Divorce

Divorce

 

 

 

            I am the child of a very brutal divorce.

I remember the bruises on my mother's face, and the lies from my biological father (I will call him Mr. Ed, The Talking Horse's Ass). I remember him locking her out of our house, throwing an ashtray in her face. I remember his lies.

There were always lies.

Mr. Ed could never hold a job, and he did his damnedest to try and make sure that my mother didn't either.

She finished her degree, while he dropped out in bitter resentment because his teachers didn't automatically recognize his absolute brilliance.

She worked two jobs in college to support him, his first daughter, and her two kids from his marriage with her.

If he got a dime, he would spend it.

She got a teaching job right out of college, but Mr. Ed had another mad scheme for making money (that would never pan out), and he made her quit after her first year. This meant that she was banned from teaching for two years, because she broke her contract.

Mr. Ed had been given money (again) by his parents to start his own business fixing windshields in cars.

This didn't last long because he found out that he actually had to w-o-r-k (bad word spelled out).

By this time, my mother had been offered a teaching position in the town we were living in.

When Mr. Ed decided to move (again), she told him no. She wanted to keep her job, make payments on the car she just bought, and raise her children.

He ignored her and told her that we were leaving, end of subject. He would go find a place to live and then come for us.

He of course, took the new car.

My mother wanted to make sure that all the utilities were paid before he left (and took all the money). Because he had a habit of not paying them and then calling his parents at the last minute for a bail out.

He promised her that they were.

He drove off.

The next day, the utilities were all shut off.

Do not underestimate my mother (it's my personal motto and I am going to stick with it until death!)

She drained all the gas from the lawnmower and put it in a dumpy old pickup.

She drove us 18 miles to my grandparents. A few days later, we were setup in our own home. And she was carpooling with her younger sister to her teaching job.

Then she filed for divorce.

Maybe I really didn't understand the meaning of divorce, I wasn't ready yet. I know that somewhere deep inside I was supposed to love my father, and I resented him for leaving, although it was my mother that filed the papers.

In the divorce, my mother was awarded the car, and Mr. Ed had no job, so the judge just gave some small sum that he knew my mother would never see.

When Mr. Ed was delivering the car to my mother, he shifted down to low gear and gunned it the last 18 miles.

This petty action left my family stranded on a highway with the engine on fire.

My mother never kept him away from us. She didn't want to be the bad person. She thought that children needed their fathers.

I remember the lies and the beatings when he had us.

His lies were so horrific that they eventually led to an alienation between my older sister (whom my mother had adopted and had custody). When my mother would tell her to do something, she would stick her lip out and say: You're NOT my mother!

That was one battle won by Mr. Ed.

After two years of struggle with my sister, my mother allowed her to go to Mr. Ed.

And Mr. Ed stopped showing up.

My mother never did get any child support.

He faded from my memory.

Maybe it should have stayed that way. It was my fault that it didn't.

But I know who he is now.

I know what the face of a liar looks like. That face is older than my own, but it has the same nose and eyes.

There's a sullen look to that face, from a man who felt he deserves it all and never got anything out of it.

I don't talk to him anymore. Like my mother, I got tired of the lies and the pettiness. If I did something well, he would always claim that he could do it better.

It's a sad life, to walk around thinking that the world owes you but you can't figure out how to make the world pay.

Mostly, I have moved on.

Occasionally, I may sit down and write. I will unbury all the anger that I had to surrender to accept myself, just so that I can pound that bitterness onto the page.

But mostly, I don't think about him. I have forgiven him, but will never forget the betrayals.

If you don't forgive, it eats you from inside until you are raw and you lay in bed at night crying. I don't do that anymore.

His name pops up every once in a great while. When we speak of him, it is with great sadness, that he had so much potential, but never used it. Sometimes, I become somewhat snide with his name. I guess if I didn't, then I would be like him. I don't want to ever be like him.

My mother clears her throat and interrupts me: "I will say one thing about your father..."

I will look at her expectantly.

She will smile softly at me: "...he sure makes great kids!"

Taxes

Taxes

 

 

 

Taxes. The bane to middle class families and single people.

If you are single, deductions are limited to buying a home, getting married, donating to charity (yeah right, please read previous posts), or car repairs if you use your car for work. But then, if you buy a home, that deduction only works once, and then you have to start paying property tax. If you get married, the deduction only works once, and then you become middle class with joint incomes and are screwed again. You already know how I feel about wasting money on charities. And unless you are a salesman, a tow truck driver, a taxi driver, or a traveling veterinarian, mileage deductions don't really cut it compared to the wear and tear on your vehicle. Of course, you can carpool it, but then there is the wear and tear of driving to pick people up and having them spill drinks, smoke, laugh too loud, listen to bad music, and fart in your car.

If you are part of the middle class, more than likely, you are paying around 15% of your income to taxes after deductions.

You may deduct your dependants, your house repairs, and your charitable deductions. But if you earned 50,000 dollars last year, you paid 7,500 in taxes.

I am not saying you should mind this at all. In fact, if the average American and American Corporation paid a straight tax of 20%, for the next 15 years. And if the government actually managed to tighten its belt and restrict spending. The coffers would be full again and the US would be out of debt.

The frightening rest of the story is that corporations only pay around 12.5% in taxes.

The other glitch in that little thought is the fact that is a corporation is based in the US, but they earn money in other countries, if they keep it in that country, they don't pay US tax on it.

If a company produces things that harm the environment, like petroleum, cigarettes, or alcohol, the taxes go up, but again it is the buyer that pays those taxes whenever they pull up to the pump, buy a pack of cancer sticks (editorial license there), or needs to get a buzz on.

The corporation calmly hands those taxes over to the government, and the reaps profits with the income.

I actually completed taxes for one of my neighbors once.

She was a single mom with three kids. The year before she hadn't worked a single day. She lived with her boyfriend and he paid the bills.

She received 1,800 dollars in taxes back from the federal government.

How flawed is this system, really?

She worked zero days and was a single mother of three kids. Her boyfriend paid all the bills, the rent, utilities, and groceries, and she got 1,800 dollars back that year.

Kudos to her for not being on welfare, or on any support programs, but if she didn't work a single day, and she didn't earn a single dime, she shouldn't be rewarded through taxes!

The down side to this would be if a single woman didn't work, and was supported by her boyfriend, her tax breaks would be zero.

So let's think about this for a second... A person who doesn't have children is penalized through the choice of not having children. But a person who has three kids, (by choice) gets to claim a tax break.

Why is having children a tax break?

If it's a single, struggling mom, or even a struggling couple, have a baby then that new baby just became a burden on our society. It really is true that it takes a village to raise a child, because our taxes are the proof of it.

Some younger kids are opting NOT to get married before having kids. On the whole, this means that the woman is a single parent and qualifies for more services from the government.

I remember a married friend of mine that decided to have a child. It was a fully conscious decision on her part. I looked at her like she was crazy. "Do you know how much it costs to raise a kid?" I asked her.

She brushed away my concerns with, "Oh, we have insurance."

To me, that qualifies as the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

I knew how much she was earning, and I also knew that her husband wasn't working. Even with insurance, the average cost of child birth is $2,500.00! And this is not including all the necessities that have to be bought AFTER the baby is born. The cost of cheap diapers is enough to make one swoon. Daycare, if you are lucky, will run you 2-300.00 a week. Add formula, baby food, post birth checkups with the doctor, and the bottom line is that a person should have a good stash of 20 grand just to get the kid into kindergarten.

It's not surprising that years later, that friend is still living hand to mouth.

So let's put a little more heat on the fire. I love my cat. I have one cat. I pay $30.00 a month for cat food. I pay 20.00 a month for a litter box. I pay 120.00 a year for shot updates and check up. I literally gasp when I think of the $720.00 I pay for that demon cat (no exaggeration there), to reside in my home, or should I say his home. This is not including his bath soap, because cats aren't clean just because they lick themselves, and the cost of Band-Aids from all the injuries (I did point out that he was a demon, and nobody can prove me wrong!) The only thing I can claim in this entire list as a deduction are the Band-Aids, as long as I use my HSA card.

Most people can't afford a pet, do they really think that they can afford a child?

The sad part of it is that most people don't want to pay more taxes because they are tired of the government taking and taking, and giving only to those who know how to play the system.

No, I don't want my taxes to go up, but let's put this into perspective:

I don't think that anyone, and I do mean A-N-Y-O-N-E over the age of 65 should pay any taxes. It seems that Uncle Sam has grown fangs and is sucking us dry! This means that those people over 65 that shouldn't have to pay taxes and they would have paid into the system at least 20 years of their life.

I don't think the disabled should pay taxes. I've seen the disability checks before with a broken leg, and it wasn't even enough to pay rent, let alone give Uncle Sam his fair share.

I don't think that parents and welfare recipients should be exempt, or get the tax breaks they do get.

If we taxed at a flat rate, it would virtually disable to IRS. The only reason they would be in existence is for the self-employed and contract workers. Everybody else could just say: Hey boss! Take out that 20% and give me the rest! You would always know how much you are getting in your check (as long as you know percentages). You wouldn't have to save receipts, or stay up late at night sweating over tax returns. 

We could donate our time to charities. We could spend more time being couch potatoes. We could spend our time breathing down the government's neck to balance the budget. And the good news is that we can get rid of that ugly bearded guy that dresses up as the Statue of Liberty, stands on the corner, and waves that sign around like a dead albatross!

In 1996, and then again in 2000, Steve Forbes ran for president.

Part of his treatise was a flat mortgage rate of 4.5% which would have kept the banking industry from falling on their collective face in 2009. But his biggest initiative was a flat income tax. He wanted EVERYONE to pay 17%. He was rough and gruff, and very irritating on the whole. His speaking ability would have voided the vote for most normal people.

But the flat income tax grew a lot of momentum.

Politicians on both sides of the fence began discussing it like it could become a reality.

And then Steve Forbes fell off the grid along with his mortgage rates and flat income taxes, and the idea was no longer discussed.

Why?

 The bigger problem with this is one of the largest lobbying groups in D.C.

They represent the accountants and the tax firms. This group will fight until their dying day to stop straight tax from ever happening.

With a flat income tax and a flat mortgage rate, accountants would be out on the street begging for dollars.

Their existence would become an obsolete thought read about in history books.

It was never going to happen.

So in essence, this thought will stay a thought and you can move on to the next blog!

Guest Blogger: Our Religion of Hate

My guest blogger today is Wayne Anderson. Wayne is a Florida Democrat. He has a degree in chemical engineering from the Colorado School of Mines, and has his Doctorate Jurisprudence in Law. This paper was copyrighted in 2008 and Wayne was obviously way ahead of our times! Thanks for sharing, Wayne!

 

 

Our Religion of Hate

 

 

Copyright 2008

by: Wayne R. Anderson

 

 

Being without religion means that I am not obligated to hate anyone. Various religious cults, however, manage to energize and attract adherents by appealing to the need in many people to hate others. Those cultists feel they are better than others; they figure that whatever they do is good compared to others who are evil. So, my not having any religion allows adherents of cults to conclude that they are better than I am, just for that reason alone. I am branded an atheist or an infidel and hated to some degree by those fanatically religious. Some of those conservative cults derogate people who are liberal, whatever that is, and hate those people also. And some cultists even berate others, like homosexuals, for the way they have sex. But why?

Why would a religious group be judgmental about how other people have sex? It seems illogical. While I do not have sex that way, and I might even consider it disgusting if I had to see people have sex that way, I would probably also find it just as disgusting if I had to see  religious people having sex in whatever ways they do. But since I am not forced to watch either group or forced to adopt their sexual methods, I can easily conclude that it is none of my business to decide how others should have sex. I am not even curious about it. The question is then, why would some religious group be curious about other people's sex habits or insistent upon imposing their own sexual methods upon others? And how can the religious know so certainly what sex methods are bad or unacceptable to their invisible spirits? It is not like we have heard directly from those invisible spirits expressing what sex is good and what is bad. Have we?

The justification that Christian groups give for condemning homosexuals is their clergy's interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 to mean that their god considers homosexuals to be an abomination. The actual verse states: "Thou shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination."

First of all, notice that the verse does not mention or condemn how people have sex. Ishmael just lying with Queequeg without sex has to be an abomination by this verse. Moby Dick is obviously homosexual propaganda. The Bible here is not setting any specific limitations on the ways even the faithful can have sex. Just lying with mankind is an abomination without any mention of sex. But really, would not the most powerful invisible spirit in the universe be able to convey her/his demand, if there is one, about how people have sex in a more clear instruction that does not leave it to the clergy to explain evil into the verse's meaning? Would a god be so shy about any reference to sex that he would use some vague euphemism rather than saying anything about sex? Or did that god actually speak of sexual relations, but one of the prudes that transcribed or translated it was too upset to use their god's actual words? Melville's description of Queequeg lying with Ishmael might have made me uncomfortable if it were not so humorous, but that alone did not make them homosexual or evil, even though the Bible clearly requires them to be hated as an abomination. Furthermore, is there no verse also condemning lesbian sex as an abomination? Perhaps that is exempt from godly condemnation.

Even if we accept that the Bible is stating God's proclamation that all homosexuals are an abomination, just how bad is that? It is not mentioned in the Ten Commandments, so it must not be too bad. It must, therefore, be less bad than dishonoring your parents or cussing. Perhaps it is one of the very minor sins, if anything, like even religious people are guilty of committing. Maybe God does not even agree with the religious fanatics who promote un-Christian hatred of homosexuals, or liberals, or Democrats. Would we not be surprised to hear that Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh are devout Christians in spite of the ungodly hate that they preach.

Leviticus 11:10 states, "...of all that move in the waters, and of all the living creatures that are in the waters, they are an abomination unto you." So when anyone swims in the waters, or takes a bath or shower in the waters, they are an abomination by the word of God. And if we interpret this to mean people are only an abomination while they are in the water, then we have to similarly interpret Leviticus 18:22 to say that homosexuals are only an abomination while they are lying with mankind, not before or after.

While the Bible does not specifically bar homosexuals from being bishops in the Episcopal Church, and certainly does not bar homosexuals from marrying, Leviticus 20:13 does say, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with woman, both of them have committed abomination" they shall surely be put to death." Do all Christians really believe the Bible to the extent that they want to put homosexuals to death like they once did with the witches of Salem? And what about Leviticus 20:27 which states: A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death." David Copperfield might have been put to death by religious fanatics in the past, but if Christianity can now overlook the obviously barbaric requirements demanded by some of their god's putative words, why can't they ignore those verses that require barbaric hatred of others because of something as unimportant as how they have sex?

Consider the instructions in Deuteronomy 7:26, "Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it; but thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing." Yep, God is clearly demanding the faithful to hate an abomination. So, those religious people are required to be haters. Dick Cheney is, therefore, required by his religion to hate his daughter. It is confirmed by Deuteronomy 12:31, "...for every abomination to Jehovah he hateth." Remember, I am without religion and do not have to hate anyone. Perhaps I am more Christian than are Christians, though I have hope that all Christians are not equally hateful. Maybe some are even liberal or progressive. But the literal words of the Bible certainly do not allow believers to be compassionate conservatives.

Another thing that the religious are required to hate is explained in Deuteronomy 22:5 as "a woman who wears what pertaineth to a man or a man who wears woman's clothes is an abomination to God." Wow, is it really that important that a woman not wear pants? Or since men in biblical times wore robes more like dresses, maybe men wearing pants and women in dresses is the abomination mentioned in Deuteronomy. But do we really have to hate women or put them to death for their fashion choices as the Bible demands, now that we are more liberal and less barbaric? And if we can overlook men and women dressing improperly, why not similarly overlook other abominations?

Proverbs 11:20 says, "They that are perverse in heart are an abomination to Jehovah. But such as are perfect in their way are his delight." Gee, I thought we were all sinners and God did not expect us all to be perfect. Guess I was wrong and we have to hate and put to death those that are perverse in heart. I guess the haters in the clergy will tell us what makes a person perverse in heart before we kill those people. But what about the biblical demand that "thou shalt not kill?" It's a quandary. And how can we be certain that God opposes aborting fetuses if He is so willing to kill so many groups of adults as required by Moses' claims of what God told him?

A tougher condemnation is contained in Proverbs 12:22 as follows: "Lying lips are an abomination to Jehovah; but they that deal truly are his delight." So, if we treat the equal abominations of lying with mankind and lying lips as God has instructed, we must detest, abhor, and put to death even those persons who have ever lied. So, let him who has never lied come forward to throw the first stone. That may be Condoleezza Rice, who became so self-righteous at her congressional hearings at the mere mention that she may have lied. Say, I wonder if George W. Bush is being honest when he claims the Iraq war was not a mistake and he is not sorry to have started. We should certainly hope that is not another example of lying lips. But what politician would ever be guilty of that abomination?

Proverbs 16:5 adds another offense: "Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to Jehovah." So, certainly those who have such pride in their heart to claim that they are closer to God must be detested, abhorred, and put to death, just as those who lie with mankind.

An interesting requirement is presented in Luke 16:15 as . . . "for that which is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God." The one that comes to mind is President George W. Bush who is certainly exalted among right-wing religious fundamentalists. So, he must be just as detested and abhorred as those homosexuals that those same groups claim must be detested and abhorred even to denying them equal rights that are enjoyed by other Americans.

Finally, consider Matthew 7:1, "Judge not, that ye be not judged." This is not a problem for me because I accept that I do not know, or wonder about, how homosexuals have sex. So I do not have to hate, detest or abhor them, and I am without the information that would allow me to judge them. Religious fanatics, however, are not hindered from judging or hating just by their lack of knowledge, like: how homosexuals are having sex; whose definition of sex (ours or President Bill Clinton's) is being used; why their abomination is worse than all the other abominations described in The Bible; or why they think their god requires their help in judging if he or she really is all-powerful? If an all-powerful god really hated all those abominations, why would he or she not eliminate them without relying on the feeble assistance of mere mortals?

So, if some Christians are not haters just for the sport of it, they should speak out against those among them who, for instance, publicly condemn Sponge Bob Squarepants and other cartoon characters just for promoting tolerance of others, like homosexuals. Seeking tolerance does not in any way require that anyone participate in sexual activities or agree with how others have sex. it only seeks to teach children to tolerate others. The alternative being sought by anyone who opposes tolerance of any group is the options of judging others, abhorring others, and putting others to death. Does any reasonable Christian really believe Tinkey Winkey, just by his or her or its mere existence, causes children to be lured into a lifestyle where they might have sex in some way that Jerry Falwell knows all about and does not agree with? Jerry and the other fanatics evidently felt they should be judging us all based on how we have sex. I have no problem with that. Based on my meager sex life for the past many years, I may find myself sainted even though I do not even believe. That is, if it really is more important that we have sex in accordance with Jerry's or some other god's requirements.

I would not resume to judge or preach to fanatical Christians, but I suspect that Christ would not hate homosexuals as they do. It seems to me that there is good reason to believe, if you believe The Bible, that God is the one that made homosexuals that way or could change them if He wished. On the other hand, is it not God that Christians believe should do all the judging? My belief is that if there is a god, notice I do not claim to know, he or she would not be proud of the religious haters who hate in his or her name.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians, they are so un-Christ like.--Gandhi.

The Givers

The Givers

 

 

If you have ever been impatiently sitting in a long car line drive-thru at Starbucks and pulled up to the window only to find that your drink has been paid for, then you have been tagged by a giver.

I don't know why it happens when it happens, but there I am, in that hot or cold car, swearing at myself for even thinking I could get through the line fast enough to get to work on time. I grit my teeth and pull up to the window, only to find the person handing out that drink to me without any repercussions to my wallet. It usually happens when I am at my worst.

I drive away telling myself that I will come back, just because I like the people who go there... And the drinks!

The only feeling that can beat that is if I am the buyer. If I see the upset person behind me and I want to make their day a bit better. Being a giver feels awesome!

Whenever there is an international disaster, people in the US instantly start hopping on their computers trying to figure out what we can contribute to reduce this disaster. We face adversity head on and eat it for a midmorning snack.

A mild search online will show hundreds of websites where you can donate to anything from saving Dora the Explorer to helping a child with hospital bills. And the fact that there are so many of these websites proves that there are people out there giving and giving and giving.

These websites take a minor cut of the profits, usually anywhere from 3-15%. We don't blink at the cost because we want to be good people.

Several years ago, I started walking past the bell ringers. I waved away the little girls in uniform hocking their cookie wares. I stopped participating in the local fundraisers that they have at work.

I am a charity snob.

I think it started with Red Cross.

In the fifties and sixties, the Red Cross set out to make a royal profit. They didn't care where the money came from, they were going to take it. One of the first horror stories I heard was of a military camp in Germany in the 1950s. The American Troops were a wee bit home sick and the Red Cross opened up across the river. They were selling coffee for a dollar, and hotdogs for three dollars(in the fifties, when a hotdog was a dollar, and coffee sold in restaurants for a nickel). This is what they did for our troops.

I have heard similar stories of the Red Cross in Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Laos, France, and even Africa!

The current CEO, Gail J. McGovern's salary ranges anywhere from $561.000 a year to $1,037,000. Apparently this doesn't detract from it's efficacy according to most websites, but I really have no respect for someone who goes into a charity thinking that he/she is going to make money at it. Most people are quite happy to settle for about one/tenth of that salary to make a living, and we do (if we are lucky).

I used to think that if I donated to the United Way, my money would stay local. It's something that they have tooted on their horns for decades. I would even volunteer a portion of my check to help the local people.

Out of curiosity, if all of my money stays local, then how is Brian Gallagher (the CEO of United Way earning $1,035,347 a year? Am I missing something here?

My mother is a big fan of the Salvation Army. She has even rung that irritating bell for them. She has also gotten a bit irritable with me when I walk right past them without blinking.

Why, oh why, am I such a Scrooge?

Forbes reported that William A. Roberts (the CEO of the Salvation Army) $238,009 last year.

If he donated two/thirds of that back into the Salvation Army, I would have some respect for him.

Why do these people earn so much money? It can't be because the CEOs are such good fund raisers, because these are well-known charities. When people want to give money, these are the top charities that get deluged with money. Nobody thinks about it, they just give it.

But it gets even worse, in my opinion: Last year, the government gave the Salvation Army $384 MILLION dollars.

The US government in April of 2014, was $16,787,451,118,147 in debt. Let's spell this out just a bit better to make it more comprehensible: Sixteen TRILLION, Seven hundred and eighty-seven BILLION, four hundred and fifty-one MILLION, one hundred and eighteen THOUSAND, one hundred and forty-seven dollars.

There are some months that are harder than others. There are months when buying a coffee for the person behind me is not even an option. To be quite frank, if I was   $16,787,451,118,147 in debt, I would definitely NOT give $384 MILLION to the Salvation Army, let alone the $238,009 to the CEO!

I would rather give money to a crack-head on the street, knowing that my money will go to fuel his/her dependency, than to put a dollop of whipped cream in the direction of a charity. With the crack-head, at least I know where my money is going. I can count on that person to spend that money where I expect them to spend it.

In 2013, Americans gave $335.17 billion dollars to charity. Less than what the federal government gave to the Salvation Army.

If you lumped all the people in the US together, added all of their wages together, and then divided by the number of working people in the US, you would find that the average wage of workers in the US is $6,202.00 per year.

And yet these people are still giving, and giving, and giving.

The other problem with large charities is that they pay no taxes on the money that the average John Q Public pays to them. I am sure that the salaried individuals pay into taxes, but the money that is shipped to them in bulk has no strings attached.

Unlike most businesses that have to pay taxes for the money they receive, charities are exempt.

So let's contemplate this for a second.

When charities make a profit, the CEOs get paid more, because they get a percentage of the profits. But if Charities call the incoming monies profit then they are businesses that run on commission. If they are a businesses that run on profit and commission then they are not tax deductible in my eyes.

Then there are the bad givers, the large companies that donate simply for a tax deduction. They predetermine their profits for the year and then write a check that will reduce their taxes to almost nothing in percentages.

It's like a zombie gnawing on the government's bones, but they leave a few pieces of skin because it makes them look like they are not the devouring, crazed, corporations that "We the people" perceive them to be.

Then they go online, or pose in front of a photographer, smiling and holding up this huge check that they are going to get back in their tax deductions, so technically, it's not them writing the check, but the skin of the dead body remains.

The sad part is that the only charities that actually qualify for said deductions on taxes are the charities that pay their CEOs monies for the profit made.

The wisest thing that anyone ever did in my eyes was to set up fund-raising websites, where we can peruse the different people who need the money, from startup companies to surgeries not covered by insurance. We can avoid paying CEOs their umpteen million, and give the money where it is needed. But these donations are not tax deductible.

In 1917, when the Federal Government came up with the idea of Federal Taxes, they also came up the ingenious idea of giving these deductions. And unfortunately, there is no cap on these deductions.

While some states have tried to reduce and possibly eliminate deductions for charities, the problem is that this means the large corporations will stop giving to local charities.

As a child, I remember going door to door for UNICEF. Yes, I was a child whore for charity. I would knock on doors and ask for any spare change. I was thrilled, if at the end of the night, I had a few bucks to donate to charity. The plus side is that I did it out of the goodness of my heart (and because all the other kids were doing it). I didn't even have a social security number, and it was like Trick or Treating, but for PENNIES (that I didn't keep, but it was nice to look at them)!!!

In junior high, I walked a marathon. 20 miles for around 30 bucks for a charity that I don't even remember. I had horrible leg cramps for weeks, and a sunburn that had my mother pouring vinegar on me for three days (they should really make vinegar smell better after all these years).

What happened to the time when charities really were local? What happened to the days when people who worked for charity did it for free?

I saw a video where people were having a carwash for their father because they couldn't afford to bury him. Where were the charities when this needed to be taken care of? Where is this money going?

I work for a large corporation (yes, I am a very small part of the corporate machine).

A few months ago, they announced this WONDERFUL new thing, where we could donate $1 per paycheck to a "WIN" fund that they would use to help other employees in need. First question I asked was: Who manages the fund?

There was a long pause... Uh, Corporate Headquarters.

Okay, so someone I don't know is going to manage a fund of money that will gain interest that will go back into corporate coffers.

I didn't like that.

Next question: Is my money staying local?

Another long pause... Uh, no, it will span through all the cities and countries where our corporate headquarters are located including the 3rd world countries that tend to have more national disasters than others.

So I would never see the people that would benefit from my giving and the corporation would suck up the interest like a leeching mosquito.

Yeah, not gonna donate.

Here's another kicker:

Do you know all those contributions that you coughed up for the company fundraisers?

The company donates YOUR money and then claims a tax deduction.

That's right! YOU are helping your company claim a tax deduction for money that never came out of corporate coffers... Are you feeling like a sucker yet?

You should be...

I recently had my yearly review. Top marks all the way. They gave me a decent enough raise. The one low score I had was the fact that I don't participate in charitable fund raisers.

My supervisor looked at me expectantly, waiting for me to sell my wallet for the purpose of getting a higher raise.

I looked at her with a steady gaze and simply said: No.

And that is what we have to do in this day and age.

If you are crazy enough to think that your money is actually going to a good cause, give it to the cause directly, get a receipt, and claim your own deduction.

But better yet, buy notebooks and pencils for the local school. Take clothes you never wear to a homeless shelter. Volunteer your time at a soup kitchen. Deliver meals for meals on wheels. Hand your money or your time over to someone who needs it. But make sure that it gets directly to that person. Raise money for a local family. Cook a large dinner for a local fire station crew! Or just pay the bill when you see them checking out at the local grocery store. . Walk away from the large corporations (née large charities that do not like to share).

The Takers

The Takers

 

It would be nice if we could all point at one demographic and say that these people are the reason that our country is failing. I like to call it legal stealing. It's the US thought that if the government allows us to take the money from them, then we deserve it and they don't.

The Conveniently Poor

 

My mother worked with this woman (we will call Sara).

Sara legally immigrated to the US with her husband from Mexico. The US government was not aware of, or did not recognize, the marriage between Sara and her husband.

So when Sara started having children, she was deemed a single mother and was able to apply for government assistance.

And then Sara legally brought her parents to the US. Since they were past retirement age, they qualified for Social Security without ever having paid into it. The only requirement for getting Social Security was that her parents stayed in the US for six months out of the year.

So for six months out of the year, they would live with Sara. When they went back to Mexico for the other six months, Sara would cash their checks and send back a pittance (which is all they would need in Mexico), and keep the rest for herself.

After her children graduated from high school, Sara and her husband wed in the US, in their paid off home, and their fancy cars that they paid for with cash from Sara's parent's Social Security checks and the welfare checks that she received for being a single mother.

It's not that Sara did anything illegal, she simply played on a system that was willing to pander to her whims.

In 2005, I was attending a local junior college. I was taking 12 hours a semester and working full time.

In one of my evening classes, there was a woman (I shall call Candy) who was getting government help to attend school and better herself. She was 20 years old and was the single mother of four kids.

Because she was on welfare, the government was interested in her entering society as an educated woman, so they decided to pay for her school. They were paying her $1,000 per credit hour.

I was paying $120.00 per credit hour, meaning that the three hour philosophy class that I had with Candy cost me $360.00 plus the $74.95 text book. Taking 12 hours a semester and 3-6 hours in the summer, I was able to graduate in five years.

Candy was taking six hours per semester (and maybe showing up one out of every three days.) If she finishes, she will have received $120,000 dollars in ten years. Her GPA will probably be around 1.7, and nobody will hire her. So her position in the world of welfare is secure.

Sara and Candy's poverty is convenient for them. They want to be poor because it gives them more benefits than applying themselves. It seems that the government is more interested in those that never try versus those who try and fail.

 

 

The Poor

 

I work with several single mothers (not of Sara and Candy's caliber). Some of them work two jobs to support their kids.

Once a year, (during tax season) these women get huge tax breaks for each of their kids. This is the time of year where they go out and buy brand new cars, take trips, and basically splurge with money that they usually don't have.

I was raised by a single mother. She worked two jobs and supported three kids with no help from her deadbeat, ex-husband (whom I normally refer to as Mr. Ed, The Talking Horse's Ass).

My mother would teach in the morning, come home and sit down at the table and help us with our homework. She would prep us for bed and then Twila or Marta would come over and take care of us while my mother played music in bars. (By-the-way, Marta, I haven't thrown my shoes behind the drier since and never will again... Promise!)

A week before the beginning of each school year, my mom would empty her coffers and fill our closets with cute wardrobes. We would get our annual physical and our eyes tested. A new car was out of the question. Extravagant expenditures never crossed my mother's mind. She was all about being the parent and doing it right.

Some of my favorite people were and are poor. They go to their crappy jobs that just barely pay enough to put food on the table. They break their backs lifting things that shouldn't be lifted, and smiling at customers that deserve to have their faces pushed in.

It's not a bad thing to be poor. If you haven't done it, you should just to tighten up your backbone a bit. You could call it your "year of living dangerously without healthcare or enough money to pay for the hospital" or "the year that I psychotically decided to try and live on minimum wage." I guarantee you that it will make you appreciate what you have and what you don't have.

 

The Rich

 

I read a story about a former CEO, of a large corporation, who filed for unemployment. He owned several lovely homes, and also received a healthy check with stock options. He rented a dumpy apartment and had his unemployment checks sent to that address.

Of course, he lied about his bank balance, his possessions, and his overall value. He must have found it quite a joke with his buddies at the local golf course as he putted away on the green.

And then there was the woman that won one million dollars in Michigan with a lottery ticket and continued to collect welfare. She was later found dead of an overdose cuddled up to her sleeping baby. At least her dealer was paid in full!

If the system is so easy to scam, then it's a very broken system that needs to be rebuilt from the bottom up.

 

The Corporations

 

Because I have been so informed, we are going to assume for this diatribe that corporations are people too! Don't get me wrong in my facetiousness, I recognize that you can find some awesome people that work for corporations, all the way up to the top!

I think fondly back to the day when President George Bush, Jr. (and don't think that I am only going to target Republicans) lowered tariffs on imports for the purpose of allowing large corporations to take their manufacturing businesses out of the country.

According to all the information, this would reduce costs of most products, making them affordable for John Q. Public.

There are two problems with this theory: If John Q. Public is unemployed because the jobs have been shipped overseas, then the products will still be out of reach. And my biggest beef was I didn't see the drop in prices that was predicted.

A friend of mine worked for Hewlett Packard. On the day that she was laid off, she was escorted into a room and played a film about a small town in Nicaragua or Nigeria, or bum f**k Egypt, and how much it would help this community to raise up out of poverty and survive if her job was sent there.

The person who took over the job would still be as poor as a flea on a dead body because they were only earning 1/100th of what my friend was earning. My friend would get a job outside the corporate spectrum, and a large number of people in Colorado would never buy another Hewlett Packard product because it was so poorly made by untrained individuals, and everybody would live happily-ever-after.

The president failed to see the big picture. He saw lower costs in manufacturing, lower labor costs, and lower import costs. He did not see the job losses, the unemployment rate, a reduction in consumer spending, or the still high prices of EVERYTHING due to corporate greed.

Recently, WalMart and McDonalds made every effort to aid their employees with improving their lives. McDonalds even created a website with tips for their workers on how to live on their lowly wages. One of the big tips was to stop eating at fast food restaurants (point taken, and I did, although I don't work at McDonalds).

When you step into a line at WalMart, and someone pushes your preferred product over a scanner, you can look that person in the face and know that they qualify for welfare. Their meager salary would not feed a family of one, let alone a family of five. And if they are the sole earner in the family, you can bet that they get food stamps and other federal government support.

But still we line up at one of the three registers that are open to check out the 30 people waiting to be served. We think we are getting a good deal at the cheaper product, but we are still paying for the $300 million dollars in taxes to make sure that WalMart workers just survive.

It's also estimated that if WalMart raised all of their products in price by one penny, then they could afford to pay their employees decent wages and that $300 million would fall of the radar.

There's an even bigger kicker in this: I will call it my year of not going to WalMart.

I used to go to WalMart once every two weeks for groceries. I would stand in line, thinking that I was spending less for more, but my tab was always over $150.00 dollars. Why would a single woman need to spend $300.00 on groceries for a month?

I rationalized it over and over in my mind, and it came to me not being rational.

On an impulse, one day I didn't go to WalMart for groceries, I was in a hurry and skipped over to the nearby Kroger store. My groceries cost $87.00. I drove home with a furrow in my brow, thinking "What the f**k?"

So in two weeks, I took my Kroger receipt with me to WalMart, and started comparing prices (truly).

Like most Americans, I have discovered the joy of buying generic brands, and this is where I discovered WalMart's deep, dark secret. Yes, their names brands are cheaper than Kroger's name brands, nothing to deny there. But while WalMart's generic tomato soup was 69 cents, Kroger's generic tomato soup was 54 cents (and it was made and canned in the US). And that is a mere example of the extreme variance in prices. There were others (like ground turkey being $3.99 per pound at WalMart, while Kroger settles for $2.49 per pound.)

I also discovered that my fruits and veggies lasted longer... Like WEEKS longer. I had been throwing away produce a week after I bought it at WalMart.

In the long run, my year of not going to WalMart became a life style.

(This is where you picture the little mouse flipping the bird at the big bad eagle as it swoops down to kill her...squeak squeak!)

 

The Banks

 

On March 9, 1933, The Emergency Banking Act was passed.

Due to the Great Depression, the banks were having a few problems. People didn't have money to pay off their loans, and they didn't have money to deposit in banks. So of course, the wisest thing anyone could do was help the banks... eh?

The PEOPLE didn't have money to pay off their loans, and the PEOPLE didn't have money to deposit in banks. So why was this the Emergency Banking Act? Why wasn't it the Emergency Citizen Act, where the government stepped in and stopped foreclosures and prevented small business bankruptcies?

Logically, if the PEOPLE were thriving, then they would be depositing money in banks and paying off their loans.

So in 2009, we make the same mistake again with the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Seven Hundred Billion Dollars scattered to the winds from tax payers' pockets. Let's spell this out a bit better: $700,000,000,000.00.

Did this bail out stop the housing foreclosures? Did it stop businesses from filing for bankruptcy? Did it slow the recession down just a wee bit? If you answered no, then you are wrong. If you answered ABSOLUTELY NOT, you're closer to right then you will ever be.

According to the New York Times, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, and Citigroup used taxpayers' money to pay MILLIONS in bonuses to those bank employees that continued to pursue foreclosures on the struggling individuals who lost their jobs. There were no payment breaks on those mutating algorithms that increase payment exponentially per year after the first year to the point that it was inevitable that any normal person could not meet those payments.

And let's be real here, if the banks hadn't mutated the way their loans were structured, then they wouldn't have been in this predicament. If they had been honest with the average Joe seeking to buy a house, then Joe would probably still own his house, and the average bank wouldn't be struggling.

So let's take Plumber Joe (not to be mistaken for Joe the Plumber). If PJ earned 46K seven years ago and 79K this year, he value would have increased exponentially over the last seven years 41% (YAY, Joe). So the bank lenders would see this increase and naturally assume that PJ's value would increase 41% in another seven years and so they would arrange their mutating algorithm to increase PJ's payments 41% over the next seven years. They will have forgotten/overlooked/or not cared about future childbirths of a growing family, job injuries, job lay-offs, or just the cost of living increases as the years pass. 

And where were the laws that protected the home owners? Where were the laws that said banks couldn't cheat home buyers anymore? I guess I could have almost swallowed TARP if anything good have come of it. If only there had been strings attached saying that the banks couldn't cheat people anymore.

In current times, banks have sunk to a new low and began selling homes of the foreclosed without evicting the current home owners or advising them of the actual foreclosure. It started when banks started selling off their loans to other predators without telling the victims that they were no longer protected.

To push your buttons just a wee bit more, banks had the unmitigated gall to foreclose on homes that weren't even under mortgage. Their grasping and greedy little fingers stretched beyond the boundaries of greed and went for properties that were paid off or not financed by said banks.

One couple had never missed a payment, and Bank of America wasn't even their lender. Their home was even set to be auctioned off. In desperation, they refinanced with BOFA only to start receiving TWO payment notices from the bank. It finally took a legal injunction to make BOFA back off.

Another couple found their home foreclosed on, and they had paid cash for it. They took Bank of America (again the culprit) to court and won legal expenses. After sending multiple letters to the bank and being thorough ignored, the couple foreclosed on BOFA. They showed up with moving trucks and started clearing out the cash tills. It took moments for BOFA to cough up $5,772.88 owed to the couple.

Apparently, in order to mooch off the government, one has to be smart enough to cheat the system, a single parent, a corporation, or a bank.   

About Vaccination

About Vaccination...

 

 

            In 1998, Andrew Wakefield published a paper on a study he had done with vaccines and their correlation to Autism.

            Two years later, a frantic frenzy had begun.

            Parents stopped vaccinating their children.

            In 2001. the US vaccination rate was at 98%. Today it is at 90%.

            But the ripples of Wakefield's study in the scientific community were different: No one could replicate his study. No scientist could duplicate, or even come near to Wakefield's numbers in any way, shape or form.

            And then they traced the trail of Wakefield's studies and found that a group of lawyers filing suit against the pharmaceutical companies had funded the research, creating a bias in Wakefield's study that invalidated it before it even started.

            Andrew Wakefield lost his license to practice medicine and became a laughing stock in the scientific community.

            According to the CDC factors contributing to the existence of Autism include:

·         Genes are one of the risk factors that can make a person more likely to develop ASD.

·         Children who have a sibling with ASD are at a higher risk of also having ASD.

·         ASD tends to occur more often in people who have certain genetic or chromosomal conditions, such as fragile X syndrome or tuberous sclerosis.

·         When taken during pregnancy, the prescription drugs valproic acid and thalidomide have been linked with a higher risk of ASD.

·         There is some evidence that the critical period for developing ASD occurs before, during, and immediately after birth.

·         Children born to older parents are at greater risk for having ASD.

            And the numbers don't lie. While reports of Autism have gone up, and vaccinations have gone down. Without correlation of these to sets of numbers, there is no fact around the idea that vaccinations "cause" Autism.

            In fact, if you ever have a scientist tell you that he has "proof" that vaccinations "cause" Autism, those two words invalidate the argument. In science, there is only correlation, there is never "proof" or "cause".

            One thing that may have increase the numbers of reported Autism in recent years, is the ability to diagnose the symptoms.

            The first successfully diagnosed case of Autism in the US, was in 1943, long before the wide ranged, implemented vaccinations of 1969. Of course, this means that Donald Grey Triplet's mother and father traveled into the future to get him vaccinated and then he "came down" with Autism.

            Some still seeking to blame vaccinations for Autism, after the invalidation of Andrew Wakefield's study, are using the mercury in vaccinations to blame for Autism.

            To study this realistically, the following are symptoms for mercury exposure:

• Impairment of the peripheral vision
• Disturbances in sensations ("pins and needles" feelings, usually in the hands, feet, and around the mouth)
• Lack of coordination of movements
• Impairment of speech, hearing, walking
• Muscle weakness (WebMD)

 

            Symptoms of Autism include, but are not limited to:

 

• Significant problems developing nonverbal communication skills, such as eye-to-eye gazing, facial expressions, and body posture.
• Failure to establish friendships with children the same age.
• Lack of interest in sharing enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people.
• Lack of empathy. People with autism may have difficulty understanding another person's feelings, such as pain or sorrow.
• Delay in, or lack of, learning to talk. As many as 40% of people with autism never speak.
• Problems taking steps to start a conversation. Also, people with autism have difficulties continuing a conversation after it has begun.
• Stereotyped and repetitive use of language. People with autism often repeat over and over a phrase they have heard previously (echolalia).
• Difficulty understanding their listener's perspective. For example, a person with autism may not understand that someone is using humor. They may interpret the communication word for word and fail to catch the implied meaning.
• An unusual focus on pieces. Younger children with autism often focus on parts of toys, such as the wheels on a car, rather than playing with the entire toy.
• Preoccupation with certain topics. For example, older children and adults may be fascinated by video games, trading cards, or license plates.
• A need for sameness and routines. For example, a child with autism may always need to eat bread before salad and insist on driving the same route every day to school.
• Stereotyped behaviors. These may include body rocking and hand flapping. (WebMD)

 

            The one common characteristic of both is "Impairment of speech". But not so common when you look at the variances. The "Impairment of speech" under mercury poisoning is very similar to the impairment that you would find a person who had just had a stroke. The autism speech issues center mostly around social displays, but there is a "delay in, or lack of, learning to talk."

            It is basically a learning dysfunction, not a physical impairment.

            Also take into consideration that the body already contains trace amounts of mercury and aluminum. And the vaccines have trace amounts only. Some parents have opted to vaccinate one disease at a time, to avoid using the combining agents of mercury and aluminum. Remember too that these elements can be found in a lot of food as well. What you are not getting by avoiding the vaccine, you are getting elsewhere.

            Some argue that it is a conspiracy by big pharmaceutical companies, the government, and doctors to make money of the poor suspecting public.

            But vaccinations actually are taking money away from large pharmaceutical companies and doctors. When people don't get sick from a widely spread disease, hospitals lose money from empty beds. Doctors lose money because they don't have to treat the diseases. And the big pharmaceutical companies aren't pulling a steady income from these vaccinations.

            While I must confess, I do see the conspiracy when it comes to cancer and AIDs, and the amount of money it costs for hospital bills and medication, these are non-airborne diseases/illnesses (I am not justifying their greed).

            To say that this is an emotional issue for me is something that I can't deny.

            My grandmother suffered from an early childhood disease that damaged her heart. During her fourth heart surgery, at 62, she passed away.

            I encourage everyone to think about this logically, without the influences of shamans, voodoo witch doctors, Andrew Wakefields, and the "holistic healers".