The Politics of a Dark Cherry Dining Room Set

There’s lots of talk about what women are discussing around their dining room table when it comes to the issues of the day that affect how they will be voting. For an instant, though, let me just talk about my own table. You see, I own a light-colored cherry dining room set that I took with me when I divorced my husband. You may think it had some sort of sentimental value or that I really liked the style or the color, but none of that is true. I took it to prove a point: Even when you think you’ve fooled me into getting your way, it’s going to cost you later. I don’t think I’m that much different from the average woman. Republicans are playing with fire if they think they can pull the wool over women’s eyes and not let it come back to haunt them in the end – especially when they talk about issues they don’t have any interest in whatsoever.

The Set-up

You see, my dining room table was a set-up. I told my then husband, I wanted a dark cherry dining room set, and instead of telling me he didn’t like the idea, he told me to go out and price them to see if we could afford them. So, I spent weeks going to one furniture store after another to find just the right table, but every time I brought the details back there was always something wrong with the table. It was not sturdy or it was too expensive or not the right size. The color was never mentioned. Then, magically, one night we were at a furniture outlet and there was the type of table he had mentioned, and for far less than the others I had priced! But, instead of buying it, my ex-husband told me he liked a different dining table better – it was far more expensive than anything I had previously priced and it was light, not dark wood. As he demanded that we buy this offensive monstrosity, I realize that he never meant for me to have the dark cherry dining set – it had been a total set-up. So, when I finally divorced him, I made sure to take that dining set with me and the china cabinet, too. I figured that if he got such enjoyment out of dangling some fake promise in front of me to see me work my butt off, knowing full well he would never agree to buy a dark cherry dining room set, then I was going to take his favorite table away from him so he could feel what it’s like to be deprived of something he really wanted, too – even if I didn’t like it. That’s my idea of fairness, and I really don’t think I differ from most women. Now, that table is one of the most favorite pieces in my home. It represents fairness to me and my ability to right a wrong that should have never happened if someone hadn’t been so intent on deceiving me.

Republican Double-Talk

Let’s face it, all this talk about Republicans honoring the ideal of motherhood is just another cherry dining room set. That’s right. It’s something they don’t believe in, can’t relate to, and will only buy if it comes in their preferred color. What is that color? White. There, I said it. It doesn’t matter that they deprive millions of women who happen to be black, single, or poor mothers the dignity of their choice, for those women – they should be outside the home working and they’re lucky if they’re not called sluts. The argument they give is that poor, single, or black women are too poor not to work and we should give them the “dignity of work.” Yet, white women like Ann Romney who are rich  and have husbands should stay at home and not work outside the home because that’s what “good mothers do.” The whole it’s “too expensive” to stay home business smacks of a certain dining room table that was “too expensive” to buy until a different color was found.

Women Buy It

Unfortunately, like me, many women buy this whole “fiscal responsibility” argument from their husbands and political candidates. I know I did. I bought it when my husband lied to me about the cherry table. I bought it when the Tea Party people told me they wanted to be in office to bring more fiscal conservative policies to Congress. Yet, every time that argument is used, I find these same people go in and spend much more on programs and ideals that they just simply prefer, that’s all. Whether it’s a light cherry dining room table or millions spent to find ways to block access to contraception or women’s programs. The point is to deprive you of what you want and what you think is best for something they want. So, women, please don’t buy the money argument. It’s a red flag meant to distract you from the real reason your desires never get funded: They simply don’t like the idea. Don’t believe me? Just watch…

The WORK Act

Okay, so according to Republicans all mothers should be at home with their kids and that’s the ideal of motherhood? Poor mothers have to work because it’s “too expensive.” Then, let’s fund it and make it possible for low-income mothers, too! Democrats have introduced a bill called the Women’s Option to Raise Kids (WORK) Act. If raising kids is the same as working, according to Ann Romney, then the ideal should not be to make poor mothers work outside the home, it’s to support them so they don’t have to. The Act removes the current work requirements for mothers of children of 3 years of less, and allows them to still receive welfare benefit. So, that should be a total bipartisan landslide, right?! You watch as the GOP blocks this Act.

Just for fun, I told a Republican woman friend of mine about this new bill and the look of horror that crossed her face was priceless. As expected, the first words out of her mouth were: “How are we going to pay for it?” Yeah, right, I forgot! We have NO MONEY, we’re trillions in debt, and God forbid, that money be available for a social issue like motherhood that the Republicans all say they believe in. Do I need to say more? Cherry table, cherry table, cherry table.

Another friend, who is an Independent sat down and noticing her obvious state of agitation asked her what was wrong. When she told her and echoed:”How will we pay for it?” She shrugged and suggested that some of the money might come from daycare programs that were being subsidized so mothers could work. Duh. No, no, no, let’s NOT figure out how we want to pay for something, let’s just assume that if we don’t want it, it’s simply too expensive! ESPECIALLY, if we’re going to be forced to pay for the WRONG COLOR table.

I will repeat it once again in very simple words: While you’re being “fiscally conservative” your political interest is probably out plotting how to spend your tax dollars on their selfish wants and desires. The major issue for women “around the dining room table” right now is not the budget, it is how the budget will be approportioned. Will the money go to large  corporations and the 1 percent that claim to be “job creators” yet have failed to provide any credible evidence that is the case? Will it go towards more wars? Or, will it go to education, building small businesses, and building up the middle class? And, yes, maybe some of it should go to help single mothers to create sustainable families instead of forcing them to work when they have kids in the home.

How Many Jobs Are There In The Auto Industry?

We keep hearing that if one of the Big Three goes bankrupt that it will have a devastating effect on the economy, due to job losses. I have a tough time believing that the auto industry itself has that many jobs in our economy. I can see that there might be associated jobs like car dealerships, but I doubt it will affect auto repair shops as just because cars aren’t made here does not mean they aren’t being repaired here. So, what are the real numbers?

What Are The Real Numbers?

I had this discussion with a very brilliant man who is a millionaire. While I don’t know how much he actually is involved with the auto industry, he claimed that people who get a job in one of the Big Three have jobs that can start at $40/hr because they are unionized. They get health benefits, they get overtime pay too! Many can make over $100,000/year having no skills other than assembly skills because of the union contracts. So, what are the real numbers? Is it because of the bad economy or the juicy labor contracts that they could go bankrupt? Why are they working overtime when no one is buying cars? A lot of this makes no sense…

What are the real numbers? In a time when everyone is belt tightening are the labor unions willing to give a little? Doesn’t it seem odd that someone with no college education can make over $100,000 working for someone else? I thought the whole point of the American dream was to become your own boss so you could make a lot of money and live a full life? Wouldn’t that help to create jobs by creating more businesses? What’s the incentive for the U.S. economy to keep paying people large amounts of money when 1) It creates no new jobs, 2) It rewards people for not improving themselves.

The Bottom Line Is Jobs, Isn’t It?

So, are we really going to suffer a large number of job losses if one of the Big Three goes under? More than the financial industry fall-out? More than the mortgage industry collapse? More than the dot com burst? I want to see some hard numbers, not in comparison to the auto industry, but to all the other industries that want a piece of the bail-out pie. I find it hard to believe that the auto industry has that big an impact on our economy. Somebody please tell me what the real numbers are, because right now, it just looks to me like they are plain old greedy, both the management AND the workers.

Should we reward the type of behavior that is basically bankrupting our country in the first place? Why not set up some incentives for other small businesses that want to compete with the Big Three? They can hire all the people who get laid off by the Big Three and start their own factories, at a lower pay rate. Or, we may find they can go into other industries that will create more economic security for the U.S. in the future. Or one of the Big Three can turn over their holdings to the workers as a co-operative that limits wages, just like they did in Argentina. They can get tax incentives for 1) educating their workforce, and 2) Creating more jobs. I would think $100,000/year would hire at least three people at $30,000/year and that is a livable wage. Even if they decided to only pay them $50,000/year it would double the workforce. More jobs, and I don’t know anyone who will turn down a $50,000/year job in this economy.

So, yes, I know nothing about the auto industry. Someone please educate me, because right now, it sounds to me like they just want something they don’t at all deserve. If they really deserve to be “bailed out” then I think the American public, which is footing the bill, needs to see the actual numbers forecasted for future job losses in comparison to present employment (no I don’t want any pie-in-the-sky fantasies of how many jobs they think they are creating for the future!), comparisons to other industries, other business plan options, etc. You name it. I want to see the business plan, for the economic growth of the United States, if they really do have as much impact as they say they do. Please, convince me, because right now, I am entirely unconvinced.

Oh, And Maybe They Don’t Really Need It

I just love this reasoning. We’re told they may not actually need the money, but they want to earmark it for themselves (pretty much freeze that money’s liquidity in the marketplace) in case they need it! I thought the whole point of the bail-out was to give it to unfreeze the market’s credit problems NOW. If they don’t really need it until maybe a year from now, come back in a year! I think there are other industries that have more impact on the economy and who make a better case for getting taxpayer’s monies right this instant.

We Got To Learn The Business Waltz

I just had an epiphany after listening to this broadcast:Planning In An Economic Downturn with Sabrina Parsons. I realized that I know many of the basic steps for business development, but to really do well in this economy, I am going to have to learn the business waltz.

The Link Between Expenses And Income

Sabrina makes a good point that when business owners decide that they need to cut expenses to survive a downturn in the economy, they often don’t pick the right things to cut back on. They may choose advertising, for instance, because they perceive that is going to be less effective as there are fewer customers in a downturn. Then, the next month comes around and voila! Fewer customers! But, did they get fewer customers because of the downturn, or did they create a self-fulfilling prophecy by reducing their advertising exposure when it counted most?

Associations

Metaphysically, to magnetize sales to your business, you have to project energy that creates prosperity. What you do is really an expression of that energy, not the actual cause of some business effect, like more customers or sales. That’s why you can work your tail off and get no where, because you are exerting an energy of distrust in the marketplace, and that leads to lack of security. The energy is in association with the action and with the final result. But, on the other hand, you can work your tail off because you think there is a ton of demand headed your way and you want to be prepared for the overflow, and voila! You can create that too with EXACTLY the same action as before, where the identical action can create lack or prosperity, depending on the energy behind it.

The Business Waltz

In this broadcast, it brought to my attention that we have to not only pay attention to what we are doing, but what energy we are projecting with that action. We don’t want to create self-fulfilling scenarios in this economy that are going to bite us in the butt. So, while it’s important to know the steps to the dance, the waltz is something that one does not do with steps alone, but with a fluidity and understanding of how all the steps and energy combine to create a magnificent dance.