Performance-based relationships fail

     In my day job, I often write about loans or financings that companies acquire. Often times to secure this money, the company has to meet certain terms and conditions - milestones if you will. It's very much performance based.

     While this is expected in transactions like this, it hardly seems like the performance-based structure would quite lend itself to matters of the heart or relationships. Yet millions of couples go on blissfully unaware that they are in these types of relationships and are forcing "the terms of agreement" in their relationships.

     In a conversation during my commute to work on Atlanta's finest rail system, I spoke with a man who was struggling with his wife on this very issue. Often times he has to perform a certain task - whether it's cleaning up the house, or buying her that special gift that she wants - before the relationship can advance (that's code for before she can be cordial to him again).

     It's a tough situation he's in. Constantly being put into a "position" where he has to "prove" his love. Now if you're reading this, and you think that this is silly, ask yourself if you're guilty of this?

     Do you love your mate unconditionally, or is your significant other only as good as what he or she can do for you? Do you withhold sex from your spouse when they fail to complete a task? Do you have a sour attitude and become emotionally distant when your spouse fails to meet a goal you have set for them and the family?

     If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then I would urge you to reconsider your actions. Not only does it create distance between you and your spouse, but it also serves as a sad narrative of your true character.

     End the performance-based relationship and learn to love unconditionally. It will pay off tremendously in the future for the health and well being of your marriage.

The haves and the have nots

I hadn't grasped exactly what the upcoming Presidential election was about until Mitt Romney's now infamous 47% footage was revealed.

To make a cumbersome blog topic short - this Presidential election is about the haves and the havenots. And where you stand alongside the economic ladder is probably how you'll vote.

Mitt Romney, to me, while an accomplished businessman and skilled politician, has no clue about the working class in America or what it means to struggle financially, when you've done everything right. While he should not be criticized for this, he should be called into question for pretending to say that he does understand this. Don't fake the funk. Be for real and be honest.

I remember my growing up when my mother taught me the true meaning of sacrifice. It was a lesson she learned from her parents and it was a lesson she displayed during my childhood. My mother was not poor by any stretch of the imagination. She was a school teacher, who worked long hours and had meals cooked every night when she got off work. She did not suck on the government teet, but she sure didn't make $250,000 a year either or $100,000 so I guess she wasn't middle class.

No, she wasn't middle class according to Romney's study, instead she busted her butt; held her marriage together; put food on the table; helped pay for the majority of my college education so I could make something out of my life; be a productive citizen in this country.

It is a lesson that I want to impart on my family and my children.  Romney has shown that he really doesn't understand the working class. From the awkard 47% speech, to his insane definition about what the middle class is.

Ultimately, Romney is proving that he doesn't care about the 47% and at the same time diassociating many voters because of his total misunderstanding of the wages people make. Do I think Romney is condemning the have nots? No I don't.

I simply think that he doesn't understand, and any president that I vote for, I want to know and care about both those who have, and those who have not.

Middle Class or Walking Dead?

So, according to an AP story that ran last week,  Mitt Romney and President Obama think that middle income families are those that live in households where the income $250,000 to $200,000 or less. Romney points out that he doesn't think households that make $100,000 are middle income.

Is it just me, or does it seem like these two have no clue about the economic realty in this country? Or perhaps I just need to reside to the fact that I need to broaden my thinking when it comes to finances (at least that's what my wife says).

I mean if $100,000 in a household isn't considered middle income... man I must really be behind the curve. To quote one of my co-workers, "if this is what middle class is, what does that make me?"

My answer, the Walking dead.

It's true. We who are not making this salary are simply zombies. The bottom feeders in the economic plans of these presidential candidates. In truth, we're the ones propping the country up. The lemmings who bought into the dream of going to college and settling into careers to take care of our families.

Or we could just be lazy for not doing all we could to reach middle income status.