Seriously...is this how far we've sunk? Ok, for those that haven't heard: A man in Ohio was sentenced to 30 days and court costs, approximately $400, for mocking a mentally disabled child. The mother of the child said he used the "R" word. Honestly, it took me a couple of minutes to figure out what the "R" word was...rude, ruff, redd, rank, roul...is "roul" a word? OH, OK. "Retard". Sounds like the man is an idiot. Sounds like I wouldn't want to live next door to him, and especially not if I was her or her child. Lots of us have neighbors we don't like. Most of them aren't that rude or rank. Ok, but sentenced to jail? The mother claimed that he had verbally threatened them with chains while sitting on his porch. She also claims that when his son came over to play with her other children some time in the last year that he threatened to cut the "R" child with a knife. All of this, coupled with a video taken by her mother-in-law, finally resulted in legal action being taken by the prosecutor. And the 30 days and the court costs to this moron.
Ok, first, before I go into my own diatribe. Kudos to this mother standing up for her child. By no means is my opinion that follows a commentary to allow this man to act like a jackass or encourage his own children to act like jackasses. (Although, I do wonder why if this jerk was acting like this for so long, why in the hell she would even let one of his kids come over and play with hers, but I don't feel like entering into a common sense discussion tonight.) Suffice to say, my opinion of him is he's a jackass--going to court seems a bit extreme, but well, if he's being that big of a jackass and the courts have the time, apparently this prosecutor did, well, kudos to at least driving the point home I suppose. On the other hand, the mother did say that if this opened up discussions, that was really what she was hoping for...Ok, my diatribe is probably not what she was hoping for, but well, it's definately worth a discussion.
This mother was in a car accident while pregnant, and her daughter has severe mental disabilities because she was born several weeks premature, was just over 2 pounds when she was born, had two brain surgeries before she was 2 years old and struggled just for life for the first two years. I'm sure this couple loves this child. I'm sure that she is a sweet and wonderful young girl. I'm just not sure that it is fair for us to keep children alive that are so premature that we know that they will have severe handicaps. This is something no one ever talks about. Medicine can now keep a premmie alive at 4 months. The life of these children is very different than the life of a child that is say born in or after the 6th month of gestation. Drastically. A month, or even two months premature doesn't seem to have a drastically negative effect on the child's development. However, more than that and we find that almost all the children suffer health and mental disabilities. How is this fair to these children?
Consider the fact that on their own, a child born 29 weeks premature--this child was only 11 weeks developed. 11 weeks. Two weeks before the end of the first trimester. A fetus/baby cannot survive on its own. Many still believe that test tube children are "wrong", and that it is irresponsible to have test tube children. Some even think it's an affront to their religious beliefs. So, where do we start considering this irresponsible? Oh, yes, I know, I'll hear about this from my conservative friends on how a life is a life, and I'll hear about this from my liberal friends about this child's right to be treated with respect. I'm not disagreeing with either on either of these points. She's alive now, so yes, a life is a life. She's alive now, so yes, she should be treated with respect. I'm not asking about this child now, after living several years. But I am questioning the sense, the decision, the concept that keeping a fetus alive that is 29 weeks premature might be irresponsible. The fact is that the life, if the fetus (or baby, whatever floats your boat) does live, what kind of life will that child have? When do we stop and ask ourselves that hard question?
I know I'm opening a can of worms. Right to Life people will scream that it proves that abortion is wrong if science can keep the fetus alive. And people who believe all people should be treated equally and with dignity, even prison inmates guilty of serial rape or murder, should be treated humanely could argue that the child and her family should be treated with respect. But let's not go there, if at all possible. Just ponder is it fair for us, medicine, any of us, to keep a fetus/baby alive at 11 weeks gestation? Seriously. I'm not talking about going back and giving a lashing to these parents or doctors involved umpteen years ago in this particular case.
I'm asking us to consider a real question. When do we think it's unfair to the potential life to force it to live? I'm not sure what I think. I certainly don't think I would hold it against parents that told the doctor to let the fetus/baby pass away at 11 weeks. I'm not holding it against the parents in this case that did the opposite. I'm just wondering and, as this mother said she would like, thinking this needs discussion. If only in our own minds. When is it, medicine, going too far? Is this really an individual decision to the parents and doctor in each individual case? I suspect so. But still, when is it too soon to put a fetus/baby on life support and have major surgery after major surgery just to keep it alive? 26 weeks is the accepted point where it is possible for a baby to survive and live a healthy normal life. So 20 weeks doesn't seem unreasonable....Does 16? 11? 5?
Like I stated, probably not the discussion this mother had in mind when she told the media she wanted discussion, but I'm thinking a couple of you are wondering the same thing I am.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Dear Mr. President,
28 November 2012
Dear President Obama,
Good afternoon sir. I'd like to introduce myself. My name isn't really relevant, because I'm representative of the majority of Americans--some who voted for you both elections, some who voted for you in one (probably the first one), and some who didn't in either. We really don't give a rat's *ss about your politics, your political party, your skin color or honestly who you choose as your White House Chief of Staff. Don't take it personally. We don't really honestly care about John Boener's politics, party, skin color or who's his Chief of Staff either. What we do care about is what hits our bottom line and security.
As the unemployment rate has been tooted off as getting lower, you're a numbers guy afterall, perhaps you missed that the rate was lowering at an inflated rate. I'm not assuming that you knew that unemployed numbers were discounting people that were still unemployed and no longer collecting unemployment. Of course, I'm not sure that bothers you since your policies have been counterintuitive to improving employment options. Murray Energy Corporation and Wausau Paper just announced layoffs on the 16th of November. Hostess announced that they will be shutting down altogether--18,000 jobs gone--bar the union issues. Two of the solar companies you invested stimulus money in, SunTech (China owned) and SolarWorld (German owned), have announced more layoffs too. NBC (yes, the liberal media even), Xerox, Stryker Corporation (medical supplies), Smithfield Foods, Cummins and Citibank have also announced layoffs since you won the election. Dana Corporation, one of the few companies still based in its original hometown of Toledo, Ohio has announced that to offset the $24M increase in their healthcare costs--thanks to Obamacare--they will be considering layoffs. If we assume an average of $60K per person they layoff, that will be 400 jobs gone. GE Healthcare also has announced that they will likely be making cuts also. These companies cannot afford to invest in their people, in their own growth or in our economy because of your "bold" move to make healthcare available for all.
First, let's clarify your "bold" move. Healthcare is available for all that need it--it's called Medicare. Your Obamacare doesn't do away with Medicare. It doesn't resolve Medicare. It makes it so that everyone has to have health insurance, and of course, if they cannot afford it, forces them into Medicare. Those millions that have forgone medical insurance in the past will now by law have no choice but to enter the confines of a system that they didn't want to be a part of anyway. But our freedoms of choice, while you seem to support our Right to Choose if it's for an abortion, you don't seem to be ok if we want our right to choose whether or not we can afford medical insurance or whether we want to be part of the Medicare system. We all know that ultimately the uninsured hit the Medicare system. You are simply trying to force the numbers up and for what? So that you can keep count of exactly how many of us are unemployed and/or uninsured? Don't get us wrong. There were some things that you brought to light that were good, but it's overcast with the ridiculous costs of forcing us to accept something that is very extreme. This "bold" move may well mar your Presidency as the most expensive in history for the American taxpayers.
When you made this "bold" move, you ignored half of the country. Half didn't vote for you. It was a very close race the first time, as it was this time. Three million-ish votes nationwide is not a referendum of support. You ignored us. You ignored the CEO of IBM when he told you that IBM couldn't afford the $800M it would cost them to fully implement Obamacare. You half-listened, according to Bob Woodward's book, The Politics of Power, but only as far as to make sure that you were ready to win the argument with this major CEO. You ignored the concerns of CEOs from various companies, including Verizon Wireless. A company like Verizon doesn't take over the number one position in the wireless industry because their CEO has no idea how the economy works. The growth of these, of all companies, depends on some important economic principles. They tried to tell you. You gave them 15 seconds and sound bites in front of the media that got you the admiration of some of the masses. You gave them no choice but to wait you out.
Now as you sit in the Oval Office for another 4 years, my question is will you continue to make the same mistakes as you have already? Obamacare is a joke. How do you think the insurance companies and employers are going to pay for it? Do you believe there is a magic money beanstalk in the backyards of each of these companies? If so sir, let me promise you, there are none. The magic beanstalks will be off the backs of those of us that they still employ. They will have to lower their outputs with head count reductions and reductions in benefits. They will pass the extra costs after that on to the employees. Our healthcare standard will go down while our paychecks see a higher deduction for the worse care and benefits. To pay for what? Your dream of healthcare for everyone? Your dream is a pipe dream. California consistently cannot sustain the all mightly healthcare system they have in place. You are asking us in Kansas, Iowa, South Carolina, Texas, New Mexico, and the rest of "rural" America to foot the bill for people that wouldn't normally register for any healthcare unless they absolutely had to. Medicaid is there for the downtrodden. Your dream, sir, is to make all of us the downtrodden. I'm sick of your dream, as is half the country. We need you to start thinking of our dreams as a whole not the ultra liberal party line.
Our dream is still the American Dream. Even those in the welfare system, dream of a "better life". You proclaim plenty that you understand that dream. I think not. You like to sound like you came from a poor family, but you came from a middle class, college educated family. Your mother remarried and you lived quite well abroad in Malaysia for six years of your youth. You have no idea, truly, what is to be poor. Seeing it doesn't make you an expert; you just know what it looks like. But contrary to many people's views in this country, one that you have capitalized on, no one wants a handout--even the people that have been taking handouts all their lives because they've never known anything else. We all want the American Dream. Sadly, I'm not even sure, sir, that you know what the American Dream is.
First, I'll tell you what the American Dream isn't. It isn't bullying your way through. Lockheed Martin avoided at your behest layoffs before the election. Although it wasn't going to be the hoax of more than 100K jobs, it still will be around 10,000 jobs. The fact you bullied them to hold off until after the election isn't going to change their reality. It won't change the reality for the employees that get their pink slips either. You claim to have been unemployed and understand that is not the American Dream. I challenge that ridiculous statement. You attended an Ivy League school...most Americans can't afford an Ivy League school even if they have the grades. You were President of the Harvard Law Review. To the average American, perhaps that sounds like the American Dream, but you weren't some poor kid. You like to talk about Howard Johnson's Hotels from the 1960s and 70s like they would be perceived now. But I remember Howard Johnson's back in the day. It was the biggest and most successful hotel chain around then, and they had the best ice cream. Yours was the same dream as other families with means and ways--college educated parents with the money to help you pay your way. The fact is that the American Dream isn't to be lied to either. Frankly, it's patronizing to the lower incomes that you try to act like you have a clue what they live through. It's insulting to them and any of us that have actually lived through it. No matter what you believe, paying for someone else's way isn't the American Dream either. And, in spite of what your policies seem to express, the American Dream is not having someone else pay your way. You've polarized this country against the poorer Americans. They hear your rhetoric of trying to help them and they think it's true because what you are peddling is hope. Hope is not the American Dream either. And false hope, well, eventually sir, that becomes the most crushing of all. When they realize that you've peddled nothing, yes, they will likely still love you--much like slaves loved their masters. It's easy to think false hope is real when you have almost no real hope left. That is definately NOT the American Dream, and at this rate, by the time you are done, the Dream will be dead.
Don't get me wrong. The American Dream is not the ultra conservative alternative either. We do not want someone telling us what we can or cannot do. Abortion opinons are based on religious beliefs. Freedom of Religion is guaranteed to us in the Constitution. We don't want completely uncontrolled free commerce either. We already know that greed is inherent of some people. The 1930s Depression, Enron, the Pyramid schemes, and yes, the more recent Mortgage fiasco, are all indicitive that we need some amount of regulations over our capitalistic society. I'm certainly not interested in the extremer version of Southern Baptists telling women that we can no longer wear slacks or show anything above our mid-shins because it's an atrocity to God. That's their religious beliefs, and we have no problem with them following what they believe. We just don't want to be forced to comply with beliefs that we don't share. Most of us love our blue jeans too much.
Many of us had hoped that you were a moderate--someone who thrived in the middle. I had imagined that you would be more of a mediator over the more extremes of both parties that would understand how severe the divide was already as you came into office given the very close split down the middle as far as votes. We had hopes that you would understand that taxes don't stimulate the economy. Education, investment, and job stimulation stimulates the economy. These things typically thrive with the lingering notion of "tax cuts" not tax "revenues". We had hoped that you would understand that certain things could only be accomplished if the economy was already on the road to recovery--like environmental improvements. Partnering with companies to improve the environment, getting them to invest their money in new developments--not giving them our tax money--is how the government has been most successful in the past to get compliance. Yes, there have been extreme moments where fines have had to be levied and companies have not taken the environmental high road. This is not the norm for companies that understand their bottom line. Coal is now one of the most efficient and cleanest forms of energy unlike what it was 40 or more years ago. Why? Because companies have invested and found ways to burn coal more efficiently with less and less waste. This is what engineers and scientists dream of--taking something from less than 50% efficiency to in excess of the most efficient form of energy conversion. And this is what companies often pay them to do--with the right incentives. Taxes, sir, are not the right incentive.
You would like those of us working to go out and buy new vehicles. Well, honestly, sir, I would love to. I have a discount from my employer. I dream of that fancy V8 sports car that I've fancied since I was little. I should be able to afford it. Should. But the Credit Reforms instituted to protect us have lowered credit scores for a lot of us because of banks rushing to lower our limits and force us into higher rates before the "reforms" implemented. The credit reforms also seemed to protect the banks more than the credit unions which have since implemented more and more bank style requirements. We used to be able to go to our credit unions and get the best rate. Now they are struggling to justify loans and giving higher rates than the banks in many cases. Banks and credit unions are afraid to write new mortgages because of the clauses that refer to them having to justify who they give loans to. Sounds great on paper, but gives them no "guidelines" to what is justification. So, the money that we are spending to keep the mortgage rates low are only being used by those of us that can refinance or are trying to get into bigger homes. It is not of any benefit to anyone else. Getting back to that new V8 I'm dreaming of...I can afford the payment, the insurance hike, even after a little calculating, my state's personal property tax. Right now. But, I fear drastically the increases that I am already feeling to my healthcare costs as Obamacare is being prepped for and implemented. I'm already sadly aware of a reduction in my take home pay because of it and even more acutely aware that it will reduce more. Plus now the plan is to increase "revenues". Stop it. Just say what it is. Over half of us are not that niave. We KNOW "revenues" is just a fancy bow on "taxes". I can't see buying that new car that I might be struggling a year from now because the taxes have taken the chunk allotted for the payment. Thank you, but no thank you.
You are the President of the United States. Supposedly the most powerful person in the world. The Middle East is deteriorating under your leadership. It's your watch, sir. They do not respect you, they no longer respect us as a country, and they no longer respect our Allies in Europe. Yes, it is their piece of the world and we should respect that. However, sir, I would use the Cold War as an example. Whether you regard President Reagan with respect or not, you must recognize that his goal to end the Cold War was to the betterment of the world. A better world for myself, my children and eventually, grandchildren and so on. You should learn from the past, sir. The Middle East destablization is as risky, if not more risky, than anything the Cold War offered up. You need to recognize that the President of the United States doesn't apologize. The President should set the tone and mediate resolutions. And when that fails, promise to protect our people and our Allies and make clear anything less will not be acceptable.
To my observations, sir, I humbly state the following. You have taken a hardline with Congress and with the conservatives--moderate to ultra. You have even taken a hardline with your more moderate liberals. I believe you have mixed these two expectations up. We expect you, the President, to take a hardline with our foes--real or potential--for the protection of our people, our country, our rights and our Allies. In alternate, we expect you, our President, to mediate, come to the middle, guide, provide leadership to the ultra left, the ultra right, the moderates of the left and the right to meet in a happy medium that neither will be happy with and neither will be furious with. We expect you to represent us, not any party line. And at a time where you won with a divide of roughly 3 million votes, well, sir, we expect you to understand that better than anyone else.
The question then is simply. Can you come to the middle? Can you be the mediator, the leader, the person that we thought you could be? That the moderate Democrats thought you could be? The one who brings the two sides together instead of increasing the divide? Senator McCain was proven as a moderate who often bucked the far conservative right. We expected that you were the same for the Democrats--a moderate who would buck the far liberal left as needed--someone who could bring us to the middle. Are you that President? Over half of us have given you the opportunity to prove it. Almost half of us are hanging our seats, in some cases close to panic that you might not be. So, sir, can you come to the middle and lead the people we sent to represent us to that center?
Sincerely,
An American Citizen
Dear President Obama,
Good afternoon sir. I'd like to introduce myself. My name isn't really relevant, because I'm representative of the majority of Americans--some who voted for you both elections, some who voted for you in one (probably the first one), and some who didn't in either. We really don't give a rat's *ss about your politics, your political party, your skin color or honestly who you choose as your White House Chief of Staff. Don't take it personally. We don't really honestly care about John Boener's politics, party, skin color or who's his Chief of Staff either. What we do care about is what hits our bottom line and security.
As the unemployment rate has been tooted off as getting lower, you're a numbers guy afterall, perhaps you missed that the rate was lowering at an inflated rate. I'm not assuming that you knew that unemployed numbers were discounting people that were still unemployed and no longer collecting unemployment. Of course, I'm not sure that bothers you since your policies have been counterintuitive to improving employment options. Murray Energy Corporation and Wausau Paper just announced layoffs on the 16th of November. Hostess announced that they will be shutting down altogether--18,000 jobs gone--bar the union issues. Two of the solar companies you invested stimulus money in, SunTech (China owned) and SolarWorld (German owned), have announced more layoffs too. NBC (yes, the liberal media even), Xerox, Stryker Corporation (medical supplies), Smithfield Foods, Cummins and Citibank have also announced layoffs since you won the election. Dana Corporation, one of the few companies still based in its original hometown of Toledo, Ohio has announced that to offset the $24M increase in their healthcare costs--thanks to Obamacare--they will be considering layoffs. If we assume an average of $60K per person they layoff, that will be 400 jobs gone. GE Healthcare also has announced that they will likely be making cuts also. These companies cannot afford to invest in their people, in their own growth or in our economy because of your "bold" move to make healthcare available for all.
First, let's clarify your "bold" move. Healthcare is available for all that need it--it's called Medicare. Your Obamacare doesn't do away with Medicare. It doesn't resolve Medicare. It makes it so that everyone has to have health insurance, and of course, if they cannot afford it, forces them into Medicare. Those millions that have forgone medical insurance in the past will now by law have no choice but to enter the confines of a system that they didn't want to be a part of anyway. But our freedoms of choice, while you seem to support our Right to Choose if it's for an abortion, you don't seem to be ok if we want our right to choose whether or not we can afford medical insurance or whether we want to be part of the Medicare system. We all know that ultimately the uninsured hit the Medicare system. You are simply trying to force the numbers up and for what? So that you can keep count of exactly how many of us are unemployed and/or uninsured? Don't get us wrong. There were some things that you brought to light that were good, but it's overcast with the ridiculous costs of forcing us to accept something that is very extreme. This "bold" move may well mar your Presidency as the most expensive in history for the American taxpayers.
When you made this "bold" move, you ignored half of the country. Half didn't vote for you. It was a very close race the first time, as it was this time. Three million-ish votes nationwide is not a referendum of support. You ignored us. You ignored the CEO of IBM when he told you that IBM couldn't afford the $800M it would cost them to fully implement Obamacare. You half-listened, according to Bob Woodward's book, The Politics of Power, but only as far as to make sure that you were ready to win the argument with this major CEO. You ignored the concerns of CEOs from various companies, including Verizon Wireless. A company like Verizon doesn't take over the number one position in the wireless industry because their CEO has no idea how the economy works. The growth of these, of all companies, depends on some important economic principles. They tried to tell you. You gave them 15 seconds and sound bites in front of the media that got you the admiration of some of the masses. You gave them no choice but to wait you out.
Now as you sit in the Oval Office for another 4 years, my question is will you continue to make the same mistakes as you have already? Obamacare is a joke. How do you think the insurance companies and employers are going to pay for it? Do you believe there is a magic money beanstalk in the backyards of each of these companies? If so sir, let me promise you, there are none. The magic beanstalks will be off the backs of those of us that they still employ. They will have to lower their outputs with head count reductions and reductions in benefits. They will pass the extra costs after that on to the employees. Our healthcare standard will go down while our paychecks see a higher deduction for the worse care and benefits. To pay for what? Your dream of healthcare for everyone? Your dream is a pipe dream. California consistently cannot sustain the all mightly healthcare system they have in place. You are asking us in Kansas, Iowa, South Carolina, Texas, New Mexico, and the rest of "rural" America to foot the bill for people that wouldn't normally register for any healthcare unless they absolutely had to. Medicaid is there for the downtrodden. Your dream, sir, is to make all of us the downtrodden. I'm sick of your dream, as is half the country. We need you to start thinking of our dreams as a whole not the ultra liberal party line.
Our dream is still the American Dream. Even those in the welfare system, dream of a "better life". You proclaim plenty that you understand that dream. I think not. You like to sound like you came from a poor family, but you came from a middle class, college educated family. Your mother remarried and you lived quite well abroad in Malaysia for six years of your youth. You have no idea, truly, what is to be poor. Seeing it doesn't make you an expert; you just know what it looks like. But contrary to many people's views in this country, one that you have capitalized on, no one wants a handout--even the people that have been taking handouts all their lives because they've never known anything else. We all want the American Dream. Sadly, I'm not even sure, sir, that you know what the American Dream is.
First, I'll tell you what the American Dream isn't. It isn't bullying your way through. Lockheed Martin avoided at your behest layoffs before the election. Although it wasn't going to be the hoax of more than 100K jobs, it still will be around 10,000 jobs. The fact you bullied them to hold off until after the election isn't going to change their reality. It won't change the reality for the employees that get their pink slips either. You claim to have been unemployed and understand that is not the American Dream. I challenge that ridiculous statement. You attended an Ivy League school...most Americans can't afford an Ivy League school even if they have the grades. You were President of the Harvard Law Review. To the average American, perhaps that sounds like the American Dream, but you weren't some poor kid. You like to talk about Howard Johnson's Hotels from the 1960s and 70s like they would be perceived now. But I remember Howard Johnson's back in the day. It was the biggest and most successful hotel chain around then, and they had the best ice cream. Yours was the same dream as other families with means and ways--college educated parents with the money to help you pay your way. The fact is that the American Dream isn't to be lied to either. Frankly, it's patronizing to the lower incomes that you try to act like you have a clue what they live through. It's insulting to them and any of us that have actually lived through it. No matter what you believe, paying for someone else's way isn't the American Dream either. And, in spite of what your policies seem to express, the American Dream is not having someone else pay your way. You've polarized this country against the poorer Americans. They hear your rhetoric of trying to help them and they think it's true because what you are peddling is hope. Hope is not the American Dream either. And false hope, well, eventually sir, that becomes the most crushing of all. When they realize that you've peddled nothing, yes, they will likely still love you--much like slaves loved their masters. It's easy to think false hope is real when you have almost no real hope left. That is definately NOT the American Dream, and at this rate, by the time you are done, the Dream will be dead.
Don't get me wrong. The American Dream is not the ultra conservative alternative either. We do not want someone telling us what we can or cannot do. Abortion opinons are based on religious beliefs. Freedom of Religion is guaranteed to us in the Constitution. We don't want completely uncontrolled free commerce either. We already know that greed is inherent of some people. The 1930s Depression, Enron, the Pyramid schemes, and yes, the more recent Mortgage fiasco, are all indicitive that we need some amount of regulations over our capitalistic society. I'm certainly not interested in the extremer version of Southern Baptists telling women that we can no longer wear slacks or show anything above our mid-shins because it's an atrocity to God. That's their religious beliefs, and we have no problem with them following what they believe. We just don't want to be forced to comply with beliefs that we don't share. Most of us love our blue jeans too much.
Many of us had hoped that you were a moderate--someone who thrived in the middle. I had imagined that you would be more of a mediator over the more extremes of both parties that would understand how severe the divide was already as you came into office given the very close split down the middle as far as votes. We had hopes that you would understand that taxes don't stimulate the economy. Education, investment, and job stimulation stimulates the economy. These things typically thrive with the lingering notion of "tax cuts" not tax "revenues". We had hoped that you would understand that certain things could only be accomplished if the economy was already on the road to recovery--like environmental improvements. Partnering with companies to improve the environment, getting them to invest their money in new developments--not giving them our tax money--is how the government has been most successful in the past to get compliance. Yes, there have been extreme moments where fines have had to be levied and companies have not taken the environmental high road. This is not the norm for companies that understand their bottom line. Coal is now one of the most efficient and cleanest forms of energy unlike what it was 40 or more years ago. Why? Because companies have invested and found ways to burn coal more efficiently with less and less waste. This is what engineers and scientists dream of--taking something from less than 50% efficiency to in excess of the most efficient form of energy conversion. And this is what companies often pay them to do--with the right incentives. Taxes, sir, are not the right incentive.
You would like those of us working to go out and buy new vehicles. Well, honestly, sir, I would love to. I have a discount from my employer. I dream of that fancy V8 sports car that I've fancied since I was little. I should be able to afford it. Should. But the Credit Reforms instituted to protect us have lowered credit scores for a lot of us because of banks rushing to lower our limits and force us into higher rates before the "reforms" implemented. The credit reforms also seemed to protect the banks more than the credit unions which have since implemented more and more bank style requirements. We used to be able to go to our credit unions and get the best rate. Now they are struggling to justify loans and giving higher rates than the banks in many cases. Banks and credit unions are afraid to write new mortgages because of the clauses that refer to them having to justify who they give loans to. Sounds great on paper, but gives them no "guidelines" to what is justification. So, the money that we are spending to keep the mortgage rates low are only being used by those of us that can refinance or are trying to get into bigger homes. It is not of any benefit to anyone else. Getting back to that new V8 I'm dreaming of...I can afford the payment, the insurance hike, even after a little calculating, my state's personal property tax. Right now. But, I fear drastically the increases that I am already feeling to my healthcare costs as Obamacare is being prepped for and implemented. I'm already sadly aware of a reduction in my take home pay because of it and even more acutely aware that it will reduce more. Plus now the plan is to increase "revenues". Stop it. Just say what it is. Over half of us are not that niave. We KNOW "revenues" is just a fancy bow on "taxes". I can't see buying that new car that I might be struggling a year from now because the taxes have taken the chunk allotted for the payment. Thank you, but no thank you.
You are the President of the United States. Supposedly the most powerful person in the world. The Middle East is deteriorating under your leadership. It's your watch, sir. They do not respect you, they no longer respect us as a country, and they no longer respect our Allies in Europe. Yes, it is their piece of the world and we should respect that. However, sir, I would use the Cold War as an example. Whether you regard President Reagan with respect or not, you must recognize that his goal to end the Cold War was to the betterment of the world. A better world for myself, my children and eventually, grandchildren and so on. You should learn from the past, sir. The Middle East destablization is as risky, if not more risky, than anything the Cold War offered up. You need to recognize that the President of the United States doesn't apologize. The President should set the tone and mediate resolutions. And when that fails, promise to protect our people and our Allies and make clear anything less will not be acceptable.
To my observations, sir, I humbly state the following. You have taken a hardline with Congress and with the conservatives--moderate to ultra. You have even taken a hardline with your more moderate liberals. I believe you have mixed these two expectations up. We expect you, the President, to take a hardline with our foes--real or potential--for the protection of our people, our country, our rights and our Allies. In alternate, we expect you, our President, to mediate, come to the middle, guide, provide leadership to the ultra left, the ultra right, the moderates of the left and the right to meet in a happy medium that neither will be happy with and neither will be furious with. We expect you to represent us, not any party line. And at a time where you won with a divide of roughly 3 million votes, well, sir, we expect you to understand that better than anyone else.
The question then is simply. Can you come to the middle? Can you be the mediator, the leader, the person that we thought you could be? That the moderate Democrats thought you could be? The one who brings the two sides together instead of increasing the divide? Senator McCain was proven as a moderate who often bucked the far conservative right. We expected that you were the same for the Democrats--a moderate who would buck the far liberal left as needed--someone who could bring us to the middle. Are you that President? Over half of us have given you the opportunity to prove it. Almost half of us are hanging our seats, in some cases close to panic that you might not be. So, sir, can you come to the middle and lead the people we sent to represent us to that center?
Sincerely,
An American Citizen
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
"I was born a poor black child"...ok, no, but had to start with a Steve Martin classic
I was once told “you know you’re poor when you can’t afford to have a six pack in your refrigerator”. Considering that a six pack of cheap nasty beer has almost always been cheaper than a hamburger meal at McDonald's, yes, I agree. If you can’t afford a six pack, you are definitely poor. It’s the last luxury item that almost every poor person can appreciate. Even the cheap sh*t has the same impact as the fancy high dollar, special blend bourbons that have over the years given me a lot of pleasure. It’s easy to assume that I’ve always had and continue to have. That is how it works for most people. I was raised upper middle class, and generally, that means the lowest you ever dip is maybe middle, even maybe lower middle, but certainly not all the way to poor. But, well, I’m not one to have always done everything the easy way, and I’m really not one to talk about the time in my life where I was “poor”. For one, life is perspective and “poor” can be a very relative term. But being “poor” isn’t something that anyone takes pride in. There’s some misconception in the world now, well at least in the United States, that “poor” is something some people relish in. The irony is that that mindset is actually generated by the people that profess to being the ones most motivated and “inspired” to help the “poor”.
First, let me repeat. It’s not something anyone actually wants to admit to, being “poor”. Yes, I was, downright almost homeless a couple of times, poor. It’s not something I’m proud of. It’s not something that I’m ashamed of either, but the looks that come across some people’s faces when they know that you can’t afford the basic necessities in life isn’t empathy or sympathy but sheer fear and, in some cases, hatred. Poor people don’t want to be poor and they don’t want to be earmarked as “poor” either. The fact that the government picks an arbitrary income level and defines the poverty level doesn’t make someone “poor”. The defined poverty level simply decides when you can get government help, if you so desire. That is the key point there. If you so desire…
I, like most Americans, have been raised to take pride in who you are, never take a government handout if you can avoid it. The concept that poor people want a handout is bullsh*t. What the "poor" genuinely want is a HAND UP. When I went back to school full-time, I knew the risk that I was taking. I was living low middle class at the time. I was working a decent paying job on third shift, but as a single parent I was paying more than double the average day care for my boys to sleep at someone else’s home, in some strange bed, so that I could keep my bills paid. It definitely wasn’t what I wanted for my boys. I didn't consider myself poor. Lower middle class, but in retrospect I was definately tettering on poor. Being poor had its perks. Other poor people are more likely to help than anyone else. One of my dearest friends worked the second shift, and at the time, she barely knew me. I had lost my sitter, and I couldn’t miss work or I’d be out of a job. When she heard me at shift change asking if anyone knew of a reliable sitter, she went to her supervisor and mine and worked out for her to come in 5 minutes early and leave shift 5 minutes early to get my boys. She really barely knew me. We’d talked, worked together, but she knew enough to know that she wanted to help me. We wanted the same things and had a similar view on life. We wanted to provide for our kids: a nice home, a good job, to be able to take care of our kids. She had a small little rental that was probably less than 500 square feet, and she had her own kid to take care of. The pay we made was extremely low for the area and when that plant went to Mexico most of the employees—good, hard working, but most without even a GED—became what the government defines as unemployable. That was the deep south for you, and in some parts, sadly still is. What both of us wanted was a direction out. We had the desire, but the desire and the possible don't always jive.
I had moved to the deep south to attend Clemson University, but finishing my degree now was now looking like a pipe dream. I would have to work to support my boys, and between them, an off shift, and the sheer exhaustion, I could barely stay awake most days. NoDoz became my best friend. Eventually, I decided to bite a bullet and go back to school full time. It was now or never. My GI Bill would expire thanks to the Clinton Administration in less than 4 years—far shorter than the 20 years I had initially been promised. By sheer luck, (yes, I believe in luck), an acquaintance was part of the financial aid office at Clemson. She helped me to scramble to get student loans to help subsidize going to school full time. Now let’s say this. Student loans are only federally funded for people living below poverty level (or damn close) as defined by whatever magic number that some idiot in Washington chooses. Then and now aren't the Reagan years when as long as you could get accepted into a college and could maintain a C or better average, you could get financial aid. And, well, I wasn’t eligible. On paper, I was over the poverty line. It didn’t take into account 3 children pre-school age. I had a job and made more than the required line number, and in all honesty, like I already stated I didn’t consider myself poor. I took out the non-Federally funded loans. Student loans are not meant for single parents or any parents for that matter. They’re meant for people going to school before kids, with no kids, with no plan of kids. The student loan covered my tuition, fees, and books for the semester.
I didn’t have much in retirement, but cashed it out to pay off creditors and subsidize the first year, after the Federal government took over half in tax for early withdrawal. That's an automatic penalty no matter what the reason or circumstance. Ask anyone that has had to cash it out because they were unemployed and needed to eat. Didn’t matter that I was a single mother trying to scramble to make a better life. The United States government takes their share regardless. My GI bill was $400 a month give or take. My child support was just under $1K. I had roughly $1400-1600 a month--for rent, for gas, for food, electric, phone, kids' clothing, childcare, and any incidentals--only $600-$800 after rent. For the next year and a half, that was my income. For those of you that can't do the math, my boys and I lived off of less than $10K a year for 16 months. The poverty level was around $20K.
That first Christmas, my boys either didn't notice or didn't point out that all of their Christmas presents were toys that they no longer played with, re-cycled, re-wrapped and passed off as "new". Let me say, you really have no idea what "poor" is until you can't afford to give your child a present. There was no Christmas ham, turkey or fixings. There was a pitiful fake tree that was over 10 years old. (Yes, I'm not Christian, but the concept of being with family and celebrating what you do have is not exclusively Christian.) Finally, the fall term of my second year, I was able to get a little help with grants. I was still not eligible for all government grants. I actually wasn't eligible until mid-junior year, if memory serves me. And it wasn't until my senior year that I was eligible for the lower interest rates of the federally funded student loans. Talk about a kick in the pants. Didn't matter. I was going to do this. I had moved to the area not having any family or friends there (eventually, God would bless me with people to help me that became my family, but this was way before then).
The worst problem with being poor is just one domino goes down and it can take them all. Have a slew of them go down at the same time and it can be one miserable day, month or even year. Missed a summer semester of school because no classes were offered that I needed--no loans, no GI bill, the bar I was working at closed and top it off with 3 months of no child support because my ex had re-enlisted and somehow his child support had stopped. Some yeoman somewhere made a typo. No income for over 3 months turns into an eviction notice. Scramble to get something, anything put together. Panic sets in. First of all, my boys. Since my youngest has a different father, if they weren't with me, they'd be separated (let's not go into the fact that his child support was so hit and miss that I could never count on it for anything). Second, my ex's wife had once told a bunch of women that I was friends with (well a couple of the women in the group she was talking to are my good friends) that she "liked the boys just fine, but when it was time for them to go, it was time for them to go." I didn't like my boys odds being with someone like that. Third, if you can't get your crap out of that place ASAP, you won't have any crap to be getting. It's hard enough to be poor without realizing that you might lose what little you've got left. No money coming in, no way to make up the difference, and too proud to ask anyone for help. That's the point that no "poor" person wants to be in. That's the point where even a proud "poor" person might think about going to the government. But in truth, having had other friends in the same or similar situations, the government is NOT the poor person's answer. Friends, family, shelters, anything but the welfare system. I'll state it again. Anything but the welfare system.
When you're "poor", all you have left is your dignity. Take that away and you're just a schmuck collecting a welfare check, a stereotype of someone intentionally living off the hard work of others. Yes, you can tell someone like me that you don't mind as long as I'm trying to better myself. Doesn't matter. A "poor" person doesn't want to tell you that they're poor and doesn't define "poor" at some Washington poverty line in the sand. We, and I say this from experience, want a HAND UP, not a HANDOUT. But Washington is NOT worried about HAND UPs. Do away with Welfare altogether. Homeless shelters are full of people that don't want to take a handout from the government. NO ONE WITH ANY PRIDE OR DIGNITY WILL TAKE WELFARE. PERIOD.
I didn't take Food Stamps--not that I wouldn't have. It would take several days of missed classes to get Food Stamps. Not worth flunking out of school for Food Stamps--have the temporary solution ruin the permanent solution? Would that make any sense to anyone?
I did take Free School Lunches. It also meant my boys got Free Breakfast. Less than $10K a year. It meant I only had to come up with one square meal a day during the week.
I did appreciate when friends gave me hand-me-downs that were in great condition.
I did appreciate the friends that helped me when I was evicted. The money they gave me, telling me to pay it forward, has been paid forward over double in the last 10 years. That's right. When the "poor" get out, they help others in the same condition generally. I had a friend in school who came from a very poor rural African American community when I was at Clemson. His dream was to design roller coasters. He had been very fortunate to have someone help him get into Clemson and help him believe he could achieve his dream. The dream didn't quite pan out; he did graduate with me with a BS in Mechanical Engineering. But unable to find a job in roller coasters, he chose to go back to that small poor community to become a mathematics and science teacher. His words to me upon this decision, "The kids in my community need positive role models. They need to see they can achieve more. If they see me, they'll know it's true."
I really appreciated that churches, schools and civil organizations collect food for the holidays and made sure once my name got on their list that I got all the fixins for Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners, excepting the turkey. It wasn't that hard to figure in $20 for a turkey.
And, I really appreciated the Toys For Tots organization. Not because I ever needed a hand-out other than that first year--which I wasn't on anyone's radar for. I managed to work at a bar to pay for extras--if you want to call them that. But because I did know people that needed it more than me that did get that extra help from someone other than the government.
So, the government wants to help the "poor". Here's some real suggestions:
1. All we are is all we know. The lifelong poor have to know they have options. Nothing is more depressing to a child who's smart to have everyone around them telling them they won't go to college. It permeates the "poor" like a cancer that holds them all down. Reagan (or his advisors) had it right. Every kid that's capable should have the opportunity to go to college.
2. College education should be helped with federally funded student loans. Michele Obama herself benefited from the Reagan era college benefits. Funny how it doesn't seem to be a priority with her now. If you were poor or even lower middle class, you've got no right to forget where you've been.
3. College education should not be out of the reach of those that have families that want a better life. Student loans should take into account the fact that a single parent needs more than the average college student right out of high school. That will only happen with Federally funded help. In addition, companies should be encouraged to help pay for school more than they are now. Most companies have to require that the degree benefits them in some way. How in the hell does someone on the plant floor get a nursing degree or pre-law or some other degree that will benefit society if we don't encourage big businesses to invest in our society's future? Yes, I'm talking about tax breaks as an incentive. More degrees = more pay = more tax revenue eventually. We should be investing in our society as a whole. And student loans are repaid--figure out how to re-cycle the money instead of stealing it to pay for other stuff.
3. Give deeper tax breaks for those that give time and money to volunteer organizations. The "poor" will go to the Salvation Army, churches, soup kitchens and veterans' organizations way before they'll even walk into a government office begging. We should encourage each other to give, not just talk, but walk the talk.
4. Forget the subsidized housing. No one wants to live in it, not even the people that are too proud to take welfare but have to take the housing. Figure out something better. There has to be. Over 500 people in Congress and the President and hundreds of staffers and this is the best you idiots can come up with? Probably because you've never been there or because you forgot what it was like there when you were.
5. Stop mainstreaming the education system.
5A. Hell, even in an upper middle class neighborhood now I had to hear about how a kid was beating his head against a wall and the teacher and principal couldn't do anything about it. The one child's needs should not be equal or trump the needs of 29 or more other children in that classroom.
5B. In the "poorer" schools, the smarter children are being literally held back because the less talented children can't keep up. The only exceptions are being made for the "gifted and talented" who get extra care. But let's face it, the system is dragging down the rest of the kids in those schools. The kids who might be above the median students, still eligible for college if they could get the money, well, they can't concentrate when they see someone being rewarded (allowed to be mainstreamed) for bad behavior or behavior that isn't mentally healthy. If a child is a below average "special needs" child, then they belong with other children that have similar needs--not dragging down the other children.
6. Healthcare? Guess what? The reason that so many people don't have health insurance has zero to do with the government. Medicaid has always been available. Again, how many "poor" people do you really think run out and register for Medicaid? I had a poor friend that went and registered when she got pregnant--and the only reason was concern for the unborn child. She didn't get on Medicaid before that and she was off as soon as she got a full time job with benefits after the birth of the child. Again, pride and dignity are going to prevent people from running to the government for help.
Don't believe me? That these might help or that pride and dignity are often more important to people than a handout? Take your *sses to a homeless shelter. They're not all mentally ill and unable to hold a job. In fact, most are people that just don't want to depend on a handout. They still want to set a better example. Veterans make up a large majority of the homeless in some areas. We're taught to survive, to adapt and overcome. Yes, some have PTSD severely, but some, like the rest of the majority of homeless, are not willing to take handouts. It's embarassing. It's admitting that you've failed. It's entering a world of the stereotype that we've come to accept as "freeloaders". But the "freeloaders" shouldn't be held in the highest contempt either. The "freeloaders" are often, as my first recommendation states, people who all they are is all they know. They are the people that have given up--either because life has finally gotten the better of them or because that is the only life that they know. They don't truly want the "handout" either, but they have no other view, no other option, no escape. We make no effort to free them with opportunities. It's like we need a "freeloader" group to blame. We've, by policies, laws and societal attitudes, stripped them of their dignity and found a way to keep them there.
Ok, so I wasn't born "a poor black child", as my title reference jokes. I was born to educated parents to a great middle class life. I was raised Republican. My father was a naturalized US citizen. I decided at an earlier age to earn it on my own (which in retrospect was the hard way). My family would've gladly given me a leg up. They would've probably helped me if I had told them how far down I had sunk. But if I had, my father still would've been tickled pink at my success, but I know that it would've lost something for me. I know this, because I know how it feels to be "poor". I've observed good friends that have been or are struggling "poor". So this will sound a tad huffy, but honestly, I am probably the best to state that "poor" is a relative term. Poor has nothing to do with a poverty level. "Poor" in the government use of the word references a state of mind that only someone that has given up or someone who really has no true concept of the word would use. "Poor" is where none of us want to be and no one that actually is "poor" wants to ever admit. Yes, you have abusers of the system, and I'd love to help them out of it. They abuse the system, because "all we are is all we know". We could argue the perverbial chicken and egg all day, but the system by sheer existence with no REAL help--handouts instead of hand-ups--creates the view of some to see their only way out is to abuse the system. Who's fault? Who cares?!?! It's not relevant. What is relevant is I don't ever want to hear "I'm poor" from someone who lives off $20K a year with no dependents that can still afford a 6 pack. That's not poor and it is indicitive of the concept that buries the real "poor" in a system that is designed to keep them buried.
First, let me repeat. It’s not something anyone actually wants to admit to, being “poor”. Yes, I was, downright almost homeless a couple of times, poor. It’s not something I’m proud of. It’s not something that I’m ashamed of either, but the looks that come across some people’s faces when they know that you can’t afford the basic necessities in life isn’t empathy or sympathy but sheer fear and, in some cases, hatred. Poor people don’t want to be poor and they don’t want to be earmarked as “poor” either. The fact that the government picks an arbitrary income level and defines the poverty level doesn’t make someone “poor”. The defined poverty level simply decides when you can get government help, if you so desire. That is the key point there. If you so desire…
I, like most Americans, have been raised to take pride in who you are, never take a government handout if you can avoid it. The concept that poor people want a handout is bullsh*t. What the "poor" genuinely want is a HAND UP. When I went back to school full-time, I knew the risk that I was taking. I was living low middle class at the time. I was working a decent paying job on third shift, but as a single parent I was paying more than double the average day care for my boys to sleep at someone else’s home, in some strange bed, so that I could keep my bills paid. It definitely wasn’t what I wanted for my boys. I didn't consider myself poor. Lower middle class, but in retrospect I was definately tettering on poor. Being poor had its perks. Other poor people are more likely to help than anyone else. One of my dearest friends worked the second shift, and at the time, she barely knew me. I had lost my sitter, and I couldn’t miss work or I’d be out of a job. When she heard me at shift change asking if anyone knew of a reliable sitter, she went to her supervisor and mine and worked out for her to come in 5 minutes early and leave shift 5 minutes early to get my boys. She really barely knew me. We’d talked, worked together, but she knew enough to know that she wanted to help me. We wanted the same things and had a similar view on life. We wanted to provide for our kids: a nice home, a good job, to be able to take care of our kids. She had a small little rental that was probably less than 500 square feet, and she had her own kid to take care of. The pay we made was extremely low for the area and when that plant went to Mexico most of the employees—good, hard working, but most without even a GED—became what the government defines as unemployable. That was the deep south for you, and in some parts, sadly still is. What both of us wanted was a direction out. We had the desire, but the desire and the possible don't always jive.
I had moved to the deep south to attend Clemson University, but finishing my degree now was now looking like a pipe dream. I would have to work to support my boys, and between them, an off shift, and the sheer exhaustion, I could barely stay awake most days. NoDoz became my best friend. Eventually, I decided to bite a bullet and go back to school full time. It was now or never. My GI Bill would expire thanks to the Clinton Administration in less than 4 years—far shorter than the 20 years I had initially been promised. By sheer luck, (yes, I believe in luck), an acquaintance was part of the financial aid office at Clemson. She helped me to scramble to get student loans to help subsidize going to school full time. Now let’s say this. Student loans are only federally funded for people living below poverty level (or damn close) as defined by whatever magic number that some idiot in Washington chooses. Then and now aren't the Reagan years when as long as you could get accepted into a college and could maintain a C or better average, you could get financial aid. And, well, I wasn’t eligible. On paper, I was over the poverty line. It didn’t take into account 3 children pre-school age. I had a job and made more than the required line number, and in all honesty, like I already stated I didn’t consider myself poor. I took out the non-Federally funded loans. Student loans are not meant for single parents or any parents for that matter. They’re meant for people going to school before kids, with no kids, with no plan of kids. The student loan covered my tuition, fees, and books for the semester.
I didn’t have much in retirement, but cashed it out to pay off creditors and subsidize the first year, after the Federal government took over half in tax for early withdrawal. That's an automatic penalty no matter what the reason or circumstance. Ask anyone that has had to cash it out because they were unemployed and needed to eat. Didn’t matter that I was a single mother trying to scramble to make a better life. The United States government takes their share regardless. My GI bill was $400 a month give or take. My child support was just under $1K. I had roughly $1400-1600 a month--for rent, for gas, for food, electric, phone, kids' clothing, childcare, and any incidentals--only $600-$800 after rent. For the next year and a half, that was my income. For those of you that can't do the math, my boys and I lived off of less than $10K a year for 16 months. The poverty level was around $20K.
That first Christmas, my boys either didn't notice or didn't point out that all of their Christmas presents were toys that they no longer played with, re-cycled, re-wrapped and passed off as "new". Let me say, you really have no idea what "poor" is until you can't afford to give your child a present. There was no Christmas ham, turkey or fixings. There was a pitiful fake tree that was over 10 years old. (Yes, I'm not Christian, but the concept of being with family and celebrating what you do have is not exclusively Christian.) Finally, the fall term of my second year, I was able to get a little help with grants. I was still not eligible for all government grants. I actually wasn't eligible until mid-junior year, if memory serves me. And it wasn't until my senior year that I was eligible for the lower interest rates of the federally funded student loans. Talk about a kick in the pants. Didn't matter. I was going to do this. I had moved to the area not having any family or friends there (eventually, God would bless me with people to help me that became my family, but this was way before then).
The worst problem with being poor is just one domino goes down and it can take them all. Have a slew of them go down at the same time and it can be one miserable day, month or even year. Missed a summer semester of school because no classes were offered that I needed--no loans, no GI bill, the bar I was working at closed and top it off with 3 months of no child support because my ex had re-enlisted and somehow his child support had stopped. Some yeoman somewhere made a typo. No income for over 3 months turns into an eviction notice. Scramble to get something, anything put together. Panic sets in. First of all, my boys. Since my youngest has a different father, if they weren't with me, they'd be separated (let's not go into the fact that his child support was so hit and miss that I could never count on it for anything). Second, my ex's wife had once told a bunch of women that I was friends with (well a couple of the women in the group she was talking to are my good friends) that she "liked the boys just fine, but when it was time for them to go, it was time for them to go." I didn't like my boys odds being with someone like that. Third, if you can't get your crap out of that place ASAP, you won't have any crap to be getting. It's hard enough to be poor without realizing that you might lose what little you've got left. No money coming in, no way to make up the difference, and too proud to ask anyone for help. That's the point that no "poor" person wants to be in. That's the point where even a proud "poor" person might think about going to the government. But in truth, having had other friends in the same or similar situations, the government is NOT the poor person's answer. Friends, family, shelters, anything but the welfare system. I'll state it again. Anything but the welfare system.
When you're "poor", all you have left is your dignity. Take that away and you're just a schmuck collecting a welfare check, a stereotype of someone intentionally living off the hard work of others. Yes, you can tell someone like me that you don't mind as long as I'm trying to better myself. Doesn't matter. A "poor" person doesn't want to tell you that they're poor and doesn't define "poor" at some Washington poverty line in the sand. We, and I say this from experience, want a HAND UP, not a HANDOUT. But Washington is NOT worried about HAND UPs. Do away with Welfare altogether. Homeless shelters are full of people that don't want to take a handout from the government. NO ONE WITH ANY PRIDE OR DIGNITY WILL TAKE WELFARE. PERIOD.
I didn't take Food Stamps--not that I wouldn't have. It would take several days of missed classes to get Food Stamps. Not worth flunking out of school for Food Stamps--have the temporary solution ruin the permanent solution? Would that make any sense to anyone?
I did take Free School Lunches. It also meant my boys got Free Breakfast. Less than $10K a year. It meant I only had to come up with one square meal a day during the week.
I did appreciate when friends gave me hand-me-downs that were in great condition.
I did appreciate the friends that helped me when I was evicted. The money they gave me, telling me to pay it forward, has been paid forward over double in the last 10 years. That's right. When the "poor" get out, they help others in the same condition generally. I had a friend in school who came from a very poor rural African American community when I was at Clemson. His dream was to design roller coasters. He had been very fortunate to have someone help him get into Clemson and help him believe he could achieve his dream. The dream didn't quite pan out; he did graduate with me with a BS in Mechanical Engineering. But unable to find a job in roller coasters, he chose to go back to that small poor community to become a mathematics and science teacher. His words to me upon this decision, "The kids in my community need positive role models. They need to see they can achieve more. If they see me, they'll know it's true."
I really appreciated that churches, schools and civil organizations collect food for the holidays and made sure once my name got on their list that I got all the fixins for Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners, excepting the turkey. It wasn't that hard to figure in $20 for a turkey.
And, I really appreciated the Toys For Tots organization. Not because I ever needed a hand-out other than that first year--which I wasn't on anyone's radar for. I managed to work at a bar to pay for extras--if you want to call them that. But because I did know people that needed it more than me that did get that extra help from someone other than the government.
So, the government wants to help the "poor". Here's some real suggestions:
1. All we are is all we know. The lifelong poor have to know they have options. Nothing is more depressing to a child who's smart to have everyone around them telling them they won't go to college. It permeates the "poor" like a cancer that holds them all down. Reagan (or his advisors) had it right. Every kid that's capable should have the opportunity to go to college.
2. College education should be helped with federally funded student loans. Michele Obama herself benefited from the Reagan era college benefits. Funny how it doesn't seem to be a priority with her now. If you were poor or even lower middle class, you've got no right to forget where you've been.
3. College education should not be out of the reach of those that have families that want a better life. Student loans should take into account the fact that a single parent needs more than the average college student right out of high school. That will only happen with Federally funded help. In addition, companies should be encouraged to help pay for school more than they are now. Most companies have to require that the degree benefits them in some way. How in the hell does someone on the plant floor get a nursing degree or pre-law or some other degree that will benefit society if we don't encourage big businesses to invest in our society's future? Yes, I'm talking about tax breaks as an incentive. More degrees = more pay = more tax revenue eventually. We should be investing in our society as a whole. And student loans are repaid--figure out how to re-cycle the money instead of stealing it to pay for other stuff.
3. Give deeper tax breaks for those that give time and money to volunteer organizations. The "poor" will go to the Salvation Army, churches, soup kitchens and veterans' organizations way before they'll even walk into a government office begging. We should encourage each other to give, not just talk, but walk the talk.
4. Forget the subsidized housing. No one wants to live in it, not even the people that are too proud to take welfare but have to take the housing. Figure out something better. There has to be. Over 500 people in Congress and the President and hundreds of staffers and this is the best you idiots can come up with? Probably because you've never been there or because you forgot what it was like there when you were.
5. Stop mainstreaming the education system.
5A. Hell, even in an upper middle class neighborhood now I had to hear about how a kid was beating his head against a wall and the teacher and principal couldn't do anything about it. The one child's needs should not be equal or trump the needs of 29 or more other children in that classroom.
5B. In the "poorer" schools, the smarter children are being literally held back because the less talented children can't keep up. The only exceptions are being made for the "gifted and talented" who get extra care. But let's face it, the system is dragging down the rest of the kids in those schools. The kids who might be above the median students, still eligible for college if they could get the money, well, they can't concentrate when they see someone being rewarded (allowed to be mainstreamed) for bad behavior or behavior that isn't mentally healthy. If a child is a below average "special needs" child, then they belong with other children that have similar needs--not dragging down the other children.
6. Healthcare? Guess what? The reason that so many people don't have health insurance has zero to do with the government. Medicaid has always been available. Again, how many "poor" people do you really think run out and register for Medicaid? I had a poor friend that went and registered when she got pregnant--and the only reason was concern for the unborn child. She didn't get on Medicaid before that and she was off as soon as she got a full time job with benefits after the birth of the child. Again, pride and dignity are going to prevent people from running to the government for help.
Don't believe me? That these might help or that pride and dignity are often more important to people than a handout? Take your *sses to a homeless shelter. They're not all mentally ill and unable to hold a job. In fact, most are people that just don't want to depend on a handout. They still want to set a better example. Veterans make up a large majority of the homeless in some areas. We're taught to survive, to adapt and overcome. Yes, some have PTSD severely, but some, like the rest of the majority of homeless, are not willing to take handouts. It's embarassing. It's admitting that you've failed. It's entering a world of the stereotype that we've come to accept as "freeloaders". But the "freeloaders" shouldn't be held in the highest contempt either. The "freeloaders" are often, as my first recommendation states, people who all they are is all they know. They are the people that have given up--either because life has finally gotten the better of them or because that is the only life that they know. They don't truly want the "handout" either, but they have no other view, no other option, no escape. We make no effort to free them with opportunities. It's like we need a "freeloader" group to blame. We've, by policies, laws and societal attitudes, stripped them of their dignity and found a way to keep them there.
Ok, so I wasn't born "a poor black child", as my title reference jokes. I was born to educated parents to a great middle class life. I was raised Republican. My father was a naturalized US citizen. I decided at an earlier age to earn it on my own (which in retrospect was the hard way). My family would've gladly given me a leg up. They would've probably helped me if I had told them how far down I had sunk. But if I had, my father still would've been tickled pink at my success, but I know that it would've lost something for me. I know this, because I know how it feels to be "poor". I've observed good friends that have been or are struggling "poor". So this will sound a tad huffy, but honestly, I am probably the best to state that "poor" is a relative term. Poor has nothing to do with a poverty level. "Poor" in the government use of the word references a state of mind that only someone that has given up or someone who really has no true concept of the word would use. "Poor" is where none of us want to be and no one that actually is "poor" wants to ever admit. Yes, you have abusers of the system, and I'd love to help them out of it. They abuse the system, because "all we are is all we know". We could argue the perverbial chicken and egg all day, but the system by sheer existence with no REAL help--handouts instead of hand-ups--creates the view of some to see their only way out is to abuse the system. Who's fault? Who cares?!?! It's not relevant. What is relevant is I don't ever want to hear "I'm poor" from someone who lives off $20K a year with no dependents that can still afford a 6 pack. That's not poor and it is indicitive of the concept that buries the real "poor" in a system that is designed to keep them buried.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)