Your Right to a Mobile Phone!!

[Jenn! 918]

I don't see anything wrong with phones that are locked to only call emergency numbers (though they could be hacked easily I'm sure). Unemployment offices should provide public phones for job searches.

[SMR 368]

Thanks for your thoughts. What I'm hearing is an aversion to taxes and to being told where your money's going without your say. I share that frustration. But it still doesn't explain why the target of the frustration is the poorest of the poor, rather than the things our government uses our money on that suck up so, so much more of it. It seems like if all things were equal, the greater proportion of ire would go to the greater proportion of dedicated funds. So, are all things not equal? Does it piss you off more when money goes to a homeless person than when it goes to a bridge you don't see a need for? Or a war? If so, why?

An aversion to taxes and frustration as to the lack of control is only half the point. Bridges I don't need and military waste and all sorts of government pork upset me, some of it more than cellphones but this is a thread about cellphones.

But the cellphones and other similar benefits are near the top of the list. The reason for this is the blatant injustice of such programs. A bridge I don't see a need for or a war I don't agree with can still be explained as for the greater good and benefiting every person equally. After all, it's my war as much as the next American. If the government thinks it's good for us, it's good for each of us equally. Whether or not it's actually good is another discussion. Similarly, if the government thinks we need the bridge, then it's here for everyone. Although I may never go there, it's still partially my bridge that I can use should the need arise.

Now imagine, if you paid taxes to help build a bridge and then the government determined that you don't really need that bridge and you can find your own way across (get a boat or helicopter). Or if the government determined that although you pay for it, the military doesn't really need to protect you and you should hire your own security forces if you want protection. That's what we're talking about with the cellphones.

The government determines that everyone needs a cellphone but yet if I, as a taxpayer, want a cellphone, I'm not only paying out of pocket for it, I'm paying taxes on my service. Now, I'm not suggesting that I think the government should give everyone a cellphone. That would only exacerbate the general frustration at taxes and lack of control. But if you're going to start giving out cellphones how do you fairly determine who deserves one? I may not be unemployed but I can't afford many things I would like for my family to have. Including taxes, I pay over $70 a month for cellphones for my wife and I. I could certainly find another way to spend that money.

Taxes and a lack of control are frustrating. But more frustrating is the fact that even as those taxes go up beyond my control, the supposed compensation in services just isn't there. I pay and pay and pay taxes, but if I ever want something, I go and pay for it myself.

On the subject of how job offers are extended, I typically receive a call and a written offer letter by email. I'm not working top level executive positions, but I'm also not working at McDonald's. Although I can see how a formal offer would come by snail mail for some positions, I imagine that typically phone calls would also be made.

That being said, if I'm spending 8+ hours a day looking for a job (and if I don't have a job, I am), I'm making call backs. I'm sure there's a phone you can use at the unemployment office. If I applied for a job at McDonald's, I'd call back every day until they gave me a definite answer or I got another job. And I'd tell them to leave a message if I wasn't there and would come in regularly and check if there were messages for me.

Edited July 20, 2010 by SMR

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If the government thinks it's good for us, it's good for each of us equally.

Do you apply that logic equally to ramps for the handicap, or specially designated parking spaces? How about veterans' hospitals? I don't understand this concept that in order to be fair to everyone, we must all be treated exactly the same because it doesn't take a stretch of the imagine to see that in real world situations, that logic falls apart.

[SMR 368]

Do you apply that logic equally to ramps for the handicap, or specially designated parking spaces? How about veterans' hospitals? I don't understand this concept that in order to be fair to everyone, we must all be treated exactly the same because it doesn't take a stretch of the imagine to see that in real world situations, that logic falls apart.

As far as handicapped parking spaces and ramps, yes, I apply that logic. I don't think anyone should be required to make their business or building handicapped accessible. As far as government buildings, sure, put a ramp. Everyone can use it if they want to.

Veteran hospitals are different since this is a part of the compensation for service rendered. Some government employees are overcompensated but on a basic level there is nothing wrong with people receiving compensation for the work they do.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

As far as handicapped parking spaces and ramps, yes, I apply that logic. I don't think anyone should be required to make their business or building handicapped accessible. As far as government buildings, sure, put a ramp. Everyone can use it if they want to.

So you park in handicapped spaces?

[SMR 368]

So you park in handicapped spaces?

No, I'm also a pragmatist and don't see the point of paying exorbitant fines.

I think I should clarify that my view as far as private buildings is simply that there shouldn't be as much government intervention as there is presently. I think you'll find that most business owners will try to accommodate as wide a customer base as possible. But if they don't, that's their right as property owners.

As for government buildings, make the building accessible to everyone. And let everyone access the building as he or she choses.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

No, I'm also a pragmatist and don't see the point of paying exorbitant fines.

I think I should clarify that my view as far as private buildings is simply that there shouldn't be as much government intervention as there is presently. I think you'll find that most business owners will try to accommodate as wide a customer base as possible. But if they don't, that's their right as property owners.

As for government buildings, make the building accessible to everyone. And let everyone access the building as he or she choses.

I know what you said earlier which everyone else can read as well. You stated you believe you have a right to park in a handicap parking space just as anyone else. Because you choose to avoid being fined keeps you from doing so is moot. The fact that you would if you could get away with it speaks volumes.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Life will be so much better when everything is FREE!

[SMR 368]

I know what you said earlier which everyone else can read as well. You stated you believe you have a right to park in a handicap parking space just as anyone else. Because you choose to avoid being fined keeps you from doing so is moot. The fact that you would if you could get away with it speaks volumes.

I didn't say that and don't believe it. You certainly do a good job of putting words in my mouth.

I said, twice now, that I don't believe the government has the right to tell a property owner that he should or shouldn't include handicapped parking spots on his or her property or what rules should dictate who can park in those spots. However, considering I don't own property, this belief doesn't really come into practice. Additionally, if I was building a parking lot, I would include handicapped parking spots. That doesn't change the fact that I don't believe the government has the right to make me do it.

As far as my actions in terms of parking on someone else's property, it's their property and they get to make the rules.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I was in the car today and heard a commercial for free cell phones. Apparently, people on government benefits like food stamps, WIC, HEAP, etc., may be "entitled" to a free mobile.

Not just for emergencies or anything. According to the ad, you could get free UNLIMITED minutes for a year.

My favorite part, and the one that really got me p!ssed, was at the end, the announcer said in a loud voice:

"EXERCISE YOUR RIGHT!!!!"

So, folks on goverment benefits have the "right" to a free cell phone on my tax dollars. Awesome.

Dammit, I really need to proofread my titles!

Here's the text of the law.

One cell phone per family.

Fixed number of minutes per month.

Free service only available for one year.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Post containing personal attack has been removed. There is no need for insults so please don't make them.

[twowls 217]

Did you hear that big brother? When you're done passing out the free phones, go ahead and get started on the free computers (because I know you didn't pass out internet-ready phones, did you?) and free internet.

So you're really going to sit there, having lived amongst those who have "the least" and try to argue free cell phones = jobs for these people? (And yes, I said "these people.")

Yes

[trillium13 84]

Here's the text of the law.

One cell phone per family.

Fixed number of minutes per month.

Free service only available for one year.

What you posted is much more reasonable than the way it's presented in the ad I heard. The whole "exercise your right" thing was what really got me. It just really rubbed me the wrong way.

We all have our own experiences that shape our opinions, obviously. I happen to live in an area where a large number of people have a huge sense of entitlement. They think they have all kinds of "rights" to all kinds of special treatment. Most of them get it in one way or another. The more they get the more they think they are entitled to.

I think that few things are "deserved" and most things in life should be "earned".

I don't know if any of that made any sense out of context but the long and short of it is that I don't think that having a cell phone falls into the category of a "right".

Edited July 21, 2010 by trillium13

[Krikit 1,163]

Some of these posts hurt my heart.

[twowls 217]

age jokes apparently never go outta style. how about old enough to remember when there wasn't an internet or cell phones?

i suppose a cell phone might be useful for lower end jobs, like mcd's or something - and maybe even a "you're hired" email might work in those type of jobs.

but then again, i've been working technical jobs, not the lower wage end, so i can't say i'm highly familiar with how a cell or internet might be useful in that regard.

Okay, you aren't familiar. I wasn't making an age joke to get a dig in there at all; it really may be an issue of understanding the present day. I was surprised at your position and I don't think you get what goes on with a destitute person looking for a menial job. That stands.