I am pretty much the same way you are (but still have a mortgage - but not a big one).  There were many lean years where I basically did without because of no money.  Except for when I was laid off once, my bills came before my "fun" money.  Always did!

But I have seen a change - and not always with the younger folks.  My sister is on hard times (getting by, but some debts in collection which she is working to pay off).  Yet what does she have?  A season pass to a water park!  Can't do without that fun, right?  A work acquaintance (several years younger) is going through a divorce.  3 boys under 10.  But even though he has to support 2 households now (his soon to be ex does not work), he still has to have that night out!

I am afraid that the era of sacrifice and working for what you have is gone.  My sister and I are the same age, same parents, same upbringing (poor to lower middle class).  Yet while she is not running out on her debts, she does not feel they should interfere with her fun.  Same with the young divorcee.

The Obama Cell Phone is just the latest in entitlements.  It is stupid and not necessary, but then they think it is owed them.  Because an accident of birth.  Theirs.

your sister has been influenced by this new age.  I can't go out and buy needless stuff if I had outstanding debts.  It goes against common sense, responsibility and good ethics. 

I see it all the time... the manicures, the pedicures and expensive hair salons one day and complaining they have no money for essentials the next. 

A friend of mine just helped a lady (an older woman) by buying her something she couldn't afford until the beginning of the next month when she was promised to pay her back. It was a want, not a need.   So my good hearted friend bought the item but has not received the cash two months later.  She asked me if she should bring up the subject or drop it. 

When my friend rationalized the whole thing away...she doesn't have much money...I feel bad for her...etc  I reminded her that this lady goes out to eat very frequently at least twice a week.  One place was a country club with a cover charge just to get in the door. 

My friend had been had!  Just like we've been had with these cell phones only we don't seem to have a choice do we? 

It has been my experience that a good life is not possible without those trials and tribulations because those are the events that build real character in some and something else in the others. I wish I knew what that other something was. I guess it is just that the ‘times’ they are a changing. But then I think … what do the times have to do with paying your own bills and supporting yourself and your family? I don't really care what else you do with yourself or your money after these obligations are met.

I have two deceased boys, a daughter that is totally State dependent of her own volition, a son that knew it all and quit school in the tenth grade (trying to make a come around now) and the middle daughter who is doing well enough on her own, hard times considered. If I had even thought too loudly of quitting school my Father would have convinced me of my error, one way or another. In other words, that option was not on the table for me.

The youth of today have an overabundance of ‘easy ways outs’ that never existed 30 or 40 years ago. Back then, there were only hard way outs. And it seems that the children of today are just getting older, but not growing up.

The problem is some of the old timers are availing themselves of those ways today as well.  I agree, 30-40 years ago, it was not that way, but then my sister is my age and we were adults 30 years ago.

yes, exactly.  The same sun that melts wax, hardens clay.  (From a Christian POV I just remove "sun" and put "son."  )

me either.  If I even dared to quit school I would have been out on my butt.  My youngest when he was 17 threatened in anger that he was going to quite school when he turned 18 which happened to be September of his senior year.   I told him fine, but you're not living here.  Quit if you want, but make sure you have a job and a place to live.  I didn't get all teary eyed and panic stricken.  I played his bluff. 

Not only did he finish HS but he florished in college and is doing great today. 

exactly.  Age 26 is like the old 18 of yesterday.  Part of Obama's health care is to provide for these children well into their 20's on their parent's insurance when before it was you went without insurance unless you had a job. 

So you demonize the stereotypical welfare recipient who I'm pretty sure  never lobbied for or expected a free cell phone in the first place.  Maybe you ought to demonize the person in congress instead who wrote this into the bill, who took money from the corporations and threw them a bone by giving them the contracts that provide the cellphone and telecom services for this particular part of the bill. So really now whos taking your tax dollars? Is it the welfare recipient, the dirtbag politician, the lobbyist, the cellphone manufacturer and retailer, the telecom service provider, or a combination of the above?

You would be "pretty sure" to be wrong too.

No, she is demonizing the program, and those that think they are "entitled" to it.  If you think you are "entitled" to OPM, then yes, you are being demonized as what you are.  A leech.

correction - took money from tax payers.  Corporations do not pay taxes, people do.  Look at your cell phone bill next time you get it (unless you are on this program in which case I can start out slower with Bill 101).

That question is rhetorical, right?  As in no one is stupid enough to think corporations have the power to tax.  And no one is stupid enough to think that corporations can force you to give them money for nothing.  Only the government can.

The first one leeches off of society, the second one sucks the blood of society, and the rest are merely providing services.  Which cost money.  No, trying to shove this back on the telecom companies is like blaming a host for having leeches such the blood.  Believe it or not, it does cost money to set up cell phone service.  So companies charge for it (did you know that if they gave it away for free they would be breaking a law?).  Please do your research instead of just spouting talking points.  You might stop before you write something stupid.

well said Doc.  I am going after the whole program.  It's just plain stupid and lacks common sense.  I don't care who is behind it or pushing it.  It's just another avenue we're going down to destroy this country with more debt. 

The bottom line is I, the taxpayer, am providing others with cellphones free of charge.  It angers me because we considered it a luxury ourselves and didn't even have one five years ago.  The difference between us and the welfare recipient is that we earned it, they have not.  It's just another expected handout at taxpayer's expense.    

So how many jobs do you know of where you can fill out an application with no phone number on it and even hope to get an interview? Oh, but of course, those people who actually are looking for jobs that have to rely on welfare should be forced to spend even more money out of the checks they get that they have to spend 99% out of on food and clothing just to survive so they even have a chance of getting that minimum wage job at mcdonald's. Of course, if you had your way, the bodies would be piling up in the streets because those who had their homes and jobs taken away through no fault of their own deserve nothing because they're all just idiot democrats who deserve to die while the Republicans beef up the military for the war with china, because after all, with all the idiot democrats out of the way, theres no need for programs like social security, medicare, welfare, or unemployment. Is there a better option out there? Probably, but you'd get your panties in a bunch about anything that helps out those worse off than you.

No from corps. as I stated. If you reread the reply and use your noggin this time you might realize that I was hinting towards the term campaign contributions.

Me? By pointing out that some corporations help pay for certain people to get elected to congress and/or pay for lobbying then get parts of legislation written which throws business their way at the expense of our tax dollars?

Lots of question marks in my posts at times. Meant to try to make people think outside their box , which for many is so small a box that it fits on the tip of a pinhead.

quite the rant here.  Did I hit a nerve? 

oh, come on!  They can give a number of their parents, close friend, Pastor, or anyone they trust.  OR they could say "It would be better if you contact me via email" and they can go to the nearest library even to check their email.   Email is usually the vehicle of choice nowadays when it comes to communication anyhow. 

or maybe we should just give everyone their own laptop?  I'm sure that'll be next! 

You should have stopped at "probably."  I'm all for helping the poor and needy.  No problem there.  My problem is the government has taken that job away from me and they are deciding for me who to help whether they really need it or not.  Some are genuine and need that help but there are many others  who are manipulators getting as much for nothing as they can.  The government doesn't know who is who.  But we would and we would help or not help those accordingly. 

What is wrong with a land line?  You can get a limited call number for a few bucks.  What entitles ANYONE to a perk?  Cell Phones are not necessities.  Nor are they rights.  My mother, doing fine thank you, does not have one. and apparently has never needed one.  I guess she is deprived and should be on welfare?

Politicians take money all the time - some times willingly (non-union campaign contributions) but most of the time unwillingly (taxes and union contributions).  YOu were not specific.  Why should I ASSUME what you meant?  If you want people to understand what you are saying, saying it is the first step. You failed.

Rhetorical questions have question marks as well.  But they are not meant to make people think, but to drive home a point - usually with sarcasm.  Again, if you want people to know your villains, name them.  Do not cast aspersions contained in rhetorical questions you have already asked and answered.  Pinheads are not just for hemming a dress.

yea, that is why most liberals are tightwads when it comes to charity, and most conservatives are very giving.  They must be giving to those rich people, not charities, right?

The same in many areas with no public transportation. Do you suggest the government spring for cars, too? You know they will have to be "green". $41,000.00 Chevy Volts for all welfare recipents... and why stop there?

I just want to know who buys the phone for the people not on welfare, that don't have a job?