Are politicians too rich to understand us?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/12/opinion/stanley-money-in-politics/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7
I think the answer to this is an unequivocal ‘yes’. Having been homeless and destitute, I have an acute understanding of the lowest rungs of the earnings ladder (though I did have friends that kept me out of the gutter, so never got to live like troll under a bridge, nor did I have to dig through trash cans to eat), so I see the huge value in the dribs and drabs of what is left of our tattered social safety net. Yes, there are a few cases of people taking advantage of the situation, but the vast majority of people who utilize these resources do so for the minimum amount of time possible, because, even ignoring the embarrassment factor, there really isn’t that much being offered, so real jobs are vastly preferable to what our ‘great’ country offers its disadvantaged citizens. I do think that places like Europe have gone a bit too far in providing a social safety net, but we have certainly gone too far in shredding ours. There is no way that someone who has been a millionaire for several generations can possibly comprehend what it means to dig through dumpsters to get enough food to be able to sleep under the bridge (hoping that no one will attack you, thus not getting really sound sleep). While our current ‘great’ President has had some experience living at the lowest levels of our society’s rungs, he has plenty of other issues that make him unfit for leadership (not the least is his Constitution shredding decisions that provide vast fuel for hatred against our country, or, of course, his police state tactics that one day, very soon, will be turned onto non-Muslim US citizens in the US). Our Congress, as the article mentions, is not representative in the slightest (of our country; they do represent the oligarchy quite well), so their decisions about ‘Obamacare’ and increasing tax rates can’t be trusted (the first is irrelevant since they have their own (lifetime, I believe) healthcare and the second, they all stand to lose significant take-home, so can’t be considered unbiased).
