just because of the name is worth seeing! good article will check it out next week.
This will be an awesome show at the best bar in Gastonia.
It read "bacterial yeast", since edited.
Hey Brett - Culture is correct. Colony is a variation that some people say but Len Porzio, who invented the term, says it "Symbiotic Culture of Bacteria and Yeast": http://www.kombuchakamp.com/2011/03/5-questions-with-len-porzio-kombucha-legend.html
SCOBY-Symbiotic colony of bacteria and yeast. I suppose the subjects might want you to get facts straight.
106,185 people “selected a Marketplace plan” using the exchanges, after the administration predicted that 494,620 people would do so. Meanwhile FIVE MILLION people have had their policies CANCELLED.
Where's your reporting on the five million?
42,110 eligible out of nearly 10 million. That's one half of one percent. Don't even try to calculate what 1,660 out of 10 million is. This is an unmitigated disaster, just as predicted.
You are greatly oversimplifying when you blame the "housing bubble". The entire country has been living in a financial house of cards since the Reagan administration. Citizens, rich and poor, buy the biggest house they can get financed, the most expensive car they can get financed, etc. As long as they can make the payments, they think they are fine. People refinance their house, take some of the equity out and buy a new car, oblivious to the fact that they just financed their car for 20 or 30 years. They carry 5 or 6 credit cards and have balances on them all.
Investors do the same thing. People borrow money to buy stocks and bonds. Businesses follow the same logic to finance high rates of growth and to declare big dividends to investors.
Politicians, of both parties, lobby to fund THEIR pet projects while screaming that the other team's pet projects are bankrupting the country. In the final years of the Clinton administration, when the budget was showing a small surplus, the Democrats wanted to spend it on social programs and the Republicans wanted to pass tax breaks. I didn't hear a single politician suggest using it to reduce the accumulated debt.
America runs on debt and when sudden large blips occur, the house of cards collapses.
DLP, why don't you spell out explicitly the moral case for providing Person A with the labor of Person B at the expense of Person C?
I'll ignore your 750th feeble attempt at guilt by association by partially agreeing with you on the last paragraph. Yes, rising fuel prices do impact the affordability of both transportation and consumer goods that are brought to market via truck.
However, the price of oil is basically an inverse proxy for the dollar (hence the term "petrodollar", as the international oil market is for the most part transacted in greenbacks. So when the purchasing power of the dollar is reduced, the price of oil - and all the products whose price partially reflect oil prices - rises. And what controls the value of the dollar? The Federal Reserve, who also pumped and primed the housing bubble. All for the benefit of the bankster crowd. The crowd that owns Bushbama.
Now, instead of spewing another one of your decades-old conspiracy theories, how about addressing the FACTS I spelled out in both this post and my previous one?
The majority of people whining that their health insurance plans are being cancelled have probably never had to make a claim. I know a small business owner who has been supplying his employees health insurance for many years. His own family recently had a major health issue, and he was astounded to find out that he still owed many thousands of dollars even after his "inexpensive" health insurance plan paid. REAL health insurance is expensive.
As long as health insurance remains a for profit enterprise, health emergencies will continue to be the largest single cause of bankruptcy in America. The primary problem with Harry Reed's Affordable Care Act is that it forces insurance companies to insure people that they don't want because they make too many claims. The plan that the president proposed, and that originally passed the house, created a government program where the uninsurable could buy government insurance. The Republican plan, on the other hand, is "Where did you get the idea that you are entitled to health care?".
My name is Steve Parker and I work with the refugee population in Charlotte on a full time basis as the Director of the Refugee Outreach Project (www.refugeeoutreachproject.com). I also, together with my wife, oversee Focus Academy, an afterschool program for Montagnard refugee students from Vietnam, grades 4-8.
This article really misses the mark on a couple points. First of all, the impact of the government shutdown on the refugee community was so minimal it was almost nonexistent. In fact, had it not been for this article, I would have been totally unaware that there was any impact at all. After I read the article, thinking I might have missed something, I connected with several friends who work in a Help Center where refugees come when they are facing challenges with the various government programs they interact with. Not a one of them had heard anything about this. So I knew that something was not being portrayed properly.
Upon further investigation, I found that the ONLY impact any refugee felt from this would have been those who were receiving WIC benefits. It is true that program was affected by the government shutdown and, for a time, WIC was unavailable in North Carolina. However, the program was down for ONLY TWO DAYS. That's it. No other benefits were cut or missed. So I'm not sure how that translates to the refugee community being among those "hardest hit" by the shutdown.
It seems to me that the author is trying to use the refugee community to further a political agenda and demonstrate how the government shutdown hurt innocent people. And that may be true. I'm not here to advocate for or against the politics that closed down the government. I am here to say that the impact that it had on refugees has been blown HUGELY out of proportion in this article.
Further, while some refugees do indeed depend on government assistance as they seek to become established in this country, they are quite capable of finding ways to take care of themselves and their families in the event of a crisis. Refugees have had to flee their country of origin because of war or persecution and are in this country legally as invited guests. Most have been through great ordeals and had to face overwhelming odds to find their way to the safe harbor the United States provides. They are hard-working and incredibly resourceful. To suggest that the cessation of government benefits for a limited time would deal them a crippling blow does not do them justice. It takes away from their dignity and the respect they are due. Most refugees I know are incredible people and a welcome addition to the tapestry that makes up our nation. The author of this article owes them an apology, in my humble opinion.
Powered by Foundation