NPR Celebrates LGBT Valentine Cards 'For a Rainbow of Loves'
NPR has a strange way of celebrating Valentine's Day. It's trying to "help" fans with corporate Valentines from NPR including this beauty: "You might have a face for radio, but I love you just the same."
Sounds like a one-way ticket to sleeping on the couch. It's less surprising that NPR would use Valentine's Day as another day to celebrate identity politics and social liberalism with a Monday Morning Edition story on "Greeting cards that celebrate a rainbow of loves." NPR producer Selena Simmons-Duffin celebrated Valentine's Day cards for the "lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender community," and a card company called "A Little to the Left."
Sandi Timberlake wanted greeting cards for her gay son:
It's a small operation; Timberlake does everything from directing the photo shoots to making sales calls. For now, she sells her cards online and in 26 stores around the country. But she gets excited when she thinks about all of the LGBT people and the friends and family in their lives who might want these cards: "My potential market could be anywhere from 60 to 90 million people, or more!"
For the mass market, NPR obviously used this occasion to shove Hallmark toward "mainstreaming" the LGBT line of valentines:
Greeting card giant Hallmark has lines of cards for other demographics, such as the Mahogany line for African-Americans and Sinceramente for Spanish speakers. Although Hallmark doesn't offer an LGBT line now, senior writer Andre du Broc says he thinks it will happen.
"We've taken baby steps so far," he says. He points to a few "coming out" designs and four same-sex union cards that were released when California legalized marriage for same-sex couples in 2008.
"They're performing on par with our regular wedding cards," he says. "So we're validated there that people do want these."
Du Broc, who has served as chairman of Hallmark's LGBT employee resource group, says the creative will from writers to make an LGBT line exists. He says what's holding the company back is figuring out how to get the cards in front of the right people. He thinks Hallmark is being prudent in holding off until it can figure out how to do it right...
"Oftentimes, the people that want to support [LGBT people] don't have the words to say the right thing, or are worried that they won't say the right thing," he says. "Well, we could certainly help them with that."
But du Broc gets stuck on LGBT Valentine's Day cards. "It's a little awkward," he says. "How do you say, 'I love you, my partner who is a boy and I am a boy also.' " It's about love, he says, and there's no difference between love between gay people and love between straight people.
Since this is NPR, there is no room anywhere for a critical conservative voice. For more of the Simmons-Duffin "rainbow" coverage of late, also devoid of conservative "haters," see here and here.
UPDATE: NPR wasn't the only liberal outlet to highlight LGBT greeting card makers: The Washington Post's free commuter tabloid Express promoted the Pride Greetings line on Monday.
[Hat tip: Still Got Skills]
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Yeah, it's fine if gays have
Submitted by balboa on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 6:24pm.
Yeah, it's fine if gays have their own Valentine's Day cards, but by gum I don't want the media talking about it...
Public Radio de-funding
Submitted by ThisnThat on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 6:30pm.
Public Radio de-funding legislationsimply can't get here quick enough for me!
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
Gays in this country---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 6:35pm.
are pretty much free to do whatever they want as long as they obey the required laws. What I don't understand about those who are so highly insulted because not everyone agrees with the Gay lifestyle, is why they always pointedly ignore, while having a snit fit or dropping what they see as critical bon mots, the fact that Gays are fortunate to reside in the U.S., as compared, say, to a Middle East country under Islam.There's an inspiring rallying
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 10:58pm.
There's an inspiring rallying cry for American exceptionalism: "At least we're not Iran."
Don't quit your day job, grislybear---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 1:28am.
you won't make it as a comedian. Or as a comedienne. Try a little honesty instead of snark and own up to what happens to Gays in the Middle East compared to here in the U.S. You just keep searching for Utopia, as that just might result in you having less time to post your liberal pap here at NB's.Curious, when say a democrat
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 11:43am.
Curious, when say a democrat wins the presidency or a senate seat, or a Democrat's policy becomes law, do you stop yourself from getting upset by saying, "Hey, at least I'm not living in the Middle East."
Doubt it.
Keep on doubting, there, balboa,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 11:49pm.
it seems to be what you do best. Probably comes from being liberal and backing the likes of Obama. Small wonder you have no faith.I'll remember to remind you
Submitted by balboa on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 5:28pm.
I'll remember to remind you of this the next time you complain about something.
Save your fingertips, bal---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 1:27am.
as I probably won't take anything you have to say, seriously.I wasn't trying to make you
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 6:15pm.
I wasn't trying to make you laugh out loud or tip your waitress well. I was using sarcasm to illustrate what I think is the hypocrisy of the "well it could be worse..." arguments from conservatives. You want honest? Here:
I think I live in the greatest country on earth. I thought you shared that view. I don't understand how you think that greatness is consistent with an attitude that only holds us to the lowest possible standards found elsewhere in the world. Do you think that kind of attitude helped us become the greatest nation on earth? Do you think we will stay the greatest nation on earth if that is all we ask of ourselves?
If anything is fine as long as someone else is doing a worse job, I'm pretty sure that ends eventaully with America being the second worst nation on earth. That would make me sad.
It was a great country, grislybear---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 11:48pm.
until you dipsh*t liberals started in screwing it up. Counsel me again on how your outlook regarding Gays in the military fits in with the "attitude" that helped us become the greatest nation on earth. Tell me once more, how billions of dollars taken from those who work, that are then given to fourth generation welfare queens and weenies who have never worked a damn day in their life, supports in some way our maintaining a "great" nation. And you are a teacher? No wonder this country is screwed.Oh, so you don't think
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 7:52am.
Oh, so you don't think America is the greatest country on earth? My bad. If you just think we're twisted and sinking, then by all means, stop trying to be the best.
As for gays in the military: disversity has made this country stronger, and it will keep making this country stronger. Every time we enfranchise a new group, though, we have to have some hissy fits, say some nasty things, and then get over ourselves. Then good people push through and we add another pillar to our society. Our military benefits from the people there because of those past struggles, and I think that in 20 years gay service members will be seen the same way as any other.
And I think helping the destitue doesn't make us a great nation-- it is just something that great nations do.
Compared, grisybear----
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 2:12am.
to what it was, no, it is not now a great country. Everything you praise and sing hosannas about are typical liberal bullsh*t. Prime example: lazy-assed, never worked in their life welfare drones - is that who you refer to as destitute, as though they were inflicted with poverty as a disease that they cannot fight against? Charity is one thing; four generations of welfare is ignorance personified. Personified by idiot liberals who push it as a means of keeping minorities in political chains.I agree with you. Welfare
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 10:23am.
I agree with you. Welfare should be a safety net for acute needs, not a lifestyle.
But I feel the need to point out that if someone is a mlutigenerational welfare recipient then they were, in fact, inflicted with poverty through no fault of their own because they were born into it. That carries serious disadvantages when it comes to making it in the world. We need to break the cycle and figure out how to help those people be successful, but pretending that people born into poverty were asking for it is stupid. Multigenerational welfare is a sign of trouble with the system, not trouble with the people in it.
Multiifailure teachers are a sign of trouble like failurebear.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 2:05pm.
Multisystem trouble is a sign of the system of welfare, not the sign of systems in it.
Multisign systems are a trouble with welfare, not the trouble with signs in it.
Multipeople welfare is a trouble of signs, not people with troubles in it.
Piffle posting pinheads are a pisant protaganists, like a piffling poster called failurebear.
Idiot.
Uh-oh. Multisystem trouble. I called a troll an idiot.
I did suspect you might be
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 11:16pm.
I did suspect you might be having some multisystem trouble. I hope you feel better soon!
another suggestion for the teacher*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 3:15pm.
You appear to be partially correct in your thinking that the "system" is responsible for the continuation of welfare "lifestyle". But your thinking is much like other liberal elitists that think the "solutions" are to fix "trouble with the system". It goes beyond the system because we are dealing with real people, not just government programs. There are those who have managed to break the generational lifecycle and see the solutions for addressing the problem from the thinking of those involved in that lifecycle. You never see these people in the mainstream media because they go against the idea of victimhood, entitlements, and "special" groups. Al Sharpton speaks to every media with his race baiting victimhood shouting and does nothing for the people who live in the lifecycle, he only perpetuates the broken system in order to continue the flow of money to those who live off the system.
You stated that you are a very busy woman. I have a few names of individuals that may help you understand the dramatic changes in a person's life solving problems for themselves rather than relying on that "broken system". I will not try to get you to change your thinking but suggest you broaden your views on this subject from multiple sources. When you have the time, please look up the words and teachings of the following people: Charles Payne, Starr Parker, Walter E. Williams, Larry Elder, Dr Alveda King, Thomas Sowell, Rev. Harris Jackson Jr, Doneen Borelli, and Dr Janice Shaw Crouse. They have ideas and experiences in how to break the cycle outside of the system but you wont see them in the media because their solutions require individual responsibility and actions, all of which goes against the liberal mantra that government and entitlements will solve the problems of the poor.
Understand that all of these people I have listed are conservatives. The very values, beliefs and convictions obtained along the struggle out of generational poverty are the same basic values and beliefs of conservatives today. It isnt just about ideology, those beliefs are the result of a successful journey out of that lifecycle. Take your time. Enlightenment can be time consuming.
Ouch. Could you give me the
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 11:15pm.
Ouch. Could you give me the top two authors?!
I would love to find ways to help people get off of welfare, but I keep seeing ideas that just punish them for doing so! We're about to make that mistake here in Maine, where our newly elected republican governor wants to reform welfare and save money.
Great, so what is he doing? Well, one idea is to immediately disenroll people from the state medicaid program as soon as they find employment, and then effectively end the program by closing it to new enrollment. That will certanly save us money, and those people won't be on the dole any more. But what that does is make employment a riskier option than unemployment! If someone stays on welfare, they will always have health coverage. If they get a job, they get health insurance through that job, but if they lose the job they lose the insurance and can't get back on the state program. How are you going to convince someone with kids to care for to take that risk?
We can ask people to do more, to work hard to take care of themselves, but we have to design these systems so that they aren't punished for doing what we want them to do.
You have to start somewhere mamabear*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 1:30am.
Yes welfare mentality is multi generational and will be very difficult to correct. Remember the link regarding bias in academia? Dr Thomas Sowell addresses that issue very well. Immediate solutions are not a cure, that is your argument, not mine. There are ways to change the entitlement mentality and Starr Parker and Larry Elder have written extensivley on this subject. Also try reading Dr Janice Crouse in her indepth studies of the generaltional welfare mentality and its damage to our children. We owe them the opportunity to "be all they could be"however, you tell a child everyday of their life, that they will never be able to care for themselves and they will live up to that expectation. This is covered by Dr Alveda King.
Bias in academia, bias by the media, and this insistent victimhood and entitlement mentality has taken decades to create the current situation for the poor. It will not be corrected easily nor quickly. This president has misued this issue by renaming it "redistribution of wealth". It is never about redistributon of independance, invidual responsibility and opportunity.
For easier search of these ideas and perspectives on changing the entitlement mentality can be found at The Fredrick Douglass Foundation and The New American as well as the writers I mentioned earlier. Note, I am not debating this issue with you to get you to change your mind. I am asking you to educate and enlighten and make your own conclusions. But you have an obligation to expand your resources of information because of your important role of teacher affecing many children. BTW: there is no deadline, education is on going.
How to get off Welfare.
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 1:35am.
Tis quite simple.
A note in the mail. "You have six months to get all of your shit in one bag. Get off the drugs, get a job, start earning your keep."
As for the rest of your little whine...guess what? People lose their jobs (and their insurance) all of the time. So what? They get new jobs, and new insurance.
I'll tell you how we shall make them "take that risk".
THERE IS NO OTHER CHOICE.
"We" should never have been "designing" systems to begin with, mamabear.
And there you have it.
LIFE IN THE REAL WORLD!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I don't want to go back to
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 9:20am.
I don't want to go back to the way we treated poor people 150 years ago, thanks. I think there should be a way to save lives by reducing starvation and homelessness while still preventing people from depending on that aid. I don't know how we do it, but giving up on the whole idea seems really... lazy.
mamabear,
Submitted by Agnostic on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 9:46am.
There is a good way but it has to be very local. In another thread, correct me if I'm wrong, I had stated something the effect that individuals giving to individuals was the best way to take care of the poor. Your response was that only took care of one individual. But there are many more people doing well then there are people starving. Collectively the US is the most generous nation on Earth and we still pay taxes for additional programs that are infinitely less reliable. What we need is not a well designed government program but a media that truly informs people of where their generosity should go. It needs to do this without excessive hype or political indoctrination or people will never believe what they have to say. The media has advocated their role of informing the public to be a socialistic mouthpiece in most cases or entertainers in all cases.
What seems lazy is people wanting to buy off theri social guilt through taxation and hoping the government comes up with a better way to make it look like the US government cares and by extention that the individual cares. Caring, giving and having faith that your fellow Americans are out there working along side one another in order to improve the fate of their fellow man. Their is still more good than bad in this nation.
That being said there will always be some that fall through the cracks no matter how many programs or how well they are designed because some don't want help and because some are incapable of being helped either because of their own beliefs or due to unfortunate impairments. While I truly feel for these people they are a very small percentage and while doing what we can for these people is nobel and to a degree necessary it is not worth diverting all that we can do for those who can be helped to throw more and more resources on those that can't or won't.
Charity is great, and it
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 11:05pm.
Charity is great, and it plays an important role, but not everyone contributes. The idea of doing it through government is that everyone contributes to those programs proportionately to how they are doing for themselves, and if you want to give more through charity, that is completely up to you.
In theory, that would kind of be my ideal system, in terms of how it apportions the burden of caring for people who can't care for themselves. But the system doesn't work in lots of other ways, so I am certainly open to ideas on how to fix it.
That being said there will always be some that fall through the cracks no matter how many programs or how well they are designed because some don't want help and because some are incapable of being helped either because of their own beliefs or due to unfortunate impairments.
Not everyone who falls through the cracks does so because they are unhelpable. I understand that you and many conservatives see government programs as a way for liberals to take the easy way out and buy off their social guilt. That may be true for some, but I don't think it is generally the case. Similarly, though, I see this tendency for conservatives to assume that anyone not making it must be lazy or stupid or incapable of making it through some fault of their own as a different easy way out-- not buying off your social guilt but rationalizing it away.
→ Charity
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 11:15pm.
It is through charity that society keeps in check those causes they hold dear. Government confiscation legitimizes a number of causes society would support only on a much more limited basis.
For example, there are people who would gladly give money to abort black babies, just not enough to suit the interests of liberals. The liberals, then, petition lawmakers through any number altruistic arguments and finally they have what they really want. 50% of all black babies conceived in America are aborted.
You have what you wanted, but society didn't necessarily want to participate in your genocide.
I guess congratulations are in order, but not from me.
You're right, Cool...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 11:44pm.
Congratulations are in order. That was your 500th post on your favorite topic: Liberal Genocide "The Decades-Long Deliberate Effort of the Left to Exterminate the Black Race"
I've watched with interest over the years as your argument has morphed from misguided hypothesis to troubling obsession to outrageous pathology. How about a forum where you can pour your heart into creating a handy comprehensive guide for our convenience?
Jer
economic charity
Submitted by Agnostic on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 9:36am.
“Charity is great, and it plays an important role, but not everyone contributes.”
If I chose to give to charity and if that capital/time was wasted or given to a cause to which I don't believe it was my capital/time to give of my own free will and at my own risk. This is called freedom and because liberals try to impose on this they get referred to by all types of Marxist names.
Taxes are taken from me and are used to support causes in which I do not believe and buy votes. Add to that the waste and fraud which takes place and it is ridiculous to even contemplate large social programs. I'll admit to being a little tainted on government supplemented not-for-profits as well as social programs because I was involved with one that the CEO worked 2-half days a week and drew a $700k/yr paycheck. When this was made widely known a lot of people were upset for a while but it was discovered that this was the norm and not the exception and within a couple of months it was business as usual. Don't get me wrong, I understand that most people’s hearts are in the right place but that doesn't mean that they are making the right decisions. President Bush, the greatest benefactor to the needs of Africa, found out toward the end how much his charity on the back of tax payers did to hurt many Africans and changed the goals of his African programs because billions of dollars later he was doing almost as much harm as he was good.
The truth of the matter is that for every tear jerking story you see in the media and for every unfortunate person you see on the street there are twenty people scamming the system in one way or another. This is life experience as a person who grew up poor and as someone working with non-profit and charitable organizations in two states over a period of eight years. Believe it or not it wasn’t the people that were bilking my tax money or politicians stealing out of my pocket to buy votes from people they never intend to think of again that made me realize the futility of government controlled charity it was the workers themselves. Many truly care even though the stereotype of the whining government worker who just shuffles paperwork and people is very real I do believe that a majority are truly concerned about the people to which they offer services. However, it doesn’t take too long before you realize that these people’s jobs and the departmental budgets require them to make sure that there are ‘X’ number of needy people. This is where everything truly gets thrown askew. If to keep their jobs and maintain their budget they need to find needy people; guess what, they are going to find them. I could tell you stories of people with six figure incomes on disability, families with personal drivers and second homes on food stamps and disability, black market areas that sell to the currency of food stamps and arrange under the table jobs for their customers, etc..., but they are just following an inefficient system set up by others and they are not necessarily lazy and unlike what you wrote I don’t think it is a liberal trait but a human trait to accomplish the most with the least effort (one reason capitalism works). Even the people who are hired to control the waste and fraud no better than to crack down too hard because they won’t work themselves out of a job either.
Government forced charity is a self feeding, soul sucking, money pit that helps some, hurts most and severely limits the both the social and economical potential of a society.
“Not everyone who falls through the cracks does so because they are unhelpable.”
My statement above is a response to the system you seem to believe we can have and I’m just stating that no matter what you do, no matter how much money you steal from the working class and the rich there will still be people who will fall through the cracks. The worst part is that the more people you try to help the more difficult and expensive it will be to help the ones who truly need the help. It is the same as doing something good for your body. If you are lifting weights you can do several and feel good, then they will start to hurt and then you get to the point where your body just gives out and if you keep pushing you will do serious damage to your muscles. The same is true of economic factors. You keep spending and spending to reach a goal and the economic system will give out (we are teetering on the edge of this position right now IMHO) and if you keep spending you will do severe damage to the economy which may or may not be repairable.
The truth is that you cannot help anyone if the economy is broken. The social programs have pushed too far too fast and the economy is giving out. The best way to help others is to make sure your house is strong and you have the resources to reach out to those who need your help. The United States house is in disarray. We have spent so much over the past sixty years that we are no longer in a position where we can help others without causing severe damage to ourselves.
Wanting to give help isn’t always about guilt and needing help is rarely about laziness or inability; though wanting help is another story. There may be some rationalization in my thoughts but most are built on economic study and experience. People are basically good but they are not going to refuse free money. That is why the word ‘FREE’ is used so often in advertising because it gets people’s attention and that is just human nature. Culture after culture has produced people who care for their own in one way or another but only in modern socialistic and mixed economy countries, which America is just to a lesser degree of socialism than other nations, have we destroyed a nation in the name of taking care of the people. People, who for the most part, didn’t need taken care of but needed the freedom to take care of themselves and that was denied either through physical force or forced taxation.
Just to offer a
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 10:19am.
Just to offer a counterpoint-- I have a close friend who works in a for profit company that offers services to non-profits. Their clients are the best and the brightest of the charities in this country. Plenty of religious charities, all the big disease and disorder charities, etc. What he gets out of his job is helping the ones he feels good about, but of course as a profit business they serve everyone on all sides of the political spectrum, so he also has to go and be gung ho about groups he disagrees with vehemently. It can be tough sometimes.
But when I suggested that maybe the solution was to get a job at one of those charities he supported, he laughed at me. As a businessman, he finds charities completely dysfunctional from a management point of view. They are wasteful, overly political, melodramatic, poorly run, and would drive him crazy if he tried to work there.
So it isn't just government supported charities that can be a bad deal. Maybe I have an overly jaded view of the world of charity based on his experiences, but similarly I think many people have an overly jaded view of government based on the favored stereotype you mentioned. There is no guarantee unless you get out and do the work yourself that money you donate is being put where you want it to be put.
agree mamabear,
Submitted by Agnostic on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 10:58am.
There are several types of private charities and the worst ones that I've been associated with are the ones that are - you guessed it - subsidized by the government. Not the same as being completely government controlled but close. Many, usually the smaller charities, are run by small groups or churches and are not very efficient due to the lack of funds and business sense and can be quite a mess. The most efficient are the private run charities that hire business managers unfortunately these are often the ones who get away from the central need of their organization and end up with boards and execs making six figure salaries.
"There is no guarantee unless you get out and do the work yourself that money you donate is being put where you want it to be put."
This could be done by individuals if we in the United States had a media and a political structure that related the needs of society instead of the political messages and pandering we have now. When a poor family in Anywhere, USA has sextuplets they are set up for years with donations from around the country. Imagine what a working media could do with that power especially if people had more discretionary income because less was going out in taxes.
It is still not right to take people’s possessions, there money, because the politicians don’t think they have given enough. US politicians are drunk on $$$ and power right now and if they are not brought back to reality there won’t be a dime left for charity whether we support the cause or not.
treating the poor
Submitted by Agnostic on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 9:55am.
How do you suppose we treated the poor 150 years ago? Do you believe that because there were no government programs nothing was done?
What I proposed isn't "giving up"
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 10:39am.
It does, however, limit the amount of time for formalized assistance.
It's human nature to take the path of least resistance. This pretty much guarantees dependency.
Listen, mamabear, I know you are all about socialistic solutions. I, on the other hand, am about the purest form of capitalism there is. I believe that the government is responsible for a few basic things, including national security and taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves. That is the key. Those who cannot take care of themselves. This country has created a system that keeps people dependent ad infinitum. We provide free education for all children. All children. Why would a child who is not mentally deficient require government assistance once reaching adulthood? Because the government has created a situation where an adult can be dependent on the government, that's why. You defend that.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I'm not defending that. I
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 11:21pm.
I'm not defending that. I think welfare is messed up. I just don't want to solve it by letting go of the people who really do need help. And if you want to encourage people to get off of assistanc,e then don't punish them for it! It's crazy to keep coming up with solutions that make it harder to work than to not work!
That's basically what I said above, so it kind of sounds like you are defending that.
→ Sure you are
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 11:32pm.
Two families. One family making $50K, the other less than $24k.
Which family can afford braces for their 2 kids' teeth?
Answer? Neither.
But guess which family gets braces for their kids' teeth?
Your Welfare dollars at work.
Right. The difference is
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 10:22am.
Right. The difference is that I think if kids needs braces, all four of them should be able to have them. You think none of them should. Neither of us disagrees that the above situation is less than ideal.
We also need more dentists in this country, incidentally. Where I live, those kids might not be able to get braces even if they could afford them!
Of course, if the children had been aborted---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 8:00pm.
then the need for braces would never have come up, would it?
MD
Abortion!
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 8:37pm.
Abortion!
You got it Blonde!
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 9:50am.
This is still the country where people have the best chance of success through hard work. Look at any nail salon, you know who works there? Immigrants from Viet Nam who can barely speak English. But they learned a skill and are working. Many of them I talk to have their children in parochial schools by the way, making the necessary sacrifices for the future.
All you have to do is look at immigrants from Eastern Europe and Asia, and you'll find the majority of them working and paying their own bills.
As a matter of fact, many of them are sponsored by churches who do exactly what you suggest Blonde. They help them come, set them up with a place to live, clothing, etc, for about six months, and cut them loose.
Who exactly, grislybear---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 1:45am.
is pretending that people born into poverty were asking for it? If a way to end poverty OR welfare dependency hasn't been figured out in four generations, it ain't GOING to be figured out, by either politicians, do good liberals, or those afflicted with the need for unending welfare handouts. Break the cycle, eh? Did you miss my point about minorities being kept in the binding chains of welfare for political reasons? Talk is cheap. Welfare funding isn't, and way too much of my money is used for it just so that liberals can feel good about themselves and politicians can prosper. Both Blonde and cajun can see that platitudes ain't gonna get it done, and yet that is all that Lib-Dims, aside from throwing my money into the welfare cornucopia, seem to be able to offer.Politicians always play to
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 9:26am.
Politicians always play to their base. My hope is that the current state economic crises will be a tool to force people to really reform those systems and make them work. That's what I hope for. What I'm afraid of is that while people who traditionally pander to the poor are silenced by outraged middle-classers who don't want to pay any more, the hole will be filled not by reasonable attempts at solution, but by Blonde's side of the argument-- dismantle the whole thing, let them all drown.
Let's go back just a few years*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 2:05pm.
No need to compare welfare today to 150 yrs ago. Society has greatly changed from agrarian to urban and self reliance has been replaced with govt. dependency. And there are more white poor than black in this country, although blacks do have a higher percentage of poverty.
Food stamps did not exist until 1977, the program we know today. Since the depression there was a food program called "commodities" to provide the staples to poor families. The program was intended to help about 800,000 families. It has morphed into a huge entitlement and now over 10 million people receive food stamps when that program was first intitiated. . Since 2008, there has been a 25% increase in the number of recepients. The last statistics I saw for current enrollment is somewhere around 38 million.
Many poor families lived in poverty prior to food stamps. These people planted gardens or raised farm animals to provide for themselves. At one time, the welfare dept, to determine eligibility actually had a requirement to "count" the number of chickens in a welfare families property. As the benefit levels rose, so did the number of recepients. Lower eligibility standards and enrollment increases again. The incentives are going the wrong way.
Here in La, recent comparative studies have shown that a working family at poverty level earns an average of $18,000 and is not eligible for food stamps. A welfare recepient in public housing and receiving food stamps and medicaid, has a translated income to about $20,800. The increase in welfare recepients now understood. One can have a better quality of life without working than someone working their ass off in the steambath of a La summer.
Shelia Jackson Lee recently mangled the definition of "incentives" but it was a deliberate ploy to continue the poor's dependency on government. The reason is about power. The more people "need" government the more and bigger government is required. The bigger the government, the more taxes from wage earners are needed to support the government, resulting in fewer middle class and rich. It is called "redistribution of wealth" without incentives, without contribution. And if my memory recalls correctly, that is called socialism.
Unless you are disabled, food
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 11:36pm.
Unless you are disabled, food stamps are tied to employment-- you have to seek employment or enter a job training program to get them, at least according to the SSI's factsheet. That sounds like the kind of thing we need more of instead of straight welfare income-- something that you have to work to get, but which makes it easier to transition from welfare to work.
Most of the poor today are urban, and they can't raise their own food. There's no room. These days they can't even BUY fresh food in many places. I love the fact that this recession has lead to a revival of urban gardening, but we don't really think that is going to solve any of our problems, do we?
I'd be interested to see if the backwards numbers you have there have held true through the duration of these programs, or if they are a result of welfare keeping better pace with inflation than working class incomes. I could see, for instance, how a government program divorced from the free market would be careful to make sure that benefits were raised with the cost of living, right? But of course, wages for the middle and working class have been stagnant through those cost of living increases.
That may be a problem with benefits being too high, or it may be a problem with wages being too low. Is that family living on $18,000 making it just fine? Then the value of the benefits needs to be lowered. If, however, that family is not really getting by, then we need to figure out how to get wages in your area up.
Disability also redefined*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 10:27am.
The basis of Social Security and Medicare could be argued as to whether it was a good idea or not. We are either way stuck with it but here is my dissent. The far left, wanting to "help" all those disadvantaged redefined all the parameters intended in the Social Security Program. They took money from that program and invented SSI and medicaid for people who are disabled and unable to care for themselves. This was intended for people mentally retarded and physically handicapped totally dependent. The program has again been expanded. Now people who have learning disablities, damaged physically and mentally from long term drug and alcohol abuse are now eligible for almost $700 a month with medicaid which makes them eligible for public housing and food stamps. These additional benefits and programs come out of Social Security for people who have never contributed into the system. This is when the medicaid/medicare and Social Security program began to be a drain on the federal budget. When Clinton was president, he raided the fund to balance a deficit budget. The SS program continues to slide into the abyss. Then they added dependant and disabled children as elibible for SSI benefits. Disabled meaning, learning disablities, autism, and many other problems. And that child's parent, who is the legal caretaker, can draw a salary from medicaid for providing daily care for their own disabled child.
docsamherman, DaMama, and stratman are better able to give you a history of how the changes have also affected their treatment plans in their various professions. Democrats have for the last 40 yrs expanded the SS program but put no changes in place to pay for the expansion for recepients. The DSM is used for medical/psychiatric diagnosis, treatment, and coding for reimbursement. The DSM chair has admitted that they are very liberal. They have revised the DSM several times as to what is or is not a disablity, greatly affecting and expanding costs to the medicare/medicaid program. Again the Democrats, who have been in power for over 40 of the last 56 yrs, have never attempted to make the difficult decisions needed to find funding to match the expenditures of their "generosity". Fiscal irresponsibility along with "compassion" even with good and positive changes to the system, is an omission that thas greatly changed the intent and sustainablity of social security/medicare/medicaid programs.
Those changes have been slowly implemented over a long period of time. I am not debating the good nor bad of these views of government taking care of its poor and needy. I am just giving a brief summary of cause and effect because of my professional experience. Some of these changes to SS were done with intent for compassionate inclusion of the needy and poor, but with wreckless disregard for "bureaucracy", trust me how stupid, and now after decades, major inaccuracies,inefficientcy, and great fraud involved.
Solutions will hurt everyone, espcially at a time in our economy, where alternatives are very few. The policies of this president, in conjunction with other regulatory changes, has made independence obsolete and big nanny the way to Win The Future. Highest joblessness in decades, restrictions on free enterprise and growth, restrictions on producers and farmers, producers of energy sources, all will continue to cripple growth, requiring continued dependency on government.
Around and around we go. It is an ever ending spiral, like our basic principals going down the drain. Eventually we will all pay the price, and many people will suffer, not just the poor. They are already considering this possiblity ,when you read ObamaCare, and see the plans for "rationing" and "assessing potential productivity" of its citizens.
Defund them before midnight
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 6:38pm.
Defund them before midnight tonight.
Of course the left would love
Submitted by tcm14 on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 6:52pm.
Of course the left would love it if EVERYONE were LGBT, because it would mean the end of the human race, which coincides with the left's other goal of population control.