Poverty, a self-fulfilling prophecy? By Ken Jones

What comes to your head when you think of poverty? You might think of someone on a street corner with a cup begging. You might think of soup lines and soup kitchens. But how about cable TV, big-screen plasma, entertainment system, Internet, multiple cars, microwave, refrigerator stocked to capacity, and the one disease once reserved for the wealthy; obesity.

A century ago poverty meant starvation. A century ago to be impoverished meant dying without medical attention. During the Great Depression poverty meant long lines just to eat. Poverty often times meant working in horrible conditions in factories with dangerous machinery just to make ends meet. Poverty usually lead to abuse. The impoverished were so willing to do anything for money that some of the worst jobs in the workforce were given to the impoverished.

Fast-forward a hundred years and see what we consider poverty. Poverty line hovers around $10,000 a year wages. But this number is misleading. Now many people who consider themselves poor have access to medical care, free food, cash assistance, bankruptcy protection, and the tax code that favors those who choose to stay under the poverty line. Now of course the first thing you would say to me is that I have no heart. I'm supposed to care for the poor and have sympathy for them. But this I ask you, would you consider someone who had more than you did poor?

Truth is I live without cable TV. Heck I don't even have a big-screen TV. I have one car that is a 99 minivan. Not exactly your fantasy car with golden rim's. I haven't been to the movies in almost 6 months. Now you may ask what my income is. Although all I can do is estimate, it is between 30 and 40,000 for this year. Yet those who make less than $10,000 a year or otherwise qualify to be labeled as poor seem to have things that I don't even care to have although I can afford it. The truth is, although the money is there I believe that savings and responsible living come first.

This is what separates the temporary poor from the perpetual poor. There are men in Wall Street right now worth billions started off in the streets. Meanwhile there are people who lived in mansions and now live on the streets. The one thing that separates the wealthy from the poor isn't money, but understanding. An understanding between what is a want and what is a need. You may hear someone whose cable went out for whatever technical reason say, “I need to get my cable fixed." The truth is he does not need his cable fixed, he simply wants ethics. Just like he doesn't need a microwave, big-screen TV, or any other luxuries that were once reserved for the rich, he simply wants it.

My sympathies lie not with those who care more about their cable bill being paid than food being put on the table. I care not for those poor late on payments on their mortgage yet seem to be able afford to pay for their Internet. I care not for those who receive public assistance and forget that they are simply stealing it from those who have worked hard to earn it.

I care for the business owners, employers, hard working Americans who see their paychecks shrink day after day to pay for those who refuse to help themselves. Hard-working Americans who simply want to make it. Hard-working Americans who would not qualify for any public assistance yet struggle to put food on their table because their hard-earned money is paying for someone to get $30 worth of Doritos using their food stamp card.

There are self employment taxes and other anti-business laws that serve to starve the life out of the middle class and wealthy in order to put us at the women's of those who preferred to live off of society. Think about this the next time you pass by the DMV or other social service building and see the parking lot full of Beamer's.

Who should be Responsible for Asbestos Lawsuits?

The once lucrative field of asbestos lawsuits may not be as much of a moneymaker anymore. To jury verdicts in the Jefferson County court system against two famous law firms may be signaling the end to the asbestos lawsuit industry. Now of course by calling it an industry I mean just that. Many lawyers and law firms have made it their primary topic of lawsuit. Many law firms have even taken the time to advertise their firms as specializing in asbestos cases.In mid-July of last year, the case against Exxon Mobil found that the company was not liable in the cancerous death of Joyce Myers. As you remember from the 2004 presidential campaign, frivolous asbestos lawsuits were topic at issue during the campaign, primarily the cost of these lawsuits to the American people and their effect on medical liability insurance.

As the above-mentioned case confirms, the ones "done deal" is not so set in stone. With many more examples such as this, in many different medical liability cases, juries are starting to have less sympathy for plaintiffs in more of an understanding of what constitutes liability. One would only hope that as jurors use their common sense more than their emotional reactions, that they will start bringing an end to this sue happy society.

It is ironic that legal action can be taken by an individual against the company who was operating legally. One such example is General Electric. The government mandates that they cleaned up PCBs that were dumped in many northeastern rivers. At first your emotional reaction would tell you that they should. However, the legal system is based on responsibility. Who was responsible for the wrong that was done? Who acted irresponsibly? In the case of General Electric, for the most part they were acting with government approval, and in some cases with government permit.

As I said before, who is responsible? Who acted irresponsibly?

Is the Primary Battle good for America

Many Democrats complain about the way the battle between Hillary Clinton and Barrak Obama is hurting the party. Meanwhile, Republicans enjoy watching the two leading Democratic candidates for president fight it out. Talking heads on all sides asked what is this fight doing to the Democratic Party. One thing I have not heard people ask is what is this doing to America.So I’ll ask the question. Is this primary battle good for America? I think I’ve come up with the answer. If I asked you a year ago what a super delegate was, your answer would probably be a superhero. If I asked you how the Democratic primary process work, you have no idea. Now, with this primary battle in full swing, Americans have no choice but to learn about our democratic process. I can’t help but notice how people who were once oblivious to the political process are finally starting to get involved. People are starting to learn about what it is that drives our democratic process. And in some cases we are liking what we see, and in other cases we are not liking it at all. But either way the influx of information can only do good for the process and bring positive change.One thing I’ve heard from some registered Democrats is how the Democratic party primary process favors political insiders. Yet father registered Democrats defend the super delegate process saying that it allows a buffer between the people and the nominee. There are questions that must be raised. What will happen if one candidate wins the popular vote but loses the delegate count? Will there be a long drawnout legal battle equal to that during the 2000 presidential elections?Unlike the 2004 elections, there are no incumbents with long records of achievements or failures. Although all three candidates are senators, none of them have been president before. None of them filled an executive role before. And only one of them, John McCain, has ever served in the military. It is interesting to see how three relative novices in comparison to the enormous task of the presidency, will prove to the American people that they are the least among the inexperienced. Because in the end that is what it comes down to. We more often have to choose the least among the inexperienced.