The editorial blog on the Huffington Post by Catherine New regarding how the majority of the middle income is taken to pay for not only housing but transportation has really caught my attention. I believe the author intended for the audience to be for all the middle class tax payers. Which is more than half of the population. Catherine News information gathered her information based on the reports from the Center of Housing Policy, which is a non profit housing public organization.
I definitely agree with her findings. Her research states that twenty-five of the largest cities here in the United States have middle class households forking over fifty-nine percent of their paychecks. FIFTY-NINE PERCENT!?!? That is crazy!! That's more than half of these peoples income. People who need the money to pay for their own necessities. People who have family that sometimes depends on that only income and they're stripping it away. On Catherine's findings there is information that some states are not as high. For example Washington, DC, it's fifty-one percent for them. Although it is lower, it is still HALF of that persons income.
A question comes into mind, why the middle class?
Like her article states, we're (and yes I'm including myself) the ones falling back economically. We work hard so we can try to make it financially, not so we can "help" the needy people. Paying for these basic necessities leaves these families with very little money to pay for their own necessities.
This makes me thing that it might just be a better idea to stop working and have the government and other people take care of me and my kids. Either way I'm being left with very little money. The easy way out seems very appealing right about now. Fortunately I'm not that type of person. I've been raised to be a hard worker to get and achieve what I want in life.
That's my opinion and I agree with Catherine. The candidates for presidency are trying to duck financial problems facing the citizens who are paying for shelter and transportation. We need actual solutions, not just ideas. Solutions that will start now now, not soon. The middle class should not be the one taking care of the needy. I'll leave you with a few questions I tend to always have: Why aren't the wealthy being taxed? Why does it seem like this is always a problem? Will this ever end?
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Is racial preference to be blamed?
I recently read an editorial on USA Today from Stuart Taylor Jr. and Richard Sander, called "Opposing view: 'Racial balancing' ignores inequalities". I can see why the editors lean towards ruling for Abigail Fisher but her reasons for suing are completely wrong for so many reasons. Fisher is basing her issue with racial reasons instead of looking at it for what it is.
The editors know that diversity is great significance but disagree on what they think universities base their admissions on. The article states, "colleges and universities should not cast aside other values by using very large racial preferences in an obsessive pursuit of racial head-count." They're stating that racial is the only factor. Then they continue to declare there's an inconsistency by favoring children of wealthy black and Hispanic professionals over many Asian and white students who don't have money and are better suitable. Now it's not only a racial issue but also a money issue. Actually money should be the reason for the lawsuit NOT race. The fact that universities and colleges prefer kids with wealthy parents over students that come from a low income family. That is the REAL problem. Insinuating that race is a factor and trying to give proof on how these kids are falling behind, low grades and failing the bar exam more than white students is just immature.Yes it is an injustice that the universities lean towards money. State it as it is and don't point fingers at the easiest thing to blame, the minorities.
There solution is to require racial interest be no more than the interest for working-class and low income kids. That is just plain stupid. How about making the solution for wealthy students be no more than low income students? That would be definitely be such a better solution, once again instead of race being the problem. There is a lot of white, black, Hispanic student BUT the same applies to low income students. Wouldn't this be a much better balance?
Many people might agree with this editorial, they feel that there was an injustice not allowing the white student admission to the university. If she was black or Hispanic, would it be such a big issue? So that is my opinion in regards to this article. Yes maybe it was a very unfair for the University of Texas to deny admission to Abigail Fisher of race as she states. But as we now know race is not the fallout. Being wealthy or not is the fallout and that should be the main reason for her lawsuit.
The editors know that diversity is great significance but disagree on what they think universities base their admissions on. The article states, "colleges and universities should not cast aside other values by using very large racial preferences in an obsessive pursuit of racial head-count." They're stating that racial is the only factor. Then they continue to declare there's an inconsistency by favoring children of wealthy black and Hispanic professionals over many Asian and white students who don't have money and are better suitable. Now it's not only a racial issue but also a money issue. Actually money should be the reason for the lawsuit NOT race. The fact that universities and colleges prefer kids with wealthy parents over students that come from a low income family. That is the REAL problem. Insinuating that race is a factor and trying to give proof on how these kids are falling behind, low grades and failing the bar exam more than white students is just immature.Yes it is an injustice that the universities lean towards money. State it as it is and don't point fingers at the easiest thing to blame, the minorities.
There solution is to require racial interest be no more than the interest for working-class and low income kids. That is just plain stupid. How about making the solution for wealthy students be no more than low income students? That would be definitely be such a better solution, once again instead of race being the problem. There is a lot of white, black, Hispanic student BUT the same applies to low income students. Wouldn't this be a much better balance?
Many people might agree with this editorial, they feel that there was an injustice not allowing the white student admission to the university. If she was black or Hispanic, would it be such a big issue? So that is my opinion in regards to this article. Yes maybe it was a very unfair for the University of Texas to deny admission to Abigail Fisher of race as she states. But as we now know race is not the fallout. Being wealthy or not is the fallout and that should be the main reason for her lawsuit.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Your cell information. Is it safe?
I read the article "Wireless Surveillance: Bringing the Fourth Amendment to the 21st century" on FoxNews.com. This article talks about how our cell phone information is given up to law enforcement very easily, most of the time without a judge's clearance. Congressman Edward Markey is against it. He initiated the bill "Wireless Surveillance Act of 2012". This bill caps how and why agencies can ask for. It would be required to get a signed sworn statement within 48 hours of receiving the data to justify the approval.
It's worth reading because you find out what's legal or not in regards to your cell phone. I'm sure everyone by now owns one, so this matter effects them. That is why I also decided to blog about this article and the fact that all other articles were based on the President's debate.
It's interesting because I had no idea our cell phone information was that easily available. I thought because there's so many laws in regards to wireless information, that there for sure would be one for collecting cell phone information. I personally wouldn't want any of my personal information out there. For it to be easily accessed in whatever time. As soon as I read the article I became pro the bill. I totally agreed that there had to be some type of authorization or approval before being able to get any cell phone personal information. I was discussing this article with one of my co-workers. I told her my opinion, I felt strongly about it. But after listening to her point of view and the reasons behind it. I started to re-think mine, I had to back track a little. She believes that there shouldn't be a need for authorization to our cell phone information. The article gave an example of how accessing this information is useful for kidnapping. She stated that by the time law enforcement gets the approval, they are wasting valuable time. An hour or so can make a huge difference in trying to solve the kidnapping case. As a mother hearing this made me think. I had to agree with her, she had a great example.
I came to the conclusion that there should be an approval to get access to our cell phone information BUT there should be certain clauses added to that bill. Certain situations like kidnapping for example would fall under the clause, where the time is vital to solve a case.
It's worth reading because you find out what's legal or not in regards to your cell phone. I'm sure everyone by now owns one, so this matter effects them. That is why I also decided to blog about this article and the fact that all other articles were based on the President's debate.
It's interesting because I had no idea our cell phone information was that easily available. I thought because there's so many laws in regards to wireless information, that there for sure would be one for collecting cell phone information. I personally wouldn't want any of my personal information out there. For it to be easily accessed in whatever time. As soon as I read the article I became pro the bill. I totally agreed that there had to be some type of authorization or approval before being able to get any cell phone personal information. I was discussing this article with one of my co-workers. I told her my opinion, I felt strongly about it. But after listening to her point of view and the reasons behind it. I started to re-think mine, I had to back track a little. She believes that there shouldn't be a need for authorization to our cell phone information. The article gave an example of how accessing this information is useful for kidnapping. She stated that by the time law enforcement gets the approval, they are wasting valuable time. An hour or so can make a huge difference in trying to solve the kidnapping case. As a mother hearing this made me think. I had to agree with her, she had a great example.
I came to the conclusion that there should be an approval to get access to our cell phone information BUT there should be certain clauses added to that bill. Certain situations like kidnapping for example would fall under the clause, where the time is vital to solve a case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)