Have a Coke and a smile

[cheri1122]

I didn't say 'calming' [art can have the opposite effect, lol] I said 'civilizing'. Enriching, like reading literature instead of comic books. Looking at paintings, instead of porn. [When they are materially different, which isn't always the case.] Listening to classical, instead of rap. [That one actually does have a calming effect, as demonstrated by a project undertaken by a pair of junior hihg school girls, who measured people's BP during rush hour, while listening to music. Classical kept the BP down - good to know.]
Of course many things have to be curtailed and eliminated, but people are getting fed up with the way it always hurts those who can least afford it, while those who are more fortunate just keep getting 'luckier'.
Instead of eliminating the 'charitable' tax donation in which something of value is received [golf tournament, private event, etc] which wouldn't harm those who indulge, [if they wouldn't do it otherwise, there's the proof that it isn't charitable, no?] officials close public pools and libraries, which does hurt those who use them.

 

[davekc]

I repeat: it was the conservatives [particularly the Tea Party] that pushed PP into the limelight of politics. I was a client for many years before that happened, so I know that their core mission hasn't changed, but they've been forced to respond to the many 'defunding' efforts and attacks provoked by politics.
We don't 'incentivize' people to have babies [another debunked myth!] but neither do we penalize children. I agree with you on illegals, because we haven't the resources to take care of our own - adding more is unfair to those of us who didn't break the law .Unfortunately, our views on immigration have been overlooked, because those who hire want cheap labor.
What you call 'free stuff' is a joke, and you should know that. The idea that it's available [if not plentiful] is belied by reality: neither the Fed nor the states give anything to poor people willingly, or easily, or in amounts adequate to live on. It's just enough to keep from starvation, and the Welfare Reform enacted decades ago ensures it doesn't go to anyone who isn't trying to get work or an education. Y'all act like poor people just hold out their hands, and the money drops in, but reality is VERY different.
I'm not understanding how Fluke's testimony equates to wanting 'public exposure"? People testify in front of Congress all the time, without any notice taken at all. [Especially by Congress]. If she wanted anything exposed, it was the issue of access to and costs for contraception, which is what Congress requested testimony about, not herself and/or her personal life. Rush Limbaugh crudely made it all about her private affairs, strictly for the titillation of himself & his audience. Would he like his own sex life [imaginary, I presume] speculated upon by the opposite sex on the public airwaves? If he had any actual knowledge of the subject, he'd know that contraceptives are often prescribed for reasons unrelated to contraception, because the hormones they contain can be effective in other ways, as well. Only prurient leches believe it's all about sex & the single woman - intelligent people know that married women rely on birth control too. Even Catholic married women, lol.

Limbaugh shouldn't have called her a , but he did put her in the spotlight and made a public apology. Which of course is what she wanted then and she wants now. If not, you wouldn't have this. No one goes into politics without wanting the limelight.
Sandra Fluke forgoes congressional bid to run for state Senate - Los Angeles Times

As for welfare, as I have posted before, people in the US have no idea what poor is. That reality can be found though outside in other countries. We give "free stuff" all the time now. And, it is relatively easy to get. Check in once a year now. Remember surfer boy out in LA. Still collecting, smoking, drinking, driving a Escalade, and laughs about the whole thing. He was profiled once, and he is still at it six months later.
Unemployed Jason Greenslate drives Escalade and uses food stamps for lobster | Mail Online

Not everyone is like him. But.....most have subsidized housing, food stamps/snap, subsidized transportation, subsidized utilities, free internet, free phones, free healthcare, and the list goes on.
That is how they afford big screens, xboxes, cars, expensive clothes, shoes, cigarettes, you name it. Wait until the date/day the checks come out, and see where they are spending their money. You might be shocked. If you are going to fix the problem, I say help them out generously for a period of time and then end it. Many of the problems will take care of themselves when there is a time limit.

 

[layoutshooter]

"Wait until the date/day the checks come out, and see where they are spending their money. You might be shocked."

Not me. See it all the time in Monroe. They, along with the heroin users/dealers, are why they need armed guards at the Kroger on Monroe street, even during daylight hours. In many cases the welfare rangers ARE the heroin dealers/users. It sure gets old.

 

[cheri1122]

Almost forgot: I asked the one person I know who doesn't want children: my younger daughter, about the reactions she gets when people hear her say that. She said almost everyone assures her that she will change her mind [she's 23], as if she doesn't know her own mind, or is making the wrong choice. Practically no one says it's good that she can make that choice - except her mother, lol. [I already have grandkids, though - wonder if I'd feel different if I didn't?]
"Idolizing childless marriage"? I don't see that. I see people having babies for a whole lot of wrong reasons, or raising them to be sociopaths. Childless marriage would be better, IMO, for a lot of people.

 

[davekc]

I think with a dismal economy, single women aren't the "outcasts" anymore if they elect not to have kids. I do agree with ya, many shouldn't have them.

 

[LDB]

Whether calming or civilizing or any other word one cares to choose the remainder of the answer is the same. We're exponentially beyond broke.

Since it can take up to 25 years or so for people's brains to finish cooking there's a chance your daughter may change her mind when her mind is fully cooked. Then again, perhaps she's already cooked and won't change her mind. And on another hand she may change her mind when she matures, presuming like most she matures over the next 15 years or so. What's guaranteed no matter which hand one chooses is we're too broke to pay for art and other things now and will be then as well regardless of who benefits and who loses benefits.

 

[cheri1122]

Limbaugh shouldn't have called her a , but he did put her in the spotlight and made a public apology. Which of course is what she wanted then and she wants now. If not, you wouldn't have this. No one goes into politics without wanting the limelight.
Sandra Fluke forgoes congressional bid to run for state Senate - Los Angeles Times

Maybe it was the experience with her testimony that convinced her to get into politics - it wouldn't surprise me. Either way, public attention focused on her personal affairs was not what she expected in return for telling Congress her viewpoint. Rush Limbaugh behaved like the bullying pervy boor he is, period.

As for welfare, as I have posted before, people in the US have no idea what poor is. That reality can be found though outside in other countries. We give "free stuff" all the time now. And, it is relatively easy to get. Check in once a year now. Remember surfer boy out in LA. Still collecting, smoking, drinking, driving a Escalade, and laughs about the whole thing. He was profiled once, and he is still at it.
Unemployed Jason Greenslate drives Escalade and uses food stamps for lobster | Mail Online

"People in the US have no idea what poor is"? You mean, they shouldn't complain if they have running water? And if they can score stale bread, they aren't starving? They're not poor compared to Ethiopia, but dude - we don't live in Ethiopia, so not a reasonable comparison.


Not everyone is like him. But.....most have subsidized housing, food stamps/snap, subsidized transportation, subsidized utilities, free internet, free phones, free healthcare, and the list goes on.
That is how they afford big screens, xboxes, cars, expensive clothes, shoes, cigarettes, you name it. Wait until the date/day the checks come out, and see where they are spending their money. You might be shocked. If you are going to fix the problem, I say help them out generously for a period of time and then end it. Many of the problems will take care of themselves when there is a time limit.

Haha - one ******* does not a convincing case make. [Especially from the Daily Mail!] Sure, he eats lobster, but it doesn't mention the other 29 or 30 days a month. $200 for one person isn't buying food all month, even if one is extremely careful about it.
What about the military personnel on food stamps? Think they don't deserve them? There's a lot of them, you know. And a lot of kids too - should we just let them go hungry, because of morons like the surfer boy?
Your ideas of how much people get and how easy it is are way outdated - there's a waiting list for subsidized housing that's YEARS long, everywhere. [Unless you're a senior citizen: one bedroom apts they can get, but nothing larger.] Subsidized transportation? Great, if the bus goes where you need to go, [and you're not going to shop for food or do laundry], but otherwise, you're out of luck. Free internet? Where?! As for phones and healthcare, it's just the bare bones basic economy model, intended mainly for emergencies.
The stories of big screen tvs, XBox, etc, are not exactly fact - like the Surfer Boy, you can find one here & there, [but nobody looks too close at the truth], but it's not the typical case by a long stretch.
Typical is active military, and single moms, and working people. I think that's something we ought to be ashamed of.

 

[davekc]

I do agree with you on the military. We are again going to cut their pay and housing benefits. Guess where that money is being moved to? But, as we keep going further into debt, both the military and people on food stamps will start getting cut. They already cut food stamps once, and another round will be coming.
As for the Daily Mail, it was a quick link. You can look him up on the lefty side Huffington Post. They interviewed him as well after Fox.

 

[davekc]

Comcast gets subsidized through the government. Roughly free to ten bucks a month depending on the state.
Comcast creates reduced-price Internet package for welfare participants | The Daily Caller!

 

[Pilgrim]

I repeat: it was the conservatives [particularly the Tea Party] that pushed PP into the limelight of politics.

That absurd statement has no basis in fact; the Tea Party recently turned FIVE YEARS OLD. PP has been active in national politics since the 1960s, and we have to look no farther than their own website:

Highlights

THE SANGER YEARS
Early Triumphs
THE 1960s: A NEW ERA FOR WOMEN
Growing Access for All
NIXON: EXPANDING FAMILY PLANNING
Roe v. Wade: A Victory for Women
HYDE: DISENFRANCHISING POOR WOMEN
THE REAGAN AGENDA: OPPOSING CHOICE
Targeting Teens
The Gag Rule: Targeting Family Planning Overseas
The Campaign of Intimidation and Terror
Censoring Clinics, Slowing Research
BUSH PANDERS, WOMEN ORGANIZE
Limiting Women's Options
THE CLINTON YEARS: VICTORIES AND VIOLENCE
Congress: Abstinence and Inequity
THE BUSH II AGENDA: TURNING BACK THE CLOCK
The Court: Supporting Women
Breaking Treaties, Freezing Family Planning Funds
Censoring Information, Restricting Access
Mobilizing Against an Abortion Ban
PLANNED PARENTHOOD ON THE MARCH
CHANGE ON THE HORIZON

History & Successes

What you call 'free stuff' is a joke, and you should know that. The idea that it's available [if not plentiful] is belied by reality: neither the Fed nor the states give anything to poor people willingly, or easily, or in amounts adequate to live on. It's just enough to keep from starvation, and the Welfare Reform enacted decades ago ensures it doesn't go to anyone who isn't trying to get work or an education. Y'all act like poor people just hold out their hands, and the money drops in, but reality is VERY different.

Here's reality:
The Gubmint has been running ads for years to increase enrollment in food stamps - it doesn't get much easier than this;

http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/11/taxpayers-spend-41-3-million-in-a-year-to-advertise-food-stamps-a-6-fold-increase-over-last-decade/

Obama gutted the Clinton-era welfare reform work requirement for food stamps, and the food stamp program and related spending has exploded under his administration;
Day 8: Obama edict repealed 1996 welfare reform's work requirement | WashingtonExaminer.com

RealClearPolicy - Food Stamp Spending and Enrollment Double in Five Years

And in 35 state welfare pays more than low to middle-income jobs

On Labor Day 2013, Welfare Pays More Than Minimum-Wage Work In 35 States - Forbes

Last but not least, the cost of birth control can be as little as $9 per month. The idea that it is a women's entitlement and the cost should be borne by the taxpayers is ridiculous. For married couples it's just another family expense to be factored into the budget. For single women who have trouble affording birth control, she can split the cost for pills, shots, rubbers or whatever with her partner(s).

$37 to $162: The Strange World of Birth Control Pill Prices - Yahoo Finance

 

[cheri1122]

The article says they're offering it in NH - that doesn't do anything for the other 49 states. [And $150 for a computer may as well be 150 million, when you don't have it.]
But the fact is school and jobs often require internet now, and the library is not a good fall back, like it used to be. Load 1 does all safety training online, wonder how many other companies do similiar programs? And my daughter's school [in Fl] does the absence/tardy system online, and homework assignments - it's getting to where internet is needed to find and maintain a job, and to comply with school requirements. Some homework requires it, too - it's hardly a luxury anymore.

 

[davekc]

To be fair, that was a older link but a simple google search will bring up all kinds of stuff for that. Just depends on the state. Same with transportation. Michigan gave out cars and even gave money to fix them. Not just democrats either. Romney had a welfare car program in MA.http://bostonherald.com/news_opinio...romney_defends_his_welfare_wheels_gop_outrage

 

[cheri1122]

That absurd statement has no basis in fact; the Tea Party recently turned FIVE YEARS OLD. PP has been active in national politics since the 1960s, and we have to look no farther than their own website:

What a coincidence: it's been about 5 years [maybe a bit longer] since PP was made into a BIG DEAL, national front page 'issue', and that was courtesy of the Tea Party. Before then the politics [and any agency that works with the government is involved in politics, to some degree] was very low key, 'Save the Whales' level publicity & perception. Nobody wanted to 'defund' them, until 5 years ago.
Funny, how the party that decries regulation has initiated more of it [regarding family planning] in the last 5 years than the previous 2 decades.
And women who can no longer get their mammograms, PAP tests, and other GYN services at a convenient local location [with sliding scale fees] are suffering for it. Thanks, from all of those women.



Here's reality:
The Gubmint has been running ads for years to increase enrollment in food stamps - it doesn't get much easier than this;

http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/11/taxpayers-spend-41-3-million-in-a-year-to-advertise-food-stamps-a-6-fold-increase-over-last-decade/

Obama gutted the Clinton-era welfare reform work requirement for food stamps, and the food stamp program and related spending has exploded under his administration;
Day 8: Obama edict repealed 1996 welfare reform's work requirement | WashingtonExaminer.com

RealClearPolicy - Food Stamp Spending and Enrollment Double in Five Years

And in 35 state welfare pays more than low to middle-income jobs

On Labor Day 2013, Welfare Pays More Than Minimum-Wage Work In 35 States - Forbes

Last but not least, the cost of birth control can be as little as $9 per month. The idea that it is a women's entitlement and the cost should be borne by the taxpayers is ridiculous. For married couples it's just another family expense to be factored into the budget. For single women who have trouble affording birth control, she can split the cost for pills, shots, rubbers or whatever with her partner(s).

$37 to $162: The Strange World of Birth Control Pill Prices - Yahoo Finance

Half those on food stamps are children. Not sure 'gutted' is how I'd phrase it - what I read is that numerous governors requested the change to welfare rules, they wanted more flexibility, because they actually run the programs.
If welfare pays more than minimum wage jobs, I'd say that's a pretty ****ing indictment of what people are earning, and a good argument for raising minimum wage. [For the first time in how many years?] Especially since it has always been a good thing for the economy, as well as the workers.
Maybe you think of family planning as an option, but that kind of thinking is why there are so many unplanned pregnancies. It's a health care cost, just like a 'checkup' for healthy people: a preventative measure that saves more than it costs.
Except it's about sex, and that makes it a bad thing for some people.
Did you know that half of all abortions are done for married women? It's because birth control isn't infallible, and neither are the people who use it. I don't see it as reasonable to penalize women for that, myself.

 

[Turtle]

To be even more fair, Load 1 does their Safety training online, yes, but via the QC in the truck. If you like, you can do the training via your laptop or mobile, or you can sit right there in the office and do the training.

 

[cheri1122]

To be fair, that was a older link but a simple google search will bring up all kinds of stuff for that. Just depends on the state. Same with transportation. Michigan gave out cars and even gave money to fix them. Not just democrats either. Romney had a welfare car program in MA.Mitt Romney defends his welfare wheels from GOP outrage | Boston Herald

They're not doing it to help people get to see the drive in movies, lol.
When states give anything, it's considered an investment, one that will pay off by helping someone become self sufficient. That's a smart way to do it, if it works.

 

[cheri1122]

To be even more fair, Load 1 does their Safety training online, yes, but via the QC in the truck. If you like, you can do the training via your laptop or mobile, or you can sit right there in the office and do the training.

Yes, I can, but does the average worker have the same access through their company? I doubt it. And I know for a fact that schools don't inquire whether internet is available before placing programs online, or assigning homework that requires it.

 

[RLENT]

That absurd statement has no basis in fact; the Tea Party recently turned FIVE YEARS OLD.

It seems you want to parse and construe cheri's statement as though it had said this:

"I repeat: it was the Tea Party that pushed PP into the limelight of politics."

Rather than what it actually said, which was this:

"I repeat: it was the conservatives [particularly the Tea Party] that pushed PP into the limelight of politics."

Further, to deny that conservatives have not (repeatly) pushed Planned Parenthood into the "limelight of politics", either indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the idiom "into the limelight" ... or simply just a denial of reality:

Idioms & Phrases

in the limelight

Also, in the spotlight . At the center of public attention or notoriety. For example, John loves being in the limelight , or The reporters made sure the attractive new actress would be in the spotlight . Both terms come from the theater and allude to focusing light on an important person, the first from a lighting device used from about 1840 on, the second from the early 1900s. Also see in the public eye;steal the show.

In the limelight | Define In the limelight at Dictionary.com

PP has been active in national politics since the 1960s, and we have to look no farther than their own website:

I'd say somewhat irrelevant.

The above, as expressed (without any further qualifying language or explanation), serves as additional evidence that we're looking at a misunderstanding (which certainly does not preclude a denial of reality as well)

 

[Turtle]

If welfare pays more than minimum wage jobs, I'd say that's a pretty ****ing indictment of what people are earning, and a good argument for raising minimum wage. [For the first time in how many years?] Especially since it has always been a good thing for the economy, as well as the workers.

The last time minimum wage was increased was not quite 5 years ago when it went up from went up from $6.55 to $7.25.

The notion that "it has always been a good thing for the economy, as well as the workers," is fantasy. History shows that every time the federal minimum wage has increased, the economy has taken a hit. Every single time. Not only that, but the welfare roles increase every time the minimum wage is increased. Every single time. Although increasing the minimum wage might cause some people to lose their jobs, it's in reality not that many people who do. What happens, though, it tends to keep people who are already out of work from getting a job, the very people who need a job the most. Not only does it put low-skilled, low-educated workers at risk of losing their jobs, but also it prevents the same low-skilled, low-educated workers, who most need a job, from getting one.

What has happened due to the federal minimum wage increases is that the dividing line between those who are in poverty and those who aren’t is whether the person has a job. What has happened is, if you have a job, even a minimum wage job, you are instantly out of poverty. That's new. The poverty rate is four times higher for people who aren’t working than for those who are. That's way new. It used to be just about even.

The Congressional Budget Office showed that raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 would lift 900,000 people out of poverty. Wow! That's awesome! Let's so that! Except that's nothing. A 30 percent increase in wages so that a very small number of people can get out of poverty. With 45 million people in poverty, helping fewer than one million doesn’t give much bang for the buck. It's feel-good politics, which always fails to deliver. On the other hand, the Earned Income Tax Credit can be used to increase wages, as well. The CBO estimates that 26 million households will receive $60 billion in reduced taxes and refunds due to the EITC in 2015. That dwarfs the benefit of a minimum wage increase, in both dollars and numbers of people it helps.

Here's an interesting story you should read on the proposed minimum wage increase in Washington State to $15 an hour, and what it will do to the wages of whose who receive tips. Best quote of the article: "Anybody trying to have a family on minimum wage needs to have their head examined."

Maybe you think of family planning as an option, but that kind of thinking is why there are so many unplanned pregnancies. It's a health care cost, just like a 'checkup' for healthy people: a preventative measure that saves more than it costs.

Did your mommy not sit you down and tel you about the birds and the bees? Family planning isn't what causes so many unplanned pregnancies, I guarantee it.

Except it's about sex, and that makes it a bad thing for some people.
Did you know that half of all abortions are done for married women? It's because birth control isn't infallible, and neither are the people who use it. I don't see it as reasonable to penalize women for that, myself.

It's not about sex, it's about taking personal responsibility for your actions. If you don't want an unplanned pregnancy, there's a way to do that without wanting to have your cake and eat it, too. Several ways, not one of which requires tax dollars.

 

[Turtle]

Yes, I can, but does the average worker have the same access through their company? I doubt it.

If you doubt it, then have to wonder why you would bring up such a non-average situation and then try and apply it to an average situation. The reality is, I can't think of a single minimum wage job where employees are required to have Internet access to do the job, except when the company provides for the access.

And I know for a fact that schools don't inquire whether internet is available before placing programs online, or assigning homework that requires it.

Some do, but the good ones are aware of who has access away from school and who doesn't.

 

[RLENT]

If he had any actual knowledge of the subject, he'd know that contraceptives are often prescribed for reasons unrelated to contraception, because the hormones they contain can be effective in other ways, as well.

I had a girlfriend in junior high/school which had reproductive system issues where that was done ... had exactly zero to do with contraception.