The Journal Times Online - Racine, Wisconsin

Posted by: ButtonBoy on October 29, 2009 1:33PM CST This is old news, unfortunately.

Posted by: StormyKnight on October 29, 2009 2:17PM CST Well, they need something to go with their Obama homes and Obama money. They'll be stylin' now! Bling, bling ka-ching. Glad I have to try to keep my own head above water so these idiots "get theirs". Let's face it- it's looking less and less like America and more and more like a candy store with free handouts. Every day will be trick or treat!

Posted by: mortimer on October 29, 2009 3:26PM CST Heard about this a while back. How about those constant commercials for the Chia Obama ( air on TBS I think )...Gimme a break.

Posted by: MC on October 29, 2009 3:33PM CST Sorry folks - didn't realize this was "old news". It was new news to me. I liked Rush's name today for the pending UHC bill -"The Moving On DOWN Bill"! If you don't get it - think "The Jefferson's".

Posted by: Sassa on October 29, 2009 5:52PM CST Hey guys....I am a poor old lady and it was nice to get one of those phone. Thank you. If I am ever in an emergency I can call you. (When I learn how to use it). Also I am going to apply for fuel assistance in November. Again I say Thank you. Don't pick on the people it helps.

Posted by: Edge Distance on October 29, 2009 9:42PM CST Sassa, I'm glad you have one, you should learn to use it right away. It could really help you out in an emergency. MC, I read about this awhile ago. It will help many, but some will take advantage.

Posted by: Huck Finn on October 30, 2009 1:56AM CST Does this bother you as much or more than the bail outs of all forms?

Posted by: MC on October 30, 2009 12:40PM CST Every Obama give-a-way has it's talking points. The only common thread is - it is all taxpayer money.

Posted by: DobberDeeDee on October 30, 2009 1:11PM CST The phone thing and the fuel assistance thing and any "welfare" thing are OK to a certain point. The problem is, that they just keep on ADDING stuff, and they never take anything away. If there were a certain sum of money to be used and they decided to buy people cell phones INSTEAD of using that money for something else, then this might be a good idea. But I see a phone service advertised on TV for $19.95 a year. Who can't afford THAT?

Posted by: Sassa on October 30, 2009 2:51PM CST The phone co. has been taking that tax for quite a while now so it isn't like they are spending 'new' money. BTW I also received a home phone from my ear testing doctor provided by that tax. Isn't it nice to hear someone getting something who needs it?

Posted by: MC on October 30, 2009 2:55PM CST When you take from Peter and give it to Paul - you will always have Paul's vote.

Posted by: algernon on October 30, 2009 3:17PM CST MC, I like that!

Posted by: Sassa on October 30, 2009 6:27PM CST So, I'm Paul and you guys are Peter? Shame on you. I am 70 years old and poor. Do you all think this is a joke? I've worked for 54 years and Paid my share of phone bills (including THAT tax). Finally I get something and everyone is all over me for it. Again....shame on you.

Posted by: philosopher on October 30, 2009 10:00PM CST Sassa - how poor are you, really? You seem to afford a computer and the subscription to an ISP. How really necessary are cell phones? They have been around for only a couple of decades, from the poorest to the richest no one had them before that. They are a convenience, but the Government is under no obligation to see all people have conveniences.

Posted by: Sassa on October 31, 2009 9:46AM CST I did not have a cell phone, I didn't want one and I don't like them. BUT I live alone and do not have one of those life line clickers to call for help if I fall down. My children do not visit EVERY day. My son told me about this and almost insisted I get it. So how long will it take for help to arrive if I fall down or have a heart attack. What do I do if a stranger comes up to my car and 'asks for directions'. I do not use this cell for phone calls. It is IMOP just a lifeline for help. I have other means for protection but they are (almost) illegal. And the myth of being poor and having things is stupid. I got these things when I had more $$ than I could spend. I do get a discount on my cable bill because I am poor. I drive a fairly decent car because that is a necessity not a convenience. You wouldn't believe all the things available if you just tell someone you are poor. I didn't give up living, I just made it more convenient. Thank you. Now to get back to learning how to use it. PS it is not a brand new one..It is refurbished and no longer sold in the stores so I had to download (thanks for the computer) the directions.

Posted by: Leighton on November 1, 2009 1:24PM CST Sassa, am I wrong or do you not recieve monthly Social Security checks, as people do at 62yrs. or 65yrs of age. I know many singles who have SS as their only income. And they manage, and have managed for many years. They count every expenditure of course, and they often do without extra's. A few of them even put away enough to go to bingo, or for what ever they may enjoy doing, but just not all the time. I guess it's how they interpret 'wants' and 'needs'. While I don't mean to critisize you, and don't know your financial needs, I do wonder how some can manage and others can't. BTW - I've yet to hear any of them say that they 'give up living', because they don't have much money or material possesions. They socialize by playing cards, reading (books from the library) helping friends who are unable to do some things for themselves, watching tv. They seem to really enjoy their retirement, being productive even as seniors. Best of all, they are happy people, don't complain, and are pleasant to be around.

Posted by: philosopher on November 5, 2009 9:17AM CST Yours is a good post, Leighton. It happened to touch on a subject that has bugged me mercilessly for a long time, and I seize the opportunity to expound upon it. When FDR conceived and promulgated Social Security, he had seen that many working people saved only enough for retirement to permit a hardscrabble existence; Social Security was aimed at SUPPLEMENTING what they would have saved for retirement. But thinking on the subject has morphed into the idea that SS alone should provide an adequate income for a decent standard of living, and many of the population long ago decided there was no need to save for retirement, and they don't. And then there comes all the screaming about how they can't live on their Social Security income. It wasn't intended that they should.

Posted by: Leighton on November 5, 2009 1:38PM CST Thank you Philosopher I never knew that.