Category Archives: welfare
I don’t usually discuss education, though I feel strongly about the subject, but as a college student who isn’t exactly rolling in cash, this topic had to be written about.
ThinkProgress (a “news” site that always leaves me wondering exactly how many “glaucoma” patients they have on staff*) has apparently taken issue with something that Romney said recently (surprise, surprise…not). Specifically they had a problem with this part of his speech on the 27th in Virginia.
I think this is a land of opportunity for every single person, every single citizen of this great nation. And I want to make sure that we keep America a place of opportunity, where everyone has a fair shot. They get as much education as they can afford and with their time they’re able to get and if they have a willingness to work hard and the right values, they ought to be able to provide for their family and have a shot of realizing their dreams.
Oh I get what they think they are upset about, but honestly they are just looking for a reason to dislike Romney. If they were paying any attention to his record they would know they were being ridiculous, but really…if a website posts an article named “Four Reasons Why The Court’s Decision To Uphold Obamacare Is Good News For The Economy” they aren’t really trying to be taken seriously anymore.
But I digress.
People are trying to make this statement look like Romney doesn’t care about the poor and don’t want them to get an education, but that’s just ridiculous!
See the key word here is “afford” and that word doesn’t mean what you think it means.**
The definition of afford:
1. To be able to do, manage, or bear without serious consequence or adverse effect.
2. To be able to meet the expense of; have or be able to spare the price of.
When you bring this term into a conversation of “can I afford this 60″ flat screen TV” it actually means “Do I have this money in my bank account right now?” Or “Will I be able to pay this off with the job I have?”
When you are talking about something such as a smart investment opportunity or education, the question becomes “can I spare the money right now for the pay off later?”
When I went back to school I weighed the cost very carefully. I was very aware of the amount I would have to take out in federal and private loans and I considered whether I could afford the cost and then decided that I couldn’t afford to not return to school.
Then, of course, you run into people *cough99%’scough* who complain that they spent SO much money that they couldn’t afford on their education and now they can’t find jobs and they can’t pay back all those loans they took out while getting degrees in Underwater Basket-weaving and Canadian Studies and Music Therapy. (Those last two are actual degrees…I sincerely hope that the first one is not.) Or perhaps one of these other, equally pointless and wasteful, degrees.
Can these people afford to get these degrees? (Well clearly they couldn’t, or they wouldn’t have been camping out in New York City, protesting other people’s better college choices). The only people who could afford that sort of degree would be someone like Paris Hilton, with outrageous amounts of family money (and even Paris isn’t that stupid, she, to my knowledge, never went to college. Instead she just started her own companies and became successful…without college, imagine that.) Instead maybe they should have gone to get a degree in something that could help them get a good career. Instead of dicking around in Women’s Studies majors, maybe they should have gone to nursing school. Instead of majoring in Religion (sorry Dylan***) maybe they should have gone to Business school or at the very least gotten a teaching degree.
Yes, I’m aware that the cost of college is outrageous, but you can only blame the government for that. You can’t blame them for your stupid choice of major, but youcanblame the government for subsidizing every stupid degree that colleges make available.
Wait, you say, I had to get a college degree to get a good job.
Bullshit. I’ve had good paying, full time jobs, that never once cared about whether I had a degree or not. You either haven’t looked in the right place, or you are looking for a job you will “enjoy”. I will admit, those full time jobs were boring as hell and I hate them, but I was also independent and made plenty of money to do whatever I wanted after paying my rent and saving a little.
But, you say, I want a job I will enjoy. I want a career, so I have to get a degree because those jobs won’t hire me without a degree.
Once again, blame the government and the subsidization of colleges. 50 years ago, people got college degrees for jobs that needed serious training. Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers, (some) Scientists. General jobs didn’t all come with a “those without college degree need not apply” disclaimer. The government subsidized and then degrees, the likes of which wouldneverget you a job, began popping up all over the place just to reel in the students.
So even if your broke can you ‘afford’ college? Well that depends on whether you have a plan and whether you know what degree to get to carry out that plan and whether you are willing to do the work to become successful. If you have those three things anyone can afford to go to college, that’s what Romney meant.
*No offense to those people I know who have LEGITIMATE pain management issues that are helped by a little mary-jane, but I think it’s clear this stuff (or whatever they are taking) is not helping the writer’s at ThinkProgress to ‘progress’ anywhere but the snack food aisle.
**Sort of like how the word “fair” and “equal” have somehow gained new, interesting, twisted definitions for liberals.
***That is what my brother majored in…
After a lot of difficulty and maneuvering I got a ticket for the full event at Right Online, which was sold out this year.
So Friday morning, my family* packed up and headed to Las Vegas.
The conference was held at The Venetian, which is apparently the only non-union business on the La Vegas Strip. Which made it ideal for a meeting of conservatives.
Anyway, I got to the Venetian in time to get registered and get my copy of Culture of Corruption signed by Michelle Malkin.
The Andrew Breitbart Tribute Reception was extremely moving with dozens of stories about Breitbart’s life and how he had affected the lives of those he worked with over the years. In fact, stories about Breitbart were brought up in almost every speech.
It made me incredibly sad to see how many people he had affected in his 43 short years and the fact that I never had to chance to meet him.
I can’t even begin to describe the awesomeness of the speeches at this event or how much they affected me. So I’ll simply include the videos and encourage you to listen to them.
I hope to also implement some of the ideas I got in the breakout sessions, where I heard a lot about making a blog successful and building an audience. Including the possibility of doing a roundtable podcast with other conservative voices and covering more of my city and state local politics.
To the speeches.
Andrew Marcus, Breitbart Tribute
Former Governor Sarah Palin
Michelle Malkin on June 15th
Michelle Malkin on June 16th
Congressman Joe Heck
Who I got to take a photo with.
*They wanted to go on vacation and Las Vegas seemed like a good choice.
Foreign aid now comes with strings attached and that’s a good thing. So why is it wrong when domestic government aid comes with strings?
Britain and the United States have both decided that enough is enough. They aren’t going to be handing out anymore foreign aid to countries that ban homosexuality or do not adhere proper human rights in other cases. David Cameron, the Prime Minister of Great Britain says that aid should come with more strings attached.
“Britain is one of the premier aid givers in the world. We want to see countries that receive our aid adhering to proper human rights. We are saying that is one of the things that determines our aid policy, and there have been particularly bad examples where we have taken action.”
And in the United States
“I am deeply concerned by the violence and discrimination targeting LGBT persons around the world,” Obama said in a memorandum. “Whether it is passing laws that criminalize LGBT status, beating citizens simply for joining peaceful LGBT pride celebrations or killing men, women and children for their perceived sexual orientation.”
Obama said, “I am directing all agencies engaged abroad to ensure that U.S. diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of LGBT persons.”
Much to my chagrin, I have to say that if Obama actually enforces this plan, I’ll have to applaud his actions. We can’t give money to countries that are doing things we disapprove of. It would be like continuously giving out free money to people who are only going to spend it on drugs and not on bettering themselves.
Of course I would be a little happier if Obama had decided that any violations of human rights would be enough to nix foreign aid for a country, similar to David Cameron’s plan. Making it only about issues discrimination and violence toward the GLBT community just seems a bit like he is ignoring all the other violation’s of human rights that happen all over the world that have nothing to do with homosexuality.
Liberals are, of course, very excited about this move on both country’s parts. Most of the Conservatives I know are also pleased and if they aren’t, they should just remember something that The Conservative New Ager said to me a couple of days ago. If America is only giving aid to countries that don’t discriminate against against homosexuals, then the countries we give aid too will shrink drastically (good for the deficit) in fact the number will probably shrink down to only 1…Israel.
Of course there is something ironic about Liberals being okay with, even excited about, financial aid coming with more strings attached. Remember that comment I made about giving money to someone so they could just spend it on drugs? Yeah, you may not have read this post I wrote in June, but give it a read really fast.
Liberals were in an uproar about how wrong it was to give people drug tests before they could qualify for welfare. Isn’t that basically the same thing as telling other countries to shape up or we won’t give them money? America and Britain don’t want to subsidize the violence and bigotry of other nations, I think we can all agree that is great. So why is it suddenly wrong when the tax payer’s of America don’t want to subsidize someone’s illegal drug habit?