Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
albuquerquecommentator
Is this you? Claim Profile »
1 year ago
in Views on same sex marriage on The New Mexico Independent
I picked up this article via Duke City Fix. First I'm gay, queer, homo, whatever label fits best for the reader.
Discrimination goes really deep when an individual is denied any kind of benefit from the government for any reason. Tied to civil marriage and religious marriage are many benefits where in order to derive the benefit or privilege you must be married. Married in this case meaning you have to have a license or sanction from the government and at many points in various processes prove you are entitled by pulling out the license.
Governments require persons who want to drive an automobile to demonstrate a proficiency, pay a fee, and be identified in order to drive a motor vehicle legally. Are these same standards to apply to individuals and what manner of human relationships they have?
Why should a "man and a woman" have more rights, privileges, tax breaks, etc. than any individual. Is it too difficult to sum ( 2+2=4) benefits when there is a third party, such as a child between the persons, to determine a level of benefits. Should some one have to be married in order to have health insurance benefits? I could go on and on.
The reality is that persons with moral and or religious belief systems feel they should be privileged because they are taking a "higher" moral ground than non believers.
I think that anyone who wants a religious marriage and all that goes with it including adhering to it's tenets, rules, and sanctions regarding sexual morality including the condition that it only be between a male and a female is fine. That however should not role over into other people's lives who are not of those persuasions.
Civil marriage does not go far enough, it is a separate but equal policy which does not support the full equality of the individual. Government should not be in the business of sanctioning the relationship between two consenting adults at any level.
The argument that it may bring chaos to the system and fabric of society is an unfounded scare tactic on the part of parsimonious politicians who want to impose their moral and sometimes religious standards on everyone. That is not freedom. We have the technical capability and the knowledge required to convert to a totally non discriminatory system within the confines of government's roles. Marriage is not one of government's roles.
The only honest and equal solution is to eliminate civil marriage and marriage in any form from being a condition of citizenship and participation in the benefits that derive from being a citizen.
I hope that the GLBT community will take a step out of the morass of the gay marriage issue and support totally equality for individuals. Human rights accrue to individuals not groups, races, or organizations.
Every person who is an adult or emancipated adult can enter into a contract that will cover every aspect of peoples lives. There is no need for secular marriage in any form.
Mr. Carraro and Mr. White represent what is wrong in this country, the continuation of discrimination based on religious morals and fear mongering that something will be taken away from the morally correct or some how gay people are a threat to other peoples beliefs. They believe they have the right to impose their thinking and lifestyle on others. Others just want to be left alone to live as they chose.
The other candidates seem to be afraid of losing votes or don't agree that discrimination begins when it is applied to an individual who can be singled out because they are different from the rest of the herd. Its ok to be separate and somehow by appearance be equal.
Discrimination goes really deep when an individual is denied any kind of benefit from the government for any reason. Tied to civil marriage and religious marriage are many benefits where in order to derive the benefit or privilege you must be married. Married in this case meaning you have to have a license or sanction from the government and at many points in various processes prove you are entitled by pulling out the license.
Governments require persons who want to drive an automobile to demonstrate a proficiency, pay a fee, and be identified in order to drive a motor vehicle legally. Are these same standards to apply to individuals and what manner of human relationships they have?
Why should a "man and a woman" have more rights, privileges, tax breaks, etc. than any individual. Is it too difficult to sum ( 2+2=4) benefits when there is a third party, such as a child between the persons, to determine a level of benefits. Should some one have to be married in order to have health insurance benefits? I could go on and on.
The reality is that persons with moral and or religious belief systems feel they should be privileged because they are taking a "higher" moral ground than non believers.
I think that anyone who wants a religious marriage and all that goes with it including adhering to it's tenets, rules, and sanctions regarding sexual morality including the condition that it only be between a male and a female is fine. That however should not role over into other people's lives who are not of those persuasions.
Civil marriage does not go far enough, it is a separate but equal policy which does not support the full equality of the individual. Government should not be in the business of sanctioning the relationship between two consenting adults at any level.
The argument that it may bring chaos to the system and fabric of society is an unfounded scare tactic on the part of parsimonious politicians who want to impose their moral and sometimes religious standards on everyone. That is not freedom. We have the technical capability and the knowledge required to convert to a totally non discriminatory system within the confines of government's roles. Marriage is not one of government's roles.
The only honest and equal solution is to eliminate civil marriage and marriage in any form from being a condition of citizenship and participation in the benefits that derive from being a citizen.
I hope that the GLBT community will take a step out of the morass of the gay marriage issue and support totally equality for individuals. Human rights accrue to individuals not groups, races, or organizations.
Every person who is an adult or emancipated adult can enter into a contract that will cover every aspect of peoples lives. There is no need for secular marriage in any form.
Mr. Carraro and Mr. White represent what is wrong in this country, the continuation of discrimination based on religious morals and fear mongering that something will be taken away from the morally correct or some how gay people are a threat to other peoples beliefs. They believe they have the right to impose their thinking and lifestyle on others. Others just want to be left alone to live as they chose.
The other candidates seem to be afraid of losing votes or don't agree that discrimination begins when it is applied to an individual who can be singled out because they are different from the rest of the herd. Its ok to be separate and somehow by appearance be equal.
1 year ago
in Views on same sex marriage on The New Mexico Independent
I picked up this article via Duke City Fix. First I'm gay, queer, homo, whatever label fits best for the reader.
Discrimination goes really deep when an individual is denied any kind of benefit from the government for any reason. Tied to civil marriage and religious marriage are many benefits where in order to derive the benefit or privilege you must be married. Married in this case meaning you have to have a license or sanction from the government and at many points in various processes prove you are entitled by pulling out the license.
Governments require persons who want to drive an automobile to demonstrate a proficiency, pay a fee, and be identified in order to drive a motor vehicle legally. Are these same standards to apply to individuals and what manner of human relationships they have?
Why should a "man and a woman" have more rights, privileges, tax breaks, etc. than any individual. Is it too difficult to sum ( 2+2=4) benefits when there is a third party, such as a child between the persons, to determine a level of benefits. Should some one have to be married in order to have health insurance benefits? I could go on and on.
The reality is that persons with moral and or religious belief systems feel they should be privileged because they are taking a "higher" moral ground than non believers.
I think that anyone who wants a religious marriage and all that goes with it including adhering to it's tenets, rules, and sanctions regarding sexual morality including the condition that it only be between a male and a female is fine. That however should not role over into other people's lives who are not of those persuasions.
Civil marriage does not go far enough, it is a separate but equal policy which does not support the full equality of the individual. Government should not be in the business of sanctioning the relationship between two consenting adults at any level.
The argument that it may bring chaos to the system and fabric of society is an unfounded scare tactic on the part of parsimonious politicians who want to impose their moral and sometimes religious standards on everyone. That is not freedom. We have the technical capability and the knowledge required to convert to a totally non discriminatory system within the confines of government's roles. Marriage is not one of government's roles.
The only honest and equal solution is to eliminate civil marriage and marriage in any form from being a condition of citizenship and participation in the benefits that derive from being a citizen.
I hope that the GLBT community will take a step out of the morass of the gay marriage issue and support totally equality for individuals. Human rights accrue to individuals not groups, races, or organizations.
Every person who is an adult or emancipated adult can enter into a contract that will cover every aspect of peoples lives. There is no need for secular marriage in any form.
Mr. Carraro and Mr. White represent what is wrong in this country, the continuation of discrimination based on religious morals and fear mongering that something will be taken away from the morally correct or some how gay people are a threat to other peoples beliefs. They believe they have the right to impose their thinking and lifestyle on others. Others just want to be left alone to live as they chose.
The other candidates seem to be afraid of losing votes or don't agree that discrimination begins when it is applied to an individual who can be singled out because they are different from the rest of the herd. Its ok to be separate and somehow by appearance be equal.
Discrimination goes really deep when an individual is denied any kind of benefit from the government for any reason. Tied to civil marriage and religious marriage are many benefits where in order to derive the benefit or privilege you must be married. Married in this case meaning you have to have a license or sanction from the government and at many points in various processes prove you are entitled by pulling out the license.
Governments require persons who want to drive an automobile to demonstrate a proficiency, pay a fee, and be identified in order to drive a motor vehicle legally. Are these same standards to apply to individuals and what manner of human relationships they have?
Why should a "man and a woman" have more rights, privileges, tax breaks, etc. than any individual. Is it too difficult to sum ( 2+2=4) benefits when there is a third party, such as a child between the persons, to determine a level of benefits. Should some one have to be married in order to have health insurance benefits? I could go on and on.
The reality is that persons with moral and or religious belief systems feel they should be privileged because they are taking a "higher" moral ground than non believers.
I think that anyone who wants a religious marriage and all that goes with it including adhering to it's tenets, rules, and sanctions regarding sexual morality including the condition that it only be between a male and a female is fine. That however should not role over into other people's lives who are not of those persuasions.
Civil marriage does not go far enough, it is a separate but equal policy which does not support the full equality of the individual. Government should not be in the business of sanctioning the relationship between two consenting adults at any level.
The argument that it may bring chaos to the system and fabric of society is an unfounded scare tactic on the part of parsimonious politicians who want to impose their moral and sometimes religious standards on everyone. That is not freedom. We have the technical capability and the knowledge required to convert to a totally non discriminatory system within the confines of government's roles. Marriage is not one of government's roles.
The only honest and equal solution is to eliminate civil marriage and marriage in any form from being a condition of citizenship and participation in the benefits that derive from being a citizen.
I hope that the GLBT community will take a step out of the morass of the gay marriage issue and support totally equality for individuals. Human rights accrue to individuals not groups, races, or organizations.
Every person who is an adult or emancipated adult can enter into a contract that will cover every aspect of peoples lives. There is no need for secular marriage in any form.
Mr. Carraro and Mr. White represent what is wrong in this country, the continuation of discrimination based on religious morals and fear mongering that something will be taken away from the morally correct or some how gay people are a threat to other peoples beliefs. They believe they have the right to impose their thinking and lifestyle on others. Others just want to be left alone to live as they chose.
The other candidates seem to be afraid of losing votes or don't agree that discrimination begins when it is applied to an individual who can be singled out because they are different from the rest of the herd. Its ok to be separate and somehow by appearance be equal.
1 year ago
in Food stamps near historic high on The New Mexico Independent
The story reflects the basics, reported by other sources as well, but does not delve into how other factors reduce the amount of money a person may receive in food stamp benefits when they receive housing assistance, the housing assistance under HUD portable vouchers counts against a recipient of food stamps. This is a critical issue for many including the homeless.
An example:
Single disabled person receives $602 in SSDI ( Social Security Disability Insurance ) payments and $36 in SSI ( Supplemental Security Income ) payments for a total of $636 per month, total.
Prior to receiving HUD portable voucher that can be used for NON public housing ( there are various reasons why a person may not be able to be placed in public housing, disability and/or lack of available units ) the person would receive the maximum benefit for an individual $151.00 in food stamps in some cases. With the housing voucher and rents with utilities and the maximum rental allowance under HUD here in the Albuquerque area of $610 per month, the voucher pays all but approximately $185 per month of the rental, however because the difference in this example is $425 that $425 is counted against the Food Stamp recipient in the calculation reducing their monthly food stamps to $20, and that only because they have the SSI payment, other wise it might be zero.
The argument would be, well there is a net benefit to the recipient or they could find lower cost housing. Actually lower cost housing in general to meet both HUD and the disabled person's needs is very limited. HUD requirements of the premises and the landlord generally mean a high standard and more expensive housing, especially if it needs to be handicap accessible.
Food Stamps is a needs based system, but it does not always work in the favor of recipients.
In the example above the person has $20 in food stamps and $353 in cash for the month to pay for everything, not the least of which is Medicare prescription drug premiums*, copay for prescriptions, food, clothing, personal hygiene, transportation, telephone, etc. That is an average of 11.60 a day to cover everything else including food. If you use the maximum Food Stamp payment for an individual of $151 per month, that works out to the government saying that here is $4.96 a day in assistance toward food, not expecting it to cover ALL the food a person would consume. Subtract $4.96 from $11.60 and you get $6.63 a day to cover everything else plus the 75 cents in food stamps. It works out that if someone could find housing for $425 per month including utilities it would be break-even with the HUD portable voucher plan.
So we have to ask is the system really addressing poverty, especially when there are many recipients getting less than $600 a month in SSDI benefits or Social Security payments for that matter.
Add the increased cost of food and transportation to this scenario and the inability of the government to adjust quickly such increases and it creates a dire situation for many poor people especially if they are on medications or require a special diet.
How many people have a good quality of life on $7.00 a day and can have a good diet out of that $7.00, we are what we eat.
I know the point of this new media venture in journalism is to fill in the gaps, but this is an example of incomplete research and regurgitating information that is out there and not uncovering the real human situations that exist.
Homeless people qualifiy for food stamps, but are you aware of the restrictions on the types of foods receipients can use the benefit to obtain. Many homeless don't have a place to cook food, but they can't by prepared food for the most part. Many end up selling their benefit, they buy items that qualify but they cant use and sell at a discount for cash to friends, etc.
Please try to do better than this. My hopes are this will be better than the Albuquerque Journal and the local television stations.
Albuquerque Commentator
* Cigna recently sent out a letter to some Medicare Part D recipients that the Social Security Administration informed them that SS had made a miscalculation of premium payments and that plan participants may expect a bill for back premiums as far back as January of 2006, and the subscriber will have to pay the bill. Some one in the above scenario could be wiped out of cash quickly in this situation because of a miscalculation on the part of the government.
An example:
Single disabled person receives $602 in SSDI ( Social Security Disability Insurance ) payments and $36 in SSI ( Supplemental Security Income ) payments for a total of $636 per month, total.
Prior to receiving HUD portable voucher that can be used for NON public housing ( there are various reasons why a person may not be able to be placed in public housing, disability and/or lack of available units ) the person would receive the maximum benefit for an individual $151.00 in food stamps in some cases. With the housing voucher and rents with utilities and the maximum rental allowance under HUD here in the Albuquerque area of $610 per month, the voucher pays all but approximately $185 per month of the rental, however because the difference in this example is $425 that $425 is counted against the Food Stamp recipient in the calculation reducing their monthly food stamps to $20, and that only because they have the SSI payment, other wise it might be zero.
The argument would be, well there is a net benefit to the recipient or they could find lower cost housing. Actually lower cost housing in general to meet both HUD and the disabled person's needs is very limited. HUD requirements of the premises and the landlord generally mean a high standard and more expensive housing, especially if it needs to be handicap accessible.
Food Stamps is a needs based system, but it does not always work in the favor of recipients.
In the example above the person has $20 in food stamps and $353 in cash for the month to pay for everything, not the least of which is Medicare prescription drug premiums*, copay for prescriptions, food, clothing, personal hygiene, transportation, telephone, etc. That is an average of 11.60 a day to cover everything else including food. If you use the maximum Food Stamp payment for an individual of $151 per month, that works out to the government saying that here is $4.96 a day in assistance toward food, not expecting it to cover ALL the food a person would consume. Subtract $4.96 from $11.60 and you get $6.63 a day to cover everything else plus the 75 cents in food stamps. It works out that if someone could find housing for $425 per month including utilities it would be break-even with the HUD portable voucher plan.
So we have to ask is the system really addressing poverty, especially when there are many recipients getting less than $600 a month in SSDI benefits or Social Security payments for that matter.
Add the increased cost of food and transportation to this scenario and the inability of the government to adjust quickly such increases and it creates a dire situation for many poor people especially if they are on medications or require a special diet.
How many people have a good quality of life on $7.00 a day and can have a good diet out of that $7.00, we are what we eat.
I know the point of this new media venture in journalism is to fill in the gaps, but this is an example of incomplete research and regurgitating information that is out there and not uncovering the real human situations that exist.
Homeless people qualifiy for food stamps, but are you aware of the restrictions on the types of foods receipients can use the benefit to obtain. Many homeless don't have a place to cook food, but they can't by prepared food for the most part. Many end up selling their benefit, they buy items that qualify but they cant use and sell at a discount for cash to friends, etc.
Please try to do better than this. My hopes are this will be better than the Albuquerque Journal and the local television stations.
Albuquerque Commentator
* Cigna recently sent out a letter to some Medicare Part D recipients that the Social Security Administration informed them that SS had made a miscalculation of premium payments and that plan participants may expect a bill for back premiums as far back as January of 2006, and the subscriber will have to pay the bill. Some one in the above scenario could be wiped out of cash quickly in this situation because of a miscalculation on the part of the government.
1 year ago
in Food stamps near historic high on The New Mexico Independent
The story reflects the basics, reported by other sources as well, but does not delve into how other factors reduce the amount of money a person may receive in food stamp benefits when they receive housing assistance, the housing assistance under HUD portable vouchers counts against a recipient of food stamps. This is a critical issue for many including the homeless.
An example:
Single disabled person receives $602 in SSDI ( Social Security Disability Insurance ) payments and $36 in SSI ( Supplemental Security Income ) payments for a total of $636 per month, total.
Prior to receiving HUD portable voucher that can be used for NON public housing ( there are various reasons why a person may not be able to be placed in public housing, disability and/or lack of available units ) the person would receive the maximum benefit for an individual $151.00 in food stamps in some cases. With the housing voucher and rents with utilities and the maximum rental allowance under HUD here in the Albuquerque area of $610 per month, the voucher pays all but approximately $185 per month of the rental, however because the difference in this example is $425 that $425 is counted against the Food Stamp recipient in the calculation reducing their monthly food stamps to $20, and that only because they have the SSI payment, other wise it might be zero.
The argument would be, well there is a net benefit to the recipient or they could find lower cost housing. Actually lower cost housing in general to meet both HUD and the disabled person's needs is very limited. HUD requirements of the premises and the landlord generally mean a high standard and more expensive housing, especially if it needs to be handicap accessible.
Food Stamps is a needs based system, but it does not always work in the favor of recipients.
In the example above the person has $20 in food stamps and $353 in cash for the month to pay for everything, not the least of which is Medicare prescription drug premiums*, copay for prescriptions, food, clothing, personal hygiene, transportation, telephone, etc. That is an average of 11.60 a day to cover everything else including food. If you use the maximum Food Stamp payment for an individual of $151 per month, that works out to the government saying that here is $4.96 a day in assistance toward food, not expecting it to cover ALL the food a person would consume. Subtract $4.96 from $11.60 and you get $6.63 a day to cover everything else plus the 75 cents in food stamps. It works out that if someone could find housing for $425 per month including utilities it would be break-even with the HUD portable voucher plan.
So we have to ask is the system really addressing poverty, especially when there are many recipients getting less than $600 a month in SSDI benefits or Social Security payments for that matter.
Add the increased cost of food and transportation to this scenario and the inability of the government to adjust quickly such increases and it creates a dire situation for many poor people especially if they are on medications or require a special diet.
How many people have a good quality of life on $7.00 a day and can have a good diet out of that $7.00, we are what we eat.
I know the point of this new media venture in journalism is to fill in the gaps, but this is an example of incomplete research and regurgitating information that is out there and not uncovering the real human situations that exist.
Homeless people qualifiy for food stamps, but are you aware of the restrictions on the types of foods receipients can use the benefit to obtain. Many homeless don't have a place to cook food, but they can't by prepared food for the most part. Many end up selling their benefit, they buy items that qualify but they cant use and sell at a discount for cash to friends, etc.
Please try to do better than this. My hopes are this will be better than the Albuquerque Journal and the local television stations.
Albuquerque Commentator
* Cigna recently sent out a letter to some Medicare Part D recipients that the Social Security Administration informed them that SS had made a miscalculation of premium payments and that plan participants may expect a bill for back premiums as far back as January of 2006, and the subscriber will have to pay the bill. Some one in the above scenario could be wiped out of cash quickly in this situation because of a miscalculation on the part of the government.
An example:
Single disabled person receives $602 in SSDI ( Social Security Disability Insurance ) payments and $36 in SSI ( Supplemental Security Income ) payments for a total of $636 per month, total.
Prior to receiving HUD portable voucher that can be used for NON public housing ( there are various reasons why a person may not be able to be placed in public housing, disability and/or lack of available units ) the person would receive the maximum benefit for an individual $151.00 in food stamps in some cases. With the housing voucher and rents with utilities and the maximum rental allowance under HUD here in the Albuquerque area of $610 per month, the voucher pays all but approximately $185 per month of the rental, however because the difference in this example is $425 that $425 is counted against the Food Stamp recipient in the calculation reducing their monthly food stamps to $20, and that only because they have the SSI payment, other wise it might be zero.
The argument would be, well there is a net benefit to the recipient or they could find lower cost housing. Actually lower cost housing in general to meet both HUD and the disabled person's needs is very limited. HUD requirements of the premises and the landlord generally mean a high standard and more expensive housing, especially if it needs to be handicap accessible.
Food Stamps is a needs based system, but it does not always work in the favor of recipients.
In the example above the person has $20 in food stamps and $353 in cash for the month to pay for everything, not the least of which is Medicare prescription drug premiums*, copay for prescriptions, food, clothing, personal hygiene, transportation, telephone, etc. That is an average of 11.60 a day to cover everything else including food. If you use the maximum Food Stamp payment for an individual of $151 per month, that works out to the government saying that here is $4.96 a day in assistance toward food, not expecting it to cover ALL the food a person would consume. Subtract $4.96 from $11.60 and you get $6.63 a day to cover everything else plus the 75 cents in food stamps. It works out that if someone could find housing for $425 per month including utilities it would be break-even with the HUD portable voucher plan.
So we have to ask is the system really addressing poverty, especially when there are many recipients getting less than $600 a month in SSDI benefits or Social Security payments for that matter.
Add the increased cost of food and transportation to this scenario and the inability of the government to adjust quickly such increases and it creates a dire situation for many poor people especially if they are on medications or require a special diet.
How many people have a good quality of life on $7.00 a day and can have a good diet out of that $7.00, we are what we eat.
I know the point of this new media venture in journalism is to fill in the gaps, but this is an example of incomplete research and regurgitating information that is out there and not uncovering the real human situations that exist.
Homeless people qualifiy for food stamps, but are you aware of the restrictions on the types of foods receipients can use the benefit to obtain. Many homeless don't have a place to cook food, but they can't by prepared food for the most part. Many end up selling their benefit, they buy items that qualify but they cant use and sell at a discount for cash to friends, etc.
Please try to do better than this. My hopes are this will be better than the Albuquerque Journal and the local television stations.
Albuquerque Commentator
* Cigna recently sent out a letter to some Medicare Part D recipients that the Social Security Administration informed them that SS had made a miscalculation of premium payments and that plan participants may expect a bill for back premiums as far back as January of 2006, and the subscriber will have to pay the bill. Some one in the above scenario could be wiped out of cash quickly in this situation because of a miscalculation on the part of the government.
