stamp program

Покойся с миром, Vladimir Komarov.  One of the original cosmonauts in the Soviet space program, Komarov was killed on this date in 1967 when the parachute on his Soyuz 1 capsule failed to open on his reentry to Earth’s atmosphere.  He was the first Soviet to travel to outer space multiple times (our Gus Grissom was the first human to do so) and was the first human to be killed on a space mission.  He and Yuri Gagarin (and many others) had grave concerns about the Soyuz mission before he lifted off (Yuri was the backup crew), but for fear of sacrificing Gagarin’s life instead of his own, Komarov refused to back out of the flight.  He did, however, plan his own funeral before flying, insisting on an open casket so that Soviet leadership could see what they’d done.  And so it was.  There are two memorials to Komarov (and the other fallen astro/cosmonauts) on the Moon–and today we pay homage again to your courage, Comrade Komarov.  We and the Moon remember you.

Stamp details:
Issued on: October 19, 1964
From: Moscow, USSR
MC #2965

anonymous asked:

I've been seeing people say H&L is wayyyyyy more complex than seimei for a while now and I don't really understand what that means? So I was wondering if you'd be willing to do a comparison post? You make such lovely gifs, and your explanations are always so funny and easy to understand, so it would be nice to see the comparison!

Thank you for the kind words, and please strap in for another one of my never-ending rants. At least this time I know it’s gonna be long because this topic is of special interest to me, so I will have the foresight to make use of a read-more link :D

Okay here we go. For a start, I wouldn’t say Hope and Legacy is way more complex than Seimei, for no other reason than the fact that Seimei was already pretty much pushing all imaginable boundaries of complexity. What I can tell you about these 2 programs though, is this:

H&L is more technically and physically demanding. From base value alone, H&L is worth 103.43 compared to Seimei’s 95.79, with the main difference coming from Yuzu swapping in a quad loop for a triple loop. Base value doesn’t tell you the whole story though, because what makes H&L truly demanding is not just in how many difficult elements are included, it’s also in how those elements are distributed. See below the layout with time stamp for both programs (Tumblr doesn’t like anything but tiny text so I have a bigger clearer version of this image here):

Keep reading

falling in love is hard


anonymous asked:

One thing to remember about Black Friday discourse: it gives low income people an opportunity to buy things for themselves or others that they may not otherwise be able to get. Though it's just kinda a shitty situation all around and the exploitation of workers and how they're treated is totally gross.

listen i am Very Very Poor, ive been Very Very Poor virtually my entire life, there were tons of years in my life where my family survived entirely because of food stamps and other government programs, and i am still adamantly against things like black friday because it encourages the exploitation of the working class and it forces the people who are likely very poor themselves to come and work long, difficult shifts instead of having time off to enjoy with their loved ones

you can just as easily find similar, if not Better, deals during online sales for the things that you want, and lots of sales these days last the entire weekend instead of just one day. hell, my company has been having special “black friday” sales practically the entire month of november. plus a lot of deals aren’t even That Good - ive noticed for years now that with my company at least they will often mark up the prices on items right before holidays so they can then lower them back around the normal price and call it a sale

as someone who’s a poor retail worker i am morally opposed to the entire idea of black friday and like i Get why people go out for it but i can’t help but go “just go online!!! go over the weekend! don’t encourage stores opening earlier and earlier on Thursday and making workers come in on a holiday and deal with crowds and rudeness”

anonymous asked:

Hi there! I hope I'm not being obnoxious by asking this if you've already gotten asks about it- but what's your opinion on the supposed welfare reform that Trump is considering? You're one of the few places I know of that isn't full of "this is garbage" bias and false facts, so I figured you'd be one of the few to put research in it instead of me happening upon biased news sources (Fox or something). Thanks, and have a good day/night (depending on the time you see this!) <3!

Heyy! No of course not, it’s not something I’ve really talked about on here so I appreciate the time you’ve taken to ask :) 

The split political views on welfare are quite easy to define. Democrats want to raise taxes to fund their government-run programs to keep people reliant on welfare, Republicans want to cut taxes and lower welfare spending while pushing for self-sufficiency and getting more people into the workforce.

Democrats accuse Republicans of only wanting to cut taxes for Americans to “make the rich richer” and cries a welfare reform will result in “millions of children being forced into starvation,” while Republicans accuse Democrats of keeping the poor, well, poor, and paying for the endless welfare programs is only inflating the country’s $20 trillion debt. 

The government spent approximately $746 billion on 83 means-tested federal welfare programs in fiscal year 2011 alone. CRS reports that food stamps, the third largest welfare program behind health and cash assistance, has seen the greatest increase in spending with 71 percent hikes, over 12 million extra people signed up for food stamps after Obama won presidency.

Federal spending on welfare programs outpaces spending on any other federal expenditures such as as non-war defense, social security, medicare and departments such as justice, transportation and education. 

This won’t be the first reform though. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act was passed twenty years ago and it was such a huge success that both Democrats and Republicans were desperate to take credit for it. 

The bill instituted work or education requirements for most kinds of assistance, including the food stamps program, and caseloads dropped by about a half, there were huge increases in work among former recipients, while at the same time poverty among American, especially children, was reduced to it’s lowest level in history and the country saved billions of dollars. 

The work requirements enabled the focus to shift from measuring success by how many people are receiving welfare to how many people are entering the workforce and I think that’s a really important point. Though soon after Obama took office, he introduced waivers for the work requirements in the SNAP program and states were allowed to give benefits to practically anyone who signed up for it. More waivers and leniency over the years has ended pretty much every advantage the first reform gave both Americans and the economy. 

I have to agree with Jeff Sessions when he says, “No longer should we measure compassion by how much money the government spends, but by how many people we help to rise out of poverty. Welfare assistance should be seen as temporary whenever possible, and the goal must be to help more of our fellow citizens attain gainful employment and financial independence.“

A Rasmussen poll found 80 percent of Americans agree with the statement “work is the best solution for poverty.” Another study from the American Enterprise Institute found that Americans strongly support “workfare,” or welfare in exchange for meaningful work. Around 87 percent of those surveyed in 2016 said they supported these work requirements.

The way most Americans have gotten out of poverty is through work and marriage. Consider 23% of all black families live below the poverty level, 46% when it’s just a black single mother households, but that number drops below the national level to just 8% for black married couple families. 

Also consider just 3% of people live below the poverty level if they work full-time hours, that number even stays steady near the national rate when working part-time at 16%. It makes sense to ensure any attempts to end poverty is to stress the importance of work, family and marriage. Too many Americans are not earning their way out of poverty because they are trapped in a system that discourages work and encourages single mother households. 

The current national welfare system is plagued with abuse and administrative issues, this is simple fact and while political parties can’t agree whether welfare dependancy and massive spending to fund it helps or hinders Americans, to me it’s undeniable that a reform in some kind is desperately needed.

While the welfare program should be designed to get people out of poverty, it should also put limits on itself. Annual expenditures into welfare should be capped to prevent the programs from expanding uncontrollably, goals should be placed on these policies to encourage work and remind people that welfare should be the last resort, and the federal government should also start reducing its own authority so states can do more on the local level.

Those who have truly fallen on hard times deserve our genuine sympathy, and we shouldn’t snarl at them for turning to as easy and accessible a source of relief as government welfare. Yet we should also avoid making needy people feel comfortable being totally dependent upon the government. Focus should be on work, marriage, saving money and independence, to assure more people will be lifted out of poverty and not remain there for even more generations on end. Thank you for your question and I hope you have a nice day yourself! :) xx 

Next Time You Judge Someone on Food Stamps, Remember This…

Recently, a few courageous lawmakers took the food stamp challenge, living off SNAP in an attempt to show that hunger is more than just a statistic. As U.S. Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, who took the challenge, wrote: “All spontaneity is out the window. Feel like buying a cup of coffee? Forget it. Those pretzels in the vending machine look tempting? Keep walking. They’re not in the budget.”  Governor Ted Strickland said “For the week [I took the challenge], I walked as much as I possibly could to avoid paying for transportation, skipped meals to save money — and I ate much smaller and less healthful meals when I did eat.”   

I didn’t need to take the challenge, I lived it. And I learned a lot from it but mainly that I should never feel ashamed for reaching out for help. I also learned that I had my own stereotype of what being poor should look like. When I had to go to the SNAP office, I admit I was expecting to see the depths of poverty exemplified. Instead, I saw people from all walks of life: young and old, clean and dirty, black and white. I am Ivy League educated, worked for years, had decent savings, and wore nice clothes before times got hard and I lost my job. Besides being a black woman, on paper I didn’t look like my idea of a typical SNAP recipient. Anyone could easily slip into poverty.  

Read on:

I find it incredibly disgusting that someone would call themselves “pro-life” and yet be so against the rights of others. I see so many “pro-lifers” who are pro-death penalty, support war, don’t believe that health care is a human right, are pro-”War on Drugs”, are against food stamps and other welfare programs, and/or don’t support others gaining higher education. 

On top of that, the sexism and racism is so apparent within the pro-life movement on top of how much they are against human basic rights. They care more about people giving birth than giving people a good quality way of life. 

What’s the impact of your federal tax dollars?

Rather than calculating a hypothetical amount that a single person could receive by enrolling in every benefits program (like the Cato Institute report did), this infographic shows how many people are lifted above the federal poverty line by various federal programs.
Rainbows Don’t Pay The Bills: Workers on Verge of Strike at the Los Angeles LGBT Center
"I’m not even the lowest paid worker there, but I still qualify for public housing."

As one of the largest LGBTQI organizations in the country, Los Angeles’ LGBT Center should counter the systems of inequality that have left so many in our communities without financial security and a safe home. Instead, the Center is perpetuating those systems of inequality within its very organizational structure.

The LGBT Center employs hundreds of LGBTQI workers; yet, it pays many of those workers poverty wages. Over half of the Center’s hourly workers are paid less than $15 an hour—salaries so low that these workers qualify for CalFresh food stamps, housing voucher programs, and other forms of public assistance. While staff struggle to make ends meet, the Center’s CEO, Lorri L. Jean pays herself an annual salary of $440,000, and another $60,000 in bonuses—making her one of the highest paid LGBTQ organizational directors in the country.

‬How can the Center be entrusted to care for our community and advocate for a more fair society when those in charge display a blatant disregard for their own workforce, most of whom are LGBTQI themselves?

‬What weight does the Center’s equality discourse have when queer folks—especially those who are marginalized by race, class, disability, and immigration status—continue to be kept down by dangerously low wages?

This is incredibly important and I urge you to read the entire article. You can’t claim to fight for justice if you don’t pay your workers just wages. 

Food Stamp Drug Tests

When I got on food stamps, I had about a month clean off drugs, including alcohol.

Marijuana, for people who used it heavily and depending on one’s percentage of body fat, can take up to 9 months to not show up on a drug test.

THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, is stored in fat cells, which is not true of other drugs. It takes a lot longer to leave the body than other drugs, including cocaine, heroin, alcohol, and meth, so even if a user hasn’t used pot for some time, it’s still more likely to show up than if they had used one of those drugs at the same time, but not since.

Drug testing for food stamps is ridiculous for several reasons, including but not limited to the point I mentioned above. Everybody deserves food. Sure, addicts might sell the card, but non-addicts might sell the card, too. People need food and they also need housing, heat, water, electricity, etc. And even if people sold the card, it’s still going to somebody who obviously needs it if they’re willing to buy it. It’s not like drug dealers are going to accept food stamps unless they need them. Nobody would prefer food stamps to cash, unless they can get a larger amount’s worth of food stamps than they are paying cash (for example, paying $75 for $100 worth of food stamps). Despite what Fox News lies about, you can only buy food with food stamps. You can’t use it at an ATM, you can’t buy medicine, gas, hot meals, vitamins, tampons, or toilet paper with it. Just food that is not intended to be consumed in the store.

Also, probably the most compelling point for many: Drug tests cost far more to conduct, test, ship, etc, than the SNAP (food stamps) program costs. States have tried this. It was a tremendous failure each time. People who thought they would fail or didn’t want to be subjected to a dehumanizing and invasive test, opted out. And that was a small number. The number of people who submitted to the test and failed? Even smaller. Less than 1% small. And the drug tests still cost a shitload of money, because they tested everybody, and that costs money even if people test negative. Only the people who tested positive had to pay, and considering they can’t afford food, you can imagine how that went. Addicts will use until they want to stop. Addicts will use even though they want to stop. Denying them the ability to buy food doesn’t help them, doesn’t help anyone except conservative politicians’ agendas to dehumanize the poor and act as if drug addiction/usage is a moral failing, which is untrue.