I havn’t even posted the last remarks I made, they are still sitting in a .doc file here on the computer waiting for a once-over before they are posted. There is a lot to say, and I will probably lose interest and get tired of typing before everything is out.

I was reading an article about social security, an opinion piece rather, and went to the comments section of the article. The paper here in Tucson allows for comments on articles, some are interesting. This particular lady described how she and her husband worked hard through college, then did all the right things to be able to send their kids to college. She complained that they were ‘doing too well’ to enlist grants and loans (I assume it was grants and loans they couldn’t get) for help with college for the kids. This was the first problem I had with what this woman said… (seems I always have a problem with the things others say) They were able to send their kids to college with no help, and this was a problem!

Anyway, she was supporting her view that earnings over $98,000 shouldn’t be counted when paying Social Security. The rule is debateable, and I can see both sides of the issue. What I really had issue with was the fact that at the end of her little ‘speech’, she described her family as ‘working poor’.

How the fuck can someone that makes enough to reach the Social Security cap call themselves working poor!? I thought to myself, ‘You have got to be fuckin shittin me!!’ Then I stepped back and considered that maybe there is a standard by which her family could be called working poor. So, I looked it up, of course. It turns out that you have to first ‘set’ the standard, and this is, for a family of four, just over $19,000 a year. In 2004 there were, according to our government, just over 10% of the population under the poverty level. Taking into consideration that around 4% were unemployed, that leaves 6-7% that are ‘working poor’… technically.

Just 7%!?!? We in America are doing GREAT! But then I started thinking. A person today making $10 an hour is having a really hard time if they are supporting a family of four. $10, 40 hours a week, 52 a year, comes to $20,800, just above poverty. The woman that commented would scoff at that, and believe it almost impossible to raise two kids on that. Hell, she would probably think they are due at least double that, just because they work hard! I am interested to find out how many families there are trying to make it on just a little more in income. Here is the whole comment (I have left the misspellings intact…

View from the other side . My husband and I have made the right choices and worked hard for decades. We went to college - it took long working our way thru but we finished . Then we married. Lived frugally as our peers spent money on vacations and toys. We shared a car 7 years even though that is tricky with two carriers that call on you 24/7. Two kids made staying home cheeper than my working. Squeeze the mony tighter. Move several times to maxamise husband's earning power. On our own - no family near. Any vacations used to see parents . Saves money- keeps family strong. Doing too well for help paying for kids college. One done now, he co-oped thru and managed to make it with our help. Daughter still going on the extended pay as you go plan. Still saving like crazy. Husband has worked 80-90 hour weeks at times. Salary is good but better be - on call 24/7. good money at 120K yep . And with the the house paid off after we downsized to save money we paid taxes big time for it . Raise social secutity cap so we pay more and get less from social security ? Gee wonder why I don't embrace that one . Counceling our son who is now working on is his own to save 17% of his gross. He's gonna need it .This tax system penalizes hard work and success. Please look into Fairtax.org it is good for everyone - especally the working poor.

I got pissed and wrote this…

I might be mistaken, but Mrs S.B. describes her family as 'working poor'. How the hell does a family making above the Social Security cap call themselves working poor!?

"We worked hard to put our kids through college, and with no help." Give me a break. This should be the norm, the standard! Instead it's something to complain about.

It's the construction worker and clerks of this country that have something to complain about - IF they are working hard. Those stable one-income families able to send their kids to college have much less to complain about. They have the American Dream, and still some feel they are being cheated.

Not sure why this comes to mind, but I remember a quote I read not too long ago.. "Rich people are just poor people with money."

I should probably control myself before I post shit on the Internet, compose myself rather, but it pisses me off when someone acts as if they deserve the world because they work hard. When people work hard, they deserve their due – a good living with a chance to do something nice for your family. That something nice could be a nice house, a vacation once a year, or maybe send the kids to college if they are so inclined.

Anyway, on to other things. I finished Taltos by Ann Rice. Waaaay too long. She went into way too much history of the ‘Taltos’… in fact, that was really what the book was about, and it would have come across a lot better if she would have done it as maybe a prequel or an associated story. Much of the book was devoted to the living being, the Taltos, telling his tale of the Taltos race, as background information, when it was basically the story. I suffered through it though. This one I listened to.

I also finished Beyond the Fall of Night by Arthur C. Clarke and Gregory Benford, which I actually read. I did this one because it was supposed to be a sequel to Against the Fall of Night by Clarke. It is interesting, to me anyway, because the first is a re-write of a book by Clarke called The City and the Stars. A few of the details were changed, but the story is basically the same, and both were very good. I picked up the sequel at the used bookstore, and when I started reading I saw that the first part of this book was just the re-write all over. The actual sequel took up only the second half of the book, yet they called the whole thing by the sequel title. It was mostly written by Benford, and it was really bad. That’s my opinion anyway, but I suffered through to the end, though I wouldn’t have missed much if I hadn’t finished it.

I also picked up Walden by Henry Thoreau. It was suggested in this other book that I have, called An Incomplete Education. It doesn’t suggest really, just itemizes in one volume what should be included in a basic college education, and why. I also rented a few movies talked about in that book. Metropolis is one, a silent movie about a future city run by huge underground machines.