The Real Life of Julia

Good evening everybody.  Recently President Obama’s campaign team has released a “The Life of Julia” slideshow. It shows the things that the Obama Administration has done to help young women throughout their lifetimes. However, it also sends another message. That women are dependant on government. From cradle to grave, or as I’ve heard it before “from sperm to worm.”

The latest little campaign graphics have presented a picture of a young woman named Julia. The story begins at age 3, and ends at age 67, with her having lived life dependant upon government programs and reliance on her parents. What this shows me, though, is that there is an underlying perception that independant women are unable to do what they wish, how they wish, and should be encourage to let Uncle Sam help her out.

Well, I decided to make my own version of Julia’s life… below is a recreation of President Obama’s “propaganda” with a little bit more common sense and a few less half truths tossed in there.

I hope to follow this up later with some extra details on each picture.

I present to you:

The Real Life of Julia


21 responses to “The Real Life of Julia

  1. Your suggestions seem more far right than moderate, Brad, for someone who proclaims himself moderate. I don’t believe the words about Romney’s ideas. Though, that isn’t your fault. It’s the fault of the far right aka the Tea Party (aka Tea Terrorists if you’re going to believe the left.)

    They see Romney as the forerunner to Obama, and thus wouldn’t allow his ideas to move forward at all.

    We are basically moving to a totalitarian state because supposed moderates won’t stand up and let their voice be heard. The FAR right tells them to shut up, take a seat, and thus the crazy ideas of the far right get pushed. And we wonder why the GOP is portrayed as hating women, minorities and anything that isn’t white or Christian.

    • I find it interesting that not a single thing in your reply has anything to do with the post itself.

      With this post, I simply take a propaganda piece, and add the missing parts. Turn Julia into a responsible person, and change the Romney “retorts” provided by Pres. Obama’s campaign team into actual thongs that Romney has said, and not just parts of it.

      Context is everything, and Pres. Obama’s little Julia piece is out of context.

      I wont disagree that there are some on the far right who would and sometimes have, tried to shut up the moderates. I will disagree though, that nothing is being done. The noisy gear gets the grease, and moderates simply aren’t noisy enough yet.

      Lastly, I would like for you to give me examples on how this makes me more right then moderate.

      • I would disagree that it had nothing to do with the post. I pointed out WHY Romney’s plans wouldn’t work. The very plans that you show are “true” as compared to Obama’s supposed falsehoods.

        That’s something you didn’t get into because you either wanted to cover it up or just don’t want people to know the whole story. Which is why I say you’re too much right wing not enough moderate.

        You don’t show the balance between the two. How much of what Obama says is a “lie” and how much of Ryan and the Tea Party’s plan–not Romney’s plan as he only (partially) endorsed it–is pandering to the rich as they usually do.

        Again, because you either want to cover it up or don’t want people getting the whole truth. You’re moving more and more, in the opinion of this reader, from the middle to the right. The very thing-only in the opposite direction–that you get on my case for.

        As for “things Romney said.” When did he say them? And then when did he retract what he said..because that’s Romney’s way. Pander to one group one day and then another group gets pandered to the next. He’s as much a flipflopper as John Kerry.

        You don’t offer dates, quotes or anything else in your little story. SO how can I take this as anything more than a right winger kissing butt?

      • I wouldn’t say that I am hiding anything, as I mentioned that this set of graphics simply isn’t enough space to truly show the difference, let alone citations. That is in an up and coming post.

        What I am showing is how the original Obama graphics show very little, and purely only show one side of the story.

        My graphics, instead of leaving “Julia” dependant upon the government her entire life, allow “Julia” to actually be the independent responsible woman she can be.

        I am interested in seeing these things that I tried to “cover up”. Nearly everything is from actual legislation supported by Romney or by the Republicans. It does not pick and choose parts of legislation. It shows what republicans believe and not what ultra conservatives do.

  2. I don’t know. I don’t see what’s so responsible about knowing you may need help but not accepting it. I mean according to your slides the Republican way is “to each man his own.” which doesn’t seem very disabled or poor friendly. Which is one of my many points against the Republican Party to me. I mean this is after reading your “truthful” slides, of course. You know the ones more “truthful” than President Obama’s slides.

    • Why is that not responsible? The way that Mr. Obama presented it, is that Julia was solely dependent upon the government from cradle to grave. A Republican view would be to do what we can without having to use a program, unless absolutely needed.

      The key word is “need”. If you notice how most of the slides also mention how Julia would not need to use this program, allowing the programs to be more available to those who truly need it.

      It is not “to each man his own” it is “make responsible choices, and don’t jump on a program just because it’s available”.

      Have you seen Mr. Obama’s original slides? A serious question. If you have, you would notice how when pertaining to Mr. Romney, there is pretty much one liners, or partial truths, and not actual information.

      • Yes, I did. In fact I was just rereading them. Do you know what a summation is? A serious question. I would seriously doubt the President didn’t use ALL of a quote on purpose. But summation of the points is what happened here. It is up to the voter, after all, to find the facts for themselves.

        I’ll use the after graduation slide, for example. We have already seen the GOP slash funding for Pell grants to that students can’t use them year round. Now, this makes no sense because many students take courses during the summer to get closer to graduation. Not only that but the GOP has talked of allowing the interest rate (right now at 6.8%) to jump up.

        The Blunt Amendment, which Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) attached to a senate transportation bill (what does a woman’s vagina have to do with transportation again?), would put such things as preventative care and birth control in the hands of the person’s employer. Mr. Romney org. did say that he would not support the Blunt Amendment, by saying “I’m not for the bill, but look, the idea of presidential candidates getting into questions about contraception within a relationship between a man and a women, husband and wife, I’m not going there.”

        “I am not for the bill…BUT….” he’s flipflopping within his own statement and then tries to hide that flipflop!

        Now, Mr. Romney’s campaign is saying “Regarding the Blunt bill, the way the question was asked was confusing. Governor Romney supports the Blunt Bill because he believes in a conscience exemption in health care for religious institutions and people of faith,” said Andrea Saul, a spokesperson for Romney.

        For the record, here is the question:

        The issue of birth control, contraception, Blunt-Rubio is being debated, I believe, later this week. It deals with banning or allowing employers to ban providing female contraception. Have you taken a position on it? He (Santorum) said he was for that, we’ll talk about personhood in a second; but he’s for that, have you taken a position?”

        Now, yes, the interviewer continued his point between asking the question BUT he did state the question TWICE. “have you taken a position”, to simplify, is the question.

        The Obama slides show, “Romney supports the Blunt Amendment” which according to Romney’s own spokesperson is factually correct; though according to the candidate is false but with a “but”.

        So yes, I have read the slides and even researched them.

      • Yes, I know what a summation is. And the “summation” is unfairly placed only on part of Mr. Romney. Taking single statements like “he’ll kill it dead” or the “Romney/Ryan” plan (framing the debate much?) says this or that, ignoring any inconvenient provisions that very well may falsify that statement. Yes, it is up to the voter to decide; however when one side obviously provides more information, and just leaves a nice short out of context sentence for their competition, the regular populace is not going to go out and look for the “right” answers, unless they are people like you and I. There are far fewer like us than you might imagine.

        As for the Pell Grant and college issue. Yes, I did not ignore that, and included it in my slide if you notice. I also state that with the government not encouraging students to look to the Pell Grant first, and instead have a head start with already being encouraged to save or work through college, it would allow Pell Grants to actually be used by those who need it. This would mean that Julia would have been encouraged to be responsible with her money, plan ahead, and not go to college, “just because the money’s available.”

        I also understand the issue with the Blunt Amendment. It basically says that if an employer decides that they do not wish to provide a certain plan (not all plans, but certain plans) based on religious convictions, of the purchaser. This does not stop the purchaser from purchasing a different plan, only prevents them from being forced to purchase a plan with, for example, birth control.
        • ” to ensure that health care stakeholders retain the right to provide, purchase, or enroll in health coverage that is consistent with their religious beliefs and moral convictions, without fear of being penalized or discriminated against under PPACA”

        • “to ensure that no requirement in PPACA creates new pressures to exclude those exercising such conscientious objection from health plans or other programs under PPACA.”

        • “Nothing in this title (or any amendment made by this title) shall be construed to require an individual or institutional health care provider, or authorize a health plan to require a provider, to provide, participate in, or refer for a specific item or service contrary to the provider’s religious beliefs or moral convictions”

        • “No Exchange or other official or entity acting in a governmental capacity in the course of implementing this title (or any amendment made by this title) shall discriminate against a health plan, plan sponsor, health care provider, or other person be-cause of such plan’s, sponsor’s, provider’s, or person’s unwillingness to provide coverage of, participate in, or refer for, specific items or services pursuant to this paragraph.”

      • So let’s punish the poor, even if they work, by “encouraging” them to work. Again shows the GOP hates the poor, in my view.

        And again, what exactly does a woman’s vagina have to do with transportation and you never address Mitt Romney’s role in this and his apparent flipflopping.

        On an aside, if the employer wants to refuse based on “religious” convictions and they receive government money and tax exempt status (such as religious hospital or school–for example, my old college Seton Hill University was a catholic school that received federal loans and grants) then they should lose that money and their tax exempt status especially if they’re using their religion to make a political point (Hi Catholic and Mormon church and Prop8!)

      • Interesting way to look at it (the employer’s position). I’ll have to think on that.

        As for Mr. Romney, why is it a flip-flop? The “but” was somewhat of a side step. He said that he didn’t support the BILL, yet did believe “in a conscience exemption in health care for religious institutions and people of faith.”

        Now, as for the “poor” comment. Why is it punishing the poor? If they work, and are encouraged to save rather than spend, it would not punish them, but instead guide them towards a mentality of budgeting and saving for your own future. None of this prevents them from taking advantage of programs that they NEED, but instead does not encourage those who DO NOT NEED it to hop on board, in turn taking money away from those who do.

        If you notice, none of the things try to cut these programs out, but instead allow them to be used by those who TRULY NEED it, and not encourage those who don’t NEED it to use them cause their there.

    • Now you’re not answering what a woman’s vagina has to do with transportation. Interesting….

      The problems with pure cuts is that eventually you run out of funds. What happens then. And you can say it’s “for the people that truly need it.” but who decides who “truly” needs something. As an example, in the past my mom could have gotten food stamps EXCEPT when you combined her and my brother’s father’s income, they were ONE DOLLAR above the line. ONE WHOLE STINKING DOLLAR. Never mind that we needed the food stamps, but making ONE DOLLAR over that line made the ineligible.

      Is that fair? No, but that was a Republican (Hi Newt Gingrich!) implemented way of doing it. But it shows that there’s no accurate way to determine “who truly needs it.”

      And the tuition thing. So we have students work to go to school, but then what’s to stop student X from working at McDonald’s the rest of his/her life rather than get that college education. I mean that’s the mindset of conservative to me. The PELL Grants are at least there to say ‘here’s a leg up to help you get started/continue on.’ There are already steps in place to weed people out of the system (it’s what happened to me even though it wasn’t 100% my fault–I’ll explain on facebook rather than here.)

      And yes, I believe that if you’re a religious or religiously sponorsed organization such as a hospital or a school (or even a church itself) and you make a political point, or if you don’t follow the law (such as is happening with this contraception thing) you should lose your federal money and your tax exempt status–heck, think of all the money we’d make if Our Lady of Grace Catholic Church actually paid taxes as a business instead of getting off sc..wait..nevermind. I forgot which side I’m talking to (okay that one was a joke.)

  3. I haven’t answered that question, because it is rhetorical, a woman’s vagina has nothing to do with Transportation, and I think that it is stupid that legislators attached it to this bill, just as legislation on the other side has been attached to other bills with little to no purpose.

    Anyway, I said nothing of pure cuts. I assume you are talking about cuts vs revenue increases. What I mean by those who truly need it, is the difference between me using a Pell Grant or a government backed loan simply because it is there, and allowing those who really do need assistance to get it. It isn’t something that is done at a government level, but at an individual level.

    Your mother’s example is a great one. She ended up caught in a one-size-fits-all legislation. These benefits do not always take into account the geography, condition, or position that a person is in, but instead goes strictly by numbers. They did not fully take into account that your mother and “step-dad” are supporting you, as well as your brother. Instead it said, that this HOUSEHOLD has this much income, because of your age and lack of a disability, you couldn’t be considered a dependent, and therefore it was not taken into account either. In turn, the “size-didn’t-fit-all.”

    Onto your next section.

    What is stopping “student X from working at McDonald’s the rest of his/her life rather than get that college education”?

    Answer: They themselves are. Nobody is forcing them to work at McDonald’s their whole life. Nothing is stopping them from learning something on their own, in their spare time. Nothing is stopping them from saving up and using that towards a college education.

    Pell Grants are there to say “if you have pursued every possible avenue, and still cannot afford college, yet still want to go, let me help.”

    This isn’t a government level decision, but an individual decision. And the current generation is getting more and more used to just letting Uncle Sam (aka: everyone else who pays taxes) to take care of them.

    As for churches and taxes. There is a fine line. First off, churches do not have income outside of donations… literally. If nobody tithes or puts something in the offering plate… then who’s going to pay for the building, electricity, water, insurance, employees, etc? Nobody, in fact a church that I once went to, almost had to close their doors because of this.

    This is different with religious hospitals, or religious organizations that literally charge for their services.. though those are not tax exempt, as in order to charge for a service FOR PROFIT, you must pay taxes. (I’ll have to double check that, so don’t jump on that yet).

    • As for the students, no I don’t believe that. If the help is there, from day one, a student is more inclined to go to college. I can tell you right now, personally, if I wouldn’t have had the extra help I wouldn’t even had gone to trade school (that’s what Triangle Tech/BCI was.) because there would have been nothing that I could have done. I would have gotten a job at McDonald’s and that’s that. I mean there would have been no incentive for me to get a college education.

      I don think, and agree, that that is a major problem with the educational system not and not the President though. We push our kids to go to college when a trade is just as good. I can understand where the President is coming from–he is pushing for an education period even in trade; but when I was in school we were told even at that a college education was important. Period, no if ands or butts. This wasn’t by government employees either. This was our teachers and others telling us this.

      Oh and you can be a for-profit but still classified as a charity and not pay any taxes. Because you’d be for profit though, you’d be able to engage in political activity. What I’m saying is if you do that, as a religious institution, you should lose your status as a charity and pay the taxes. And you know your sob story about the church isn’t going to get any sympathy from me. I thought you’d know that by now.

      • I didn’t expect sympathy, simply gave an example.

        A student, and their parents, and their teachers (who are likely state employees if the school is a public school) are ALL responsible for the decision or guidance of whether to go to college. The responsibility cannot be placed on anyone else. The choices made are also dependent on the ambition and drive if the student themselves. Nobody and nothing is preventing them from making a decision whether to or not to go to college or a trademark school.

        I guess I’m confused as to what would be keeping you tied to McDonalds?

      • It’s really just an example. There’s really nothing to it than an example. There aren’t really many jobs that you can get with just a HS degree.

      • I find that a bit difficult to believe. I was able to get the job I have with no college degree. And continue to move forward in my career, though I still have yet to complete said degree.

        Again, it is the experience, determination, and ambition of the student/employee/individual, and not their schooling alone.

      • I disagree, but okay if you say so.

        To sidetrack for a moment, I think Anne Rice made a good point and I thought I’d share it here:

        Is it time to abolish the automatic tax exemption for churches? I say, yes, it is time.

        (Churches can of course apply for deductions for any charitable work they do, soup kitchens, shelters, etc., that actually serve the community but they should have to apply like anyone else for this and they should be subject to the same IRS audit rules as anybody else. At present church enjoy an automatic exemption and it is very difficult for them to audited for wrong doing.)

        I say put an end to it. It is preferential treatment. ——- It can no longer be assumed that any church necessarily is doing “good” or that it actually serves “the community.” And the reasons for the old automatic exemption aren’t valid.

  4. Khraden and Lou, I think some of your posts got away from the topic. But I do agree with some of what Lou said, about your political thought processes, Khraden, although I would call them mainstream Republican rather than “right winger” which has the implication of “far right.”
    Getting back to your “paraphrase” of the “The Life of Julia”:
    I disagree that it “sends another message. That women are dependant on government.” The only “dependancy” is that rules and laws should be written without regard to gender. And that does not mean “dependancy” in your sense, Khraden.
    In the scenario you posted for Julia at age 3, you PRESUMED that her mother was single or otherwise that “her father apparently [was] not being around.” Why did you make that assumption? It appears to speak to a preconceived bias on your part.
    Referencing a comment by Lou: “So let’s punish the poor, even if they work, by “encouraging” them to work.” I believe he got that picture from things that you posted.
    You made the comment regarding Pell Grants: “instead have a head start with already being encouraged to save or work through college.” Well, that whole scenario depends on those last words. Working during college has often been discouraged because of the loss of hours allotted within that 12 semester hours cut-off for full-time status. And part-time work does not afford poorer students enough funds to pay ever-increasing tuitions. Pell Grants are NOT given out just willy-nilly–they are only given to those without ENOUGH other finances. So if a person is one of the millions of “working poor” in this country, then they would fall under your definition as “those who need it.”
    And getting back to that general theme of your post: You assume that Julia’s mother is not one of those “who need it” in regard to the Head Start program: “She did not require the use of the Head Start program.” Why do you assume that there are persons “who [do not] need it” who are using this program?
    For clarification in the scenario you posted for Julia at age 27: You also assume that she has a great insurance plan at low cost premiums to either her or her employer. FWIW: It’s not true that group plans allow individual choices–block coverages are selectable, not individual choices. Yet you do not address one of the “corrections” in the PPACA:
    “Under Mitt Romney: Romney supports the Blunt Amendment–which would place Julia’s health care decisions in the hands of her employer–and repealing health care reform so insurance companies could go back to charging women 50% more than men.”
    Or that the “free screenings” and other services are to be at no ADDITIONAL cost to Julia [ie: without copays] and that such coverages are included in the costs of the premiums, and that the insurer still covers the R&C charges of the health provider.
    As for the idea that an employer may discriminate against certain employees based upon their gender in regard to their health-care coverage should be repugnant to all Americans.
    Aside to Lou: Churches do indeed receive their funding from voluntary donations. This donated money by individuals has already been taxed by the U.S. government–its charitable status should not be subject to tax again.

    • Miki, Thanks for your aside, but as a former Christian and member of the layclergy (and once studying to be a pastor) I knew all of that already..and personal, I don’t care.

      You want to make your religious message into a political one? Then you get taxed. Look at what happened in California with Prop8. The only reason it passed is because the hate filled, bigoted monsters known as the Catholic church and the Mormon church pumped money in from out of state to fund the campaign.

      Westboro is another example. From my own former church, the Salvation Army which also functions as a social service, they threatened to close down soup kitchens because the State, and City, of New York wanted to enact a law that said they can’t discriminate against LGBT potential hires.

      They made their religious message a political one and should be taxed.

      I’m sorry, but your argument on that is going to fall on deaf ears after seeing the way the “church” acts.

      I do agree with you on everything else though.

    • I appreciate the thoughtful response, and would like to clarify a few things. It may be a long reply, but wanted to try and cover all the areas. Sorry for a wall of text.

      First up, I agree, the conversation got a bit away from the topic. It seems to always happen in online conversations, and I apologize for not bringing it back to the point at hand.

      The way that it “sends another message. That women are dependant on government” is that the way the Obama campaign represented “Julia” is that she did not feel the need to take anything into her own hands, but rather took advantage of any program, whether she needed it or not, at first chance. This is without looking at other options or opportunities that may have been available.

      As for the mother being single, I simply took the wording from the presentation, as the father is never mentioned. It actually only helped prove part of my point, that an independant, responsible woman could still make it without looking to Uncle Sam first.

      On the “punish the poor” comments, I still am unsure of how that is being portrayed. Throughout my paraphrased version, I had Julia make decisions that allowed her to take care of herself, allowing the poor to actually take advantage of the programs available, without added cost of other individuals piling on.

      On the subject of Pell Grants. Yes, the applicants must meet strict criteria, and not everyone is able to get one. Those who are the working poor, and meet these same standards can take advantage of Pell Grants. However, college is not simply “13th” grade. If the choice is made to take advantage of this, then a plan (on the part of the individual) and taking a look at the potential future should also be looked at. Again, taking advantage of the program, only if it’s needed, and not because they just “want” to. There are so many now-a-days who have graduated college, with little to no work experience, yet expecting “graduate level” jobs, and the pay that go with them. This is a fallacy that has been built upon over the past decades. College is a place to expand upon ones knowledge in the field they wish to go into, and prepare them for potential (not guaranteed) job offerings.

      As for the comments on working while schooling, I will disagree with, as I did it myself. I looked at it from the perspective that Julia was still single (not married yet), as I was when I was in that position. I worked full time 7:30-4:30, then came home, got ready for school, and took enough classes to meet the hourly requirements to be a “full-time” student. I also was not a full-time student every semester. Dedication to your studies and to the job that you do is what is important, not getting the degree as quickly as possible. I can attest to that, as I am currently in a fairly comfortable job, including advancement… and I have yet to complete my degree. Experience and dedication, however, have gotten me where I am, not a “piece of paper.” Now, I’m not trying to downplay degrees either, as they do have their place, and uses, but without other experience behind them, they are little more than a really expensive document.

      On Head Start. This is more than just a government issue, but a personal and parental issue. More parents are willing to let Head Start do the work that they themselves can do. Attention, care, and overall wellbeing of children should be the responsibility of the parents. If, for example, the parent is not really fit to take care of the child OR unable to really provide the time needed to teach their children, then Head Start is a great program, and should be taken advantage of. However, an expansion in Head Start attendance does not necessarily mean a success in the program, but rather an increasing rate of responsibility being pushed/pulled away from parents and placed on the government.

      On the subject of insurance. If Julia has been working since she was in late high school, she would have begun to understand the ins and outs of insurance, and had learned how to shop for the plan that fit her best. This could be individually, or through her employer. Again, she does not have to stick with the same employer either. As she gains experience, her resume also benefits, and in turn she may be able to find other employers with better plans, or benefits. As for the Blunt Amendment, I will concede and agree with most of your reply. The last sentance, however is a bit of an issue. The Blunt amendment does not allow an employer to discriminate against an employee based on gender. In fact the text of the bill itself prevents that. It also prevents the employer from being discriminated against by the PPACA for not providing certain plans through their pool. But again, I actually agree with some of what you are saying here, in fact wholeheartedly agree that it is and should be repugnant to all Americans for such discrimination to be possible.

      Again, thanks for the reply.

      • “as I did it myself.”

        Another right wing way of thinking, “If I can do it on my own then everyone can and should do it.” smh. That’s not how the real world works, dude. So good for you. You did it ALL by yourself. Want a gold medal or something? Maybe we should name YOU President then since you seem to have everything under control.

        The real world doesn’t work that and I wish the GOP would realize that. And all you have to do is google “World’s Top Ten HAPPIEST countries” you know what they ALL have in common? They’re socialist.

        The US meanwhile on the list? Barely cracks the top 20.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s