pay phones...good one. A tornado a mile wide will spare a pay phone but will drive trees through houses.

Just so you know, 180,000 residents were without power. How did I know? Because I was able to text a friend and find out. Landlines? What is this, the 90s? Go look up a statistic on residential households that use cell phones vs. landlines.

It's easy to sit on the sidelines and dictate from a high chair what people "should" do in times of desperation. With your logic, surgery should be done without an anesthetic and if you get your wisdom teeth pulled, tough shit, no vicodin for you. Because you don't need to be pain-free to survive. Sure, some people die due to pain, but how often does THAT happen?
 
coonster said:
How often do tornadoes, hurricanes, and just general disasters happen? It's such a silly question, you can go look up the answer.

I went to Birmingham. The wealthy live in the hills. There was minimal damage there. It was the poor parts of the city, where no wealthy person lives. What are you getting at by asking what social class has to do with it? God doesn't hate poor people or love the wealthy, but the unpredictable nature of natural disasters happened to hit the poorer part of town.

Where are you getting your images of the town? The ****ing TV? Use the Red Cross's phone? You mean when they're in town days after the disaster? Have you seen footage other than that shown on TWC? You really think, with the mass looting going on, a gas station or a business will just open the door when you knock? Pay phones...good one. A tornado a mile wide will spare a pay phone but will drive trees through houses.

Just so you know, 180,000 residents were without power. How did I know? Because I was able to text a friend and find out. Landlines? What is this, the 90s? Go look up a statistic on residential households that use cell phones vs. landlines.
Click to expand...
The point is people on welfare dont need free cell phones. If they want to pay out of their pockets just like us? Thats fine but dont use one disaster as a reason for them to have the free cells. Hell most of your poor lives close to their other family members. Plus what did these people do before the invention of the cell phone when a disaster hit.

Landlines you laugh at it but I will say over 90% of all houses has them installed and all you need is a phone hooked up to it to dial 911. 90's or not still viable to use to make calls.


It's easy to sit on the sidelines and dictate from a high chair what people "should" do in times of desperation. With your logic, surgery should be done without an anesthetic and if you get your wisdom teeth pulled, tough shit, no vicodin for you. Because you don't need to be pain-free to survive. Sure, some people die due to pain, but how often does THAT happen?
Click to expand...
Come on how does this have anything to do with the poor not needing cellphones? When I pay for dental work I pay for the pain killers. Compare apples to apples and not apples to oranges.

THe end point welfare people dont need free cellphones. They have no need for a cell phone. When a landline can be used much cheaper.

Oh and your tornado scenario? What if the tornado wiped out all cell coverage in an area? Cellphone not of much use now is it?

I think you need to chill before you blow a head gasket.
 
http://cs11456.vkontakte.ru/u7482633/117274886/z_8a21eb74.jpg

There's a clear line of destruction that tornado put. The whole city is NOT like that. I even saw on the news about an interview about a man that was across the street buying groceries at the store. His life was saved because he was like 100 yards away from where his apartment was. His apartment was torn to shreds, the store he was in is completely in tact aside from some broken windows.

And my point still stands. What does them being poor have to do with anything about a tornado strike? You said yourself, it just so happened in this case the poor side of town got hit. Say it did hit the hills where the rich people lived. All of a sudden no big deal because they're rich? I'm just curious why you made "poor" bold.

And as your argument on the landlines is flawed in your own information you provided. So 180,000 people were out of power? Their cells would die out in a few days and they'd be left stranded with no phone with no electricity. Or they were given a landline in the first place and they'd still have a functioning phone.

You also didn't read my point about the chances of a natural disaster. Yes they happen quite often. What's the chance that you or I will be caught in one? Very low. It's also very low for anyone to be caught in one. The argument that they need a cell phone in case of a natural disaster doesn't work when a majority of people will never even be in one.

You're comparing surgery to a cell phone? There's an alternative to a cell phone, a landline. There's no alternative to life saving surgery. Not a good comparison.

And yes it is the 2000s. Not the 90s. How dare some people still use basic technologies! Pay phones, they still exist people just don't notice them anymore. Yes, I'm glad you were able to contact your friend immidately through texting, but you and your friend pay for your cell phone service not the government. Someone without a cell phone would be inconvinenced into having to find a phone, but eventually would be able to get into contact. Saving them an hour or two is not justification for a cell phone being a necessity.

Yes there are many luxuries I enjoy. I'm not saying no one can have luxuries. I'm saying they are luxuries though. Luxuries you pay for, not get handed to for free. A phone is a necessity. A cell phone is a luxury.
 
Just to play devil's advocate, does anyone have a cost comparison of a basic landline and a basic cell line (when talking about the amount of tex payer's money that goes into it)? I see plenty of people justifying (and IMO rightfully so) providing a landline for things like contacting a potential employer.

Before I get eaten alive, I am implying nothing here (that is to say, I can't say whether one is cheaper than or equal to the other). My gut tells me the landline would be cheaper, but that is going off of absolutely ZERO evidence and 100% assumption on my part.

EDIT: I don't have much time for browsing, but a quick search came up with THIS. Please note it is a UK based article, and it speaks of personal choices in deciding between going with a landline or cell line (and nothing about government provided options), but it is a decent cost comparison, at least for the UK.
 
I totally get where you're coming from. The problem with getting someone only whatever amount of minutes it be, there will undoubtedly be problems around that.

Is it enough? Is it too much? What if they waste their minutes? What if they actually are trying to get a job and just have a bunch of phone interviews and ran out of minutes? Are they allowed to add more minutes on their own if they need? (If they're adding more minutes with their own money, they clearly don't need help to begin with in that area)

I guess it's just my personal opinion just give them a free landline that's unlimited local and they have no excuse of running out of minutes and all that hassle with a prepaid. Also with a landline there is much less likely a chance someone will lose their landline, have it stolen, or break it. The typical problems that come up with any cell phone.

The $39.99 is also a 500 minutes plan for T-Mobile not unlimted, but as you have said the pre-paid ones are cheaper than going contract route.

However, as you said. If there is the option that arises that creates it having cell phones being the cheapest route, then go for it. Will I be angry that they get cell phones? Absolutely. But money runs many things and usually the cheapest way is the option chosen and I understand and agree with that argument.
 
I guess what I don't undertsand is if a mobile phone can literally be cheaper, why does anyone care that they are getting mobile phones over the more expensive landline option?

I'd personally say that 200 minutes is more than ample for looking for a job monthly. If used up, well, it was provided for free after all. I feel an unlimited line has.more potential for abuse anyway. JMO of course
 
I guess it's just my feelings about how people should only get what they earn. However, I'm all for helping out someone who got put in a crappy situation. But we all know there's the people who abuse the system, and will no doubt abuse this phone system too.

The big thing that jumps out to me is the price it costs for a basic landline or the prepaid cells we were discussing. The prices were much cheaper than I expected. The landline costs $20 and if that prepaid option is even cheaper, it's under $20. $20 is such a small amount of money that you should be forced to get it on your own.

Again with the exception of the good and responsible people I'd be all for giving them a month or two of service to get back on their feet. However, for the rest I feel that small amount of money they can easily come up with with a few budget changes. Skip fast food a couple times and you've got it. Drink water instead of soda or juice for a week and there's your $20. It's not that much. For $20, if you can't come up with your spending habits I'm going to credit it to being irresponsible for 99% of the time.

Just the whole idea of when does the government finally say no? When do they finally let people being irresponsible fail (again not including those who really do need it). $20 seems a cutoff to me.
 
I largely agree with you, but let's think of a couple things.

You mentioned being "forced to get it on your own". A lot of people that are in a situation where they are receiving handouts don't have the credit to even get something like this set up. I suppose they could still walk in any place and grab a pay as you go, but if people are going to get ANY handouts, where do you draw the line? Clipping coupons and going to stores when there are sales and stocking up, I can say that I easily live off of $20-$25 of food a week (poor college student lol). So then we can also argue to remove a weeks worth of handouts, since they "should" be able to pay for them as well.

Don't get me wrong, the main reason I brought any of this up is because people were saying how phones are a necessity, but CELL phones are a luxury (and I completely agree). But when the prices are the same (or cheaper to get a cell) I don't think it's fair for people to still be calling the mobile phone a luxury.

Another thing to think of is wellfare (is designed) for disabled people, young single parents, etc. Let's look at a disabled person. This person is legitimately NEVER going to find a job to pay the bills (depending on disability) - and before anyone throws out the "go work as a greeter at wall-mart" BS (to be clear this statement wasn;t directed at anyone in particular), $7.25 an hour isn't going to pay your bills. For a situation like this, I personally am not against providing phone lines for these people.

I still think that we need to be looking less at handouts, and more at the people who ABUSE these programs. If we didn't have program abuse, I don't think as many people would be up in arms about these things (we do have 2-3 wellfare threads that are active here, after all).

JMO, as always :)
 
lordofthereef said:
Don't get me wrong, the main reason I brought any of this up is because people were saying how phones are a necessity, but CELL phones are a luxury (and I completely agree). But when the prices are the same (or cheaper to get a cell) I don't think it's fair for people to still be calling the mobile phone a luxury.
Click to expand...


Sorry a cell phone will always be a luxury. I have a friend that is not the most well off in money. When we all got laid off from our work. He had no phone but when he was looking for a job he put my phone number down as a way to contact him. So see there is always means for welfare people to have job opportunity to get in contact with them. So It is fair to call it a luxury.
 
Dark Jedi said:
Sorry a cell phone will always be a luxury. I have a friend that is not the most well off in money. When we all got laid off from our work. He had no phone but when he was looking for a job he put my phone number down as a way to contact him. So see there is always means for welfare people to have job opportunity to get in contact with them. So It is fair to call it a luxury.
Click to expand...

You are missing my point. If a land line costs MORE than a mobile line for the government to provide, I can easily see why the government would rather go the cheaper route and just provide a mobile line.

Regardless of whether you are I regard a cell phone as a luxury, if fewer tax dollars can be spent providing a service that the government is providing anyway, we should be all for it.

It's a pretty poor argument for anyone to make (and I am not saying you are making this) that we should provide land lines even though they are more expensive than a basic mobile line because mobile lines are a luxury and we cannot be handing that out.

FWIW, I am sorry for your friend, but that isn't at all what this discussion is about. It's about providing phone service to wellfare recipients.
 
lordofthereef said:
You are missing my point. If a land line costs MORE than a mobile line for the government to provide, I can easily see why the government would rather go the cheaper route and just provide a mobile line.

Regardless of whether you are I regard a cell phone as a luxury, if fewer tax dollars can be spent providing a service that the government is providing anyway, we should be all for it.

It's a pretty poor argument for anyone to make (and I am not saying you are making this) that we should provide land lines even though they are more expensive than a basic mobile line because mobile lines are a luxury and we cannot be handing that out.

FWIW, I am sorry for your friend, but that isn't at all what this discussion is about. It's about providing phone service to wellfare recipients.
Click to expand...
How about no phone period? Landline or cellphone. You dont need phone service to dial 911 on a landline. THey dont need a phone to talk with others what they spent their welfare check on. All you need is a phone plugged in to the phone jack and then when you need 911. you pick it up and press 911 and they will answer. Simple isnt it? Cheaper too right? I have not been in a house that didnt have at least one phone jack.
 
Dark Jedi said:
How about no phone period? Landline or cellphone. You dont need phone service to dial 911 on a landline. THey dont need a phone to talk with others what they spent their welfare check on. All you need is a phone plugged in to the phone jack and then when you need 911. you pick it up and press 911 and they will answer. Simple isnt it? Cheaper too right? I have not been in a house that didnt have at least one phone jack.
Click to expand...

I think you are right on the nose with this. Again, not here to argue whether we should hand out phone service or not. I simply aim to point out that if people are OK with landlines being handed out, they should be equally ok if instead of a landline, a mobile line is handed out at less than or equal tax payer cost.
 
I thought I would add that I do like the idea of NOT providing any phone service (minus 911 service, however that is standard for EVERYONE anyway).

The BEST argument FOR providing a phone is to help those looking for a job. Ten years ago, I could see this as a viable reason. TODAY, however, we have things like google voice, which is absolutely free to anyone. All they have to do is go to a public library (or anywhere internet access is provided), sign up, and are then given free voice mail and a real number. This number can be given to any prospective employer, and the employer can be told that they will need to leave a message. Simple as that.

So, do we NEED to be handing out phones (be it land or mobile)? I don't know. Can anyone come up with any other valid reasons that can't be "debunked" with a Google voice service?
 
batgeek said:
but why pay anything when you can get it for free?
Click to expand...

If these people are just looking for a handout, I have pity on them for not having a phone. There are economical options out there to get a cell phone. What's next? Is iPhone or an Android phone going to be an essential because you can surf the web and download apps that might help you find a job?
 
lordofthereef said:
I thought I would add that I do like the idea of NOT providing any phone service (minus 911 service, however that is standard for EVERYONE anyway).

The BEST argument FOR providing a phone is to help those looking for a job. Ten years ago, I could see this as a viable reason. TODAY, however, we have things like google voice, which is absolutely free to anyone. All they have to do is go to a public library (or anywhere internet access is provided), sign up, and are then given free voice mail and a real number. This number can be given to any prospective employer, and the employer can be told that they will need to leave a message. Simple as that.

So, do we NEED to be handing out phones (be it land or mobile)? I don't know. Can anyone come up with any other valid reasons that can't be "debunked" with a Google voice service?
Click to expand...
real simple why should I pay for something for them when I cant get it myself. Why should taxpayers have to pay for these programs and not be able to enjoy them?

TODAY, however, we have things like google voice, which is absolutely free to anyone. All they have to do is go to a public library (or anywhere internet access is provided), sign up, and are then given free voice mail and a real number. This number can be given to any prospective employer, and the employer can be told that they will need to leave a message. Simple as that.
Click to expand...
This is a very good idea. It would cost the taxpayer nothing and they dont have a phone to use on my dime.

But seriously do you think most of the welfare participants are going to look for a job in the first place?:rolleyes:
 
Dark Jedi said:
real simple why should I pay for something for them when I cant get it myself. Why should taxpayers have to pay for these programs and not be able to enjoy them?
Click to expand...
Well if you lost your job (or whatever the criteria are) you could avail of the scheme

Dark Jedi said:
But seriously do you think most of the welfare participants are going to look for a job in the first place?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


I'm not sure the economy is good enough to re-employ the millions who lost their jobs

In Ireland we have a generous welfare system yet there are a huge quantity of people doing unpaid work and training ... maybe Irish people like their luxuries more
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom