People are real fired up about this #ObamaPhone meme!
Conservatives are having a field day with the comments a woman made because she got an "Obama phone." She is going to vote for Obama and predicts Obama will do more. It illustrates for the conservatives the portion of the population that feed off the government largess at the taxpayers expense, and she shouts it loud and proud.
The liberal blogs are getting upset over the conservatives having a field day with the meme because there is no such thing as an Obama phone. They think the conservatives are stupid for perpetuation the meme.
There is no "Obama phone?" Technically it looks like there is not. The "Obama phone" has quite a history:
Communications Act of 1934. President Franklin Roosevelt[tAW]
The Lifeline program started in 1984. President Reagan[tAW]
The Lifeline program expanded in 1996. President Clinton[tAW]
SafeLink started in 2008. President George W. Bush[E][TP][FC]
The blogs debunking the Obama phone are calling the conservatives racist or stupid. Some are even claiming this is the "Bush Phone" according to the history cited above. They are trying to take a woman gloating about her government swag that will vote for Obama because of it and trying to turn it on the conservatives. Even twitter is trying to squash the meme by posting the Think Progress post about the meme at the top of the hash search for #ObamaPhone.
The conservatives' point is not that there is an "Obama Phone" but that this woman illustrates the awful 47% that can be bought off for her vote on government swag.
In the end, the liberals trying to make fun of conservatives over the Obama phone concept are really making fun of the Obama supporter whom thinks she has an Obama phone. And the conservatives are making fun of her for being proud of her government hand out.
However, do not worry about your tax dollars going to this program. It is funded by a charge on your phone bill called a "Federal Universal Service Charge." This charge is, of course, mandated by the government. So if you do not want to pay for these free phones you simply have to stop owning and paying for your own phone. As long as you pay for your phone, you are paying for hers.
Except for this past May, June, and July, no one has out raised Obama in campaign funds since 2007. For the three months Obama and the media cried about how much money Romney had and was going to outspend Obama. They tried to convince you that three months of good fund raising on Romney's part was stronger than years of Obama's fund raising.
Obama has AGAIN, not finally, out-raised Mitt Romney and the Republicans. Funding highs ebb and flow on both sides. However, if the Republicans out-raise the Democrats all you will hear from the press and Obama is how unfair it is that the election could be decided by money.
If Obama wins, and since he has more money, can we all claim it is unfair that he won? Or would that be racist?
Now that he is back on top he wants to stay there. He wants you to give him more money. And if he is reelected, what will he have the government do? Take more of your money. It is right here in a post from his campaign website; that is what he wants:
Senior strategist David Axelrod sent this message to supporters today:
Sheldon Adelson, the conservative billionaire Las Vegas casino owner, has pledged to give up to $100 million—whatever it takes—to defeat Barack Obama.
We know it's not out of love for Mitt Romney, so why part with so much money? As President Clinton reminded us last week, sometimes the answer is as simple as arithmetic.
So let's do the math: According to a new report from the Center for American Progress Action Fund, Adelson could see up to $2 billion in savings under Mitt Romney's tax plan versus the President's plan. That's how much Romney's policies would favor millionaires and billionaires.
If Mitt Romney wins—$2 billion more for him. If Barack Obama wins, millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share.
It's a highly cynical but straightforward calculation.
Today, you can help write a different equation.
Donate whatever you can today, and let's make sure this election is decided by millions of Americans, not a handful of billionaires.
Here's how it would work for Adelson in a Romney-Ryan administration:
Romney would keep in place the Bush tax cuts, and cut Adelson's income taxes by an additional 20%. Adelson savings: $1.5 million per year on income he earns as CEO.
Romney's plan eliminates taxes on foreign profits like the ones Adelson makes on his Asian casinos. Adelson savings: $1.2 billion.
Romney's plan maintains the current low tax rate on dividends. Adelson savings: $120 million per year.
Romney's plan removes the estate tax. Adelson heirs save: $8.9 billion.
I honestly can't think of a more straightforward contrast in this election.
We don't have Sheldon Adelson, and with all due respect, we don't want him.
We're relying on more than 3 million grassroots donors like you, who are giving an average of $58.
David
P.S.—With only 53 days left until Election Day, the money we raise right now is critical. Don't hesitate—chip in today.
If you read through that you can see that Axelrod does not think it is okay for someone to keep money they earn.
Axelrod does not like the fact that Romney would keep the Bush tax cuts in place. Although, by now, they are not tax cuts but status quo. Also, Obama keeps renewing the status quo. So if this is a mark against Romney then this is several marks against Obama for continually renewing it.
Axelrod does not like the fact that Romney would keep current tax rate on dividends. If it is the current tax rate then it is the Obama tax rate. So he must not like Obama either. Does he want to raise these rates and deter investing in companies? I thought "invest" was a key word of the Obama administration. Or is it investing only if the government gives companies money, not the people?
Axelrod does not like the fact that Romney wants to remove the estate tax. Axelrod thinks it is a good thing that when your parents pass away the government gets to take some of their savings before you get it. Do you want the government to take away your parents hard earned money that they already paid taxes on instead of you getting it so that Adelson's children don't get as much when he passes away?
This economy is not going to recover if the government keeps taking away your money. People need to buy things for the economy to flourish. If the government keeps taking away our money, then we can not buy things. Business shrivels. People get fired and then have no money.
