OT: The Lost Children

Are you Tara? Cus, I thought I was making a direct reply to someone named Tara who was intentionally obtuse and further, her tone and own accusation was far more "nasty" than anything I could retort with.

I find people reprehensible who make assumptions, myself. Thus, the questions I posed to Tara. I can assure you, if we are sitting in front of the wheeze of a computer screen, have access to an ISP, have a plug in a wall where there is electricity, and have a vehicle to drive to the store or be evacuated in, we have much more assets than the majority of the hurricane victims.

This really isn't about sides, anyway. It's about doing the right thing. Clearly, the president of the United States, who appointed "Brownie" before further investigating his resume, which was a lie, to be the director of FEMA indeed is a big gafaw for American society. Hardy har har. The jokes on us.

Insult to injury are his blind followers who say things like "they had days notice to evacuate." Clearly, these are people who are in the dumper, and have been for 10 or more generations. New Orleans is a two people place. Wealthy, and poor. Very wealthy and very poor. Oprah money, and destitute, and we can eventually reach the lowest common denominator, but I assure you these areas down by City Park which are vitual tinderbox houses ready to burn or crumble from decay and lack of upkeep are the places which are where the poor of New Orleans lived. The place is off the map now. Say goodbye. My heart.

I did in the late 1960's and again in the late 1980's. It is truly tragic in many areas. I do not understand why this is ignored.

Dianne

That would be the best outcome from the mess for the future.

That's always been my concern. I'm medically ineligible for a driver's license, so if they had ordered a mandatory evacuation, the only ways I had of getting out of town were on foot or begging neighbors to leave some of their stuff behind so they could fit me in their car. Not gonna happen.

I mentioned this to a cop once, and he didn't think there were any provisions made for those without cars. It was the usual rely on your parents/spouse/siblings/children, what do you mean you don't have any?

But-but-but - it often IS that they don`t want to work! Honestly! Note I said "often" not "always". AND we have a lot of truancy.

Pat P

Because we middle-class folk find it impossible to believe that Third World poverty exists in the richest country in the world, and therefore resort to such (il)logic as "they like living that way".

I have personally been through some remote areas of Southern California where I turned to XH and said "I didn't realize we crossed the border." We hadn't. These are people for whom The Projects would be the Taj Mahal: they've got sewage in the gutters, no electric/phone/water and far enough out to make even broadcast TV iffy (assuming they had the electric to run the TV, which they don't). I'm sure they don't "like" living that way, I'm sure they aspire to living in a real apartment, but the best they can afford on seasonal farm worker income is a corrugated shack.

But we have that type at all levels of society. The wealthy playboy who leaves the family business in the hands of hired managers while he jets off to Paris. The middle-class woman who would rather be a housewife than a careerwoman. There are a lot of people who "don't want to work". It's only the poor who get criticized for it. Mr. Gotbucks is admired for "not HAVING to work", by a lot of working stiffs who wish they were in the position to quit their jobs and spend a month in Paris. A lot of working women admire the gal who married well enough that she doesn't HAVE to work.

A lot of my hardworking colleagues were envious of a co-worker who married a lawyer and could stay home to raise her kids instead of needing to contribute to the family income. Does that make them better people than her because they raised their kids while continuing to work? A lot of right-wing organizations will tell you that women who work while their kids are small are terrible parents and should be flogged for putting work ahead of their GodGiven Duty as a mother.

Is it better to be a lazy lout who survives on the sweat of working stiffs who pay taxes, or to be a lazy lout who survives on the sweat of working stiffs whom he himself underpays? (as nominal CEO of the company his grandfather founded)

Does your opinion of the lazy lout who refuses to look for work change if I say I'm talking about my husband, versus if we're talking about some doctor's wife? He left the housework for me, she leaves the housework to the hired help, so there's no argument that one is serving some useful purpose by being in the home and the other isn't. How about if the lazy lout is my SIL, who doesn't think she needs to pay her share of the rent because her brother married someone who had a little money in the bank and can well afford to support her in decadent idleness? Or is it OK with you because these people are mooching off relatives rather than the dole?

I happen to know your opinion of the Royal Family, Pat. But at least they make public appearances for charity. The scum who've mooched off me haven't even done that much.

Clearly it's ignored because it's nothing to be made from it all. However, you bet your sweet butt that if this category five hurricane hit Palm Beach, every jet in this nation would have been flown in to take out every last one of those blue bloods toot sweet.

It is racism at it's quintessential height. It's classism to the tenth power. It's a nation full of ignorant sheep who continue to vote for demons like our president who is the biggest bumbling idiot to ever hold office in our history.

This whole issue has had me sick way before a hurricane came in and wiped it all off the map. The bushies are all drooling at pennies on the dollar condemned land, waterfront property, saturated with gambling money, oil rigs and fat cats. They can't wait to build Trent Lott's house so they can sit on the porch. WHAT???????????? There are women without tampons, without water for their children.

This is nothing less than genecide and while people may now find a certain kook factor in that statement, I will still say it. It could not be more obvious even if they came right out and said it.

This goes way beyond that. This is far more incideous than anything we can grasp as the middle classes, particularly if we are white. I am going to beat this racial thing to death, but it IS at the heart of it all.

Karen , you ideas about those who don`t want to work are strange ...

Yes , but he pays others , from money he has ,,, and makes more jobs , by hiring them , as well as more jobs in the Paris Hotel ,,,,,

If she and/ or her partner can afford to mange on one salary , and if she raises her children or helps her working children to raise their kids, why should`t she do it ,,, Anyway `those` house wives you so look down on are also careerwomen ,,,they are an important part of socirety, They work hard for a very `low income ` and enable many others to have a career...

----------------

Mr. Gotbucks is admired

And a lot of Housewives all over the world wish they had a career, could afford to have a career , and that they could afford to pay others to do their housework for them .....

Maybe her income wasn`t enough to pay another caretaker for the children ??? it is very strange when a Woman writes such words .. Mothers if they Have a choice , should make it , each for her own reasons, It is Society`s fault that while she pushes the mother to help with the income , She doesn`t provide affordable Childcare facilities. Another part i don`t agree to in your words is , Needing to contribute ,,,, there are Many woman now who want a career, and edcated themeselves to work in it, thus thy WANT to go on working even when having small kids , and prefere to hire a caretaker [ by this making one more paid job !!!] Alas in Israel , and some other countries a working woman can`t take her paid caretaker`s salary off the taxes,,,,,

---------------->

Aha, when it is you being the housewife , you aren`t Not wanting to work ???? please explain to me the difference ?

I see no difference in the 2 ,,,,, either you or anyother person ,

430 No such article (spool server died prior to completion of the article dump)

I have NOTHING against anyone who can afford not to work, for whatever reason, and what`s wrong with leaving the family business in the hands of hired managers? He`s providing jobs in a company that his family probably built up by hard work even generations earlier! If I had the money, none of MY kids would need to work again - unless they WANTED to. What`s wrong with that? Even your despised playboys pay taxes and provide a living for many.

Personally I think that mothers SHOULD stay home to raise their kids - at least to an age when they can take at least some care of themselves. Ideally, those who can`t afford to do that should put off having kids until they can.

If people are being supported by relatives, good luck to them - as long as they`re not being supported by the tax payer, and the relatives are willing. I find your argument to be most odd!

As for the Royal Family - I certainly support the Queen AND Princess Anne, both of whom put in a fair year`s work. (I wouldn`t like to have the Queen`s social calendar at her age!) and most of the side-shoots. Most of the "side shoots" are pretty much self supporting in any case. Thr Civil List is much shorter than it was!

As for Charles and Edward, and, to a lesser degree, Andrew - we wouldn`t miss any of them.

Not wanting to work isn`t the offence - it`s wanting to live a life of idleness at the expense of the taxpayer that bugs me and not even TRYING to be self sufficient.

Pat P

OK, how about my cousin? She had her children while she was married and

*could* afford to stay home with them. Then she ended up divorced and El Sleazo refused to pay the child support. Since she had never expected to be the sole support of three people, woefully underqualified for anything that paid well enough to support two kids. She planned properly for the life she EXPECTED to be living, and wound up living a much different life.

Other women wind up supporting their children with gov't benefits because their husband died. Again, their planning was appropriate for the expected but not the *unexpected*.

Do you have any clue what percentage of the women on welfare had their children while in a committed relationship (which fizzled), or while they had a job (which disappeared)? It's probably higher than you think.

I find your position to be somewhat puzzling. Being too lazy to work is bad if you're poor, but perfectly acceptable if your family has a little extra money and falls for your guilt trips?

How about my non-paying roommates, who were mooching off someone who didn't have much herself? Acceptable laziness because they were not supported by the taxpayer, or unacceptable because they were defrauding someone who was not even a relative? In one case, I tried collecting from her parents, who apologized that when they kicked her out, she took up mooching off strangers to avoid working. I wasn't willingly supporting her; I paid the rent to avoid being evicted myself, and she ate my groceries when I wasn't around to stop her.

But, as I understand your delineations, it's perfectly acceptable for her to refuse to work as long as the tab is picked up by an unsuspecting stranger instead of the taxpayer.

Why should anyone feel guilty if they don`t want to work, as long as they aren`t a drain on anyone else???

No, I didn`t say that at all. I SAID that no-one should feel guilty at not working AS LONG AS THEY AREN`T A DRAIN ON ANYONE ELSE - including the taxpayer! If family are in a position,to support them and happy to do so - good luck to them.

You`re starting to sound like those people who, having little themselves, don`t like anyone else having anything either!

Just read what I said and not what you`d prefer me to have said! ;-))

Pat P

"Karen C - California" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@individual.net...

Hmm. So, let's see here. I was told I could never have children from the time I was 17. Got married, with full expectations of never having children. Got pregnant when I was 25, by God's grace. Husband had a good job, and wanted me to stay at home due to complications from the pregnancy and the fact that he did in fact have such a good job. Due to industry layoffs, he was laid off several months after our first son was born. So by your perfect-world standards, I suppose I should've given my autistic son up since we no longer fit your standard of "every mom should stay at home?" Husband found another job, I found a good job, we had a wonderful neighbor that became like a grandmother to our son. Got pregnant again by surprise (I think God likes surprising me, or has a weird sense of humor), had to again go on bedrest as I'd had a miscarriage prior to this pregnancy. So now I have 2 children, and I worked when they were babies, and I go to school now for EMT so I can provide them a better life. If we all waited till we could actually AFFORD children, hardly anyone would be having them! That is ludicrous and judgemental thinking. But opinions are like armpits, everyone has one. I thank God every day for my MIRACLES instead of cursing Him for giving me a financial burden. My parents help us as much as they can because they see for themselves that we've managed to outright own our own home, vehicles and are both working to better our lives. Lazy? I don't even think so. On food stamps? Yep, I have paid my taxes for 20 years and if it's necessary that I take back some of what I worked to put in, to help feed my family until such time I'm out of school and working a better job, damn skippy I'm gonna do it.

People in glass houses....

Melissa

Good for you - you certainly don`t come into the category of irresponsible parasite about which this discussion started ! You don`t come into the category of the ones who have never worked, never attempted to work and have no intention of working if they can help!

As a long term taxpayer of some 54 years standing I think I`m well entitled to throw stones at those!

Pat P

Hey, you too? I was also told I couldn't have children, then had a miscarriage (because I "couldn't have one" you know), and then did have a child at age 34 by surprise. I have not had any luck re-entering the paying work force because now employers are terrified I'd actually leave work to have another child (NOT ON YOUR LIFE!!! One is plenty.) so I haven't even been able to get an interview since I started looking in February. I'd say hang in there, gal. You're doing good.

Oh, and last time I checked I had TWO armpits. :-) So for my sec> Hmm. So, let's see here. I was told I could never have children from the

One third of women on welfare are married, separated, widowed, or divorced (but only around a tenth are receiving any child support). There are NO adult recipients in 39 percent of TANF families (with only about 10 percent of those child-only families teenage parent situations). Half of families receiving TANF have only one child, and only 7 percent have more than 3. The average age of an adult receiving TANF is 31. The average monthly amount of cash assistance is $355.

Best wishes, Ericka

Ugh, I know what you mean... I've "single mum status" because my SO doesn't live here and we're obviously not married, I don't even know what to write into my CV anymore because I don't want to leave out the Child bit but I also don't want to end up not even getting an interview because I'm not married. I'm now writing "in a permanent relationship, one child" and am hoping for the best.... I'm this close to writing "No intention of having any more children as the first one is quite a handfull already" but I guess then they'll think I'll be staying home because of the kid the whole time ;-)

take care! nicole