Additional Info: Please bring signs and one nonperishable food item to donate to Care & Share Foodbank.
3 Responses to “Colorado Springs Tea Party”
Chelsea Sam said:
On this website, the meeting place listed is the Pioneer Museum, but on Facebook, the meeting place listed is Acacia park. You may wish to consider clarifying this. . .
Democrats offer hope. What kind of hope? They offer tenuous hope in the form of borrowed cash, to those who received a portion of the bail out money. But for most people it is an ambiguous kind of hope at worst, and whatever kind of hope you hope it is at best. What do the Republicans offer? The same old hopeless rat race. Its better to hope for something ambiguous than it is to hope for nothing.
There was a time when Republicans offered hope. What kind of hope? They offered the kind of hope that the best free market economy in the world can offer; the hope that, with grit and wit, our children’s lives would be more prosperous than ours. But, the free market can be cold and unforgiving. So at first they offered us a free market tempered with ‘Trickle Down Economics’, and then they offered us a free market tempered with ‘A Thousand Points of Light’. Now, neither of those offerings are tempering the rat race. The result has been the creation of a vacuum of hopelessness. The Democrats realized this and swooped in to fill this vacuum with an ambiguous form of hope. What we need is a more specific hope. A hope of a free market run by small government and tempered by neo-populist solutions. We need a neo- thousand points of light.
During tough economic times of the past, when we have needed more than just ‘A Thousand Points of Light, people have turned to populist solutions, such as cooperatives. As a result cooperatives have been an effective form of small government solutions. By the way, cooperatives are now called social enterprises with a multi-stake holder cooperative model; more about that later. Small cooperatives have been forming for centurions in the form of guilds and various relief organizations for poor workers. However, surprisingly the first time our nation utilized large cooperatives as a solution to a downturn in our capitalist market was before the Great Depression. It was during the Depressions of 1873 and 1893. These are now called the Panics or 1873 and 1893. In 1876, farmer’s who were losing their farms to the depression, banded together to form the Farmer’s Alliance. It was like a farmer’s wholesale buyer’s club, but better. Long story short, its no longer in existence today; lasted for about 14 years. One of the most successful forms of large cooperatives is the utility cooperative. The second time our nation utilized large cooperatives was during the Great Depression. Many of these are still in existence today. They were created by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, of the of the Democrats, as part of the New Deal between 1933-1935. The provide wholesale power and phone service to rural areas. Solutions similar these could offer the specific kind of small government hope that is we now need.
Now there are a very few neo-populist visionaries that offer a small government plans for hope. As a group neo-populist visionaries tend to be liberals and advocates of communism, neo-communism, or socialism. However, there is a very small faction of them that are advocates of capitalism. The constitutes, on the other hand, who largely call themselves Progressive Populist, are the opposite. They are largely conservatives and advocates of capitalism. Very few constitutes are liberals. There is a faction of constitute neo-populists that are mildly advocates of neo-communism, namely labor union members and ACORN members, but most are small town citizens. It is really unfortunate that there are so few neo-populist visionaries who are capitalist because there are a large number of Progressive Populist tax payers that would love to vote for some sound small government capitalist solution to the hopeless rat race.
But neo-populist visionaries just don’t get it. Take for example, visionary and author Professor James Petras. As a neo-populist he is quick to point out that a solution to this recession is to move from a high-risk mortgage investment economy to a small business/manufacturing economy based on high tech inventions by American engineers. This is a small government capitalist solution. This idea could bring a lot of specific hope to Progressive Populist. It could eventually bring new small factories back to their small towns. But, then Petras proposes that the only way to accomplish this is to move into big government socialism and use tax payer monies to force the market to make the change. Boooo. Then, he further alienates conservatives from himself by insisting that we cut our budget by changing our foreign policy towards Israel by abandoning them as allies. Boooo again. What we need is someone with a vision to add a few government dollars, or tax cuts, to a few corporate dollar, or programs to bring specific hopes. This is not a purely neo-populist approach, but it is a low-risk approach with a distinct neo-populist flavor. Conservatives would love it.
President Bush said,
“I have spoken of a thousand points of light, of all the community organizations that are spread like stars throughout the Nation, doing good. We will work hand in hand, encouraging, sometimes leading, sometimes being led, rewarding. We will work on this in the White House, in the Cabinet agencies. I will go to the people and the programs that are the brighter points of light, and I will ask every member of my government to become involved. The old ideas are new again because they are not old, they are timeless: duty, sacrifice, commitment, and a patriotism that finds its expression in taking part and pitching in.”
–George H. W. Bush, Inaugural Address, January 20, 1989
But where were the ‘Thousand Points of Light’, when houses where foreclosing? Why couldn’t these non-profits offer us some form of foreclosure prevention, affordable mortgages, high-paying jobs that would allow us to qualify for A rated mortgages, or some other viable solution? Why didn’t a group of investment bankers volunteer to run foreclosure prevention clinics? Where was the federal government financial backing to such local government-backed programs that already existed within first time home buyers programs? Why didn’t any neo-populist educator administrators volunteer to develop an effective program to respond to The US Engineering Workforce Commission’s warnings that we are facing a 49.8% shortage of engineers? What about the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers? Why didn’t any union organizers volunteer to recruit engineers from amongst their members? Where were the ‘Points of Light’ that we needed then? Solutions would have been so much easier then than they will be now.
Presidential Candidate John McCain said,
“If you find faults with our country, make it a better one. If you’re disappointed with the mistakes of government, join its ranks and work to correct them. Enlist in our armed forces. Become a teacher. Enter the ministry. Run for public office. Feed a hungry child. Teach an illiterate adult to read. Comfort the afflicted. Defend the rights of the oppressed. Our country will be the better, and you will be the happier. Because nothing brings greater happiness in life than to serve a cause greater than yourself.”
–John McCain, September 4, 2008
But how can these solutions better help the economy to recover in a way that is more effective than profuse federal spending? Where are the organizations we can join to help us now? Why didn’t Tea Party advocates have any more solutions than complaining about overtaxing and resisting socialism?
Enter the social enterprise. Social enterprises are social welfare programs that are funded by private corporations or small businesses instead of tax payers. A cooperative is a form of social enterprise. Social enterprises don’t have to be owned by the people, like a cooperative. They can be owned by regular corporations that have a mission to offer a social welfare benefit to society. The social enterprise is one step above donating large amounts of corporate money to causes. It is actually running a program where the profits are invested in one way or another into helping the poor. If we had a visionary who would add some type of government support behind social enterprise, instead of spending billions on bailouts and stimulus plans, we would have hope for leaving the hopeless rat race behind us. If we had a visionary who was very astute about designing such a government/social enterprise endeavor, we could have a specific set of hopes.
There are thousands of ways to apply social enterprises. As an example, the social enterprise approach could be applied to welfare. Before the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, many taxpayers objected to welfare for unwed mothers who could get more welfare by having more children without wedding. One way that a social welfare approach may be applied to this situation is to replace all welfare to unwed mothers with a comparable social enterprise program. Examples of such social enterprises can be found in India and Ancient Egypt. Now the India model is a negative example, but the the principle has been applied. The Ancient Egypt model is a more positive example.
In Ancient Egypt their laws vigorously defended marriage and punished infidelity, even infidelity with the permission of the wife, so unwed mothers (not widows) were not a problem that they had to cope with. But, they did have to cope with men who married harems. Their way of coping with this situation was to set all these women up in the same house. In this house there was also a linen loom factory. It was the job of these women to make linen in their free time. This kept them busy and out of trouble. It also help relieve the one husband of some of the cost of keeping so many wives and it gave the wives some spending money of their own. It was a win, win, win. The principle of the social enterprise was applied because several women ran a linen factory for the purpose of meeting their own financial needs, without government assistance.
The negative example in India can be found in how some widows survive there today. In Ancient India, if a husband died, the widow was required to jump onto his burning dead body during the funeral ceremony. It was and still is today, considered her fault that he had died, because it is considered a wife’s job is to bring her husband good luck. It’s now against the law to commit suicide during your husband’s funeral, although widows still do it from time to time. Still today, if they don’t commit suicide at the wedding, they are condemned to a life as a social outcast. They are not welcome amongst their relatives, and they often can’t find work. They usually can’t remarry. If their husband doesn’t leave them an inheritance to live on, they will usually end up in houses of prostitution, where several widows live in one house. The most attractive amongst them will usually prostitute herself to feed the others. This example is an example of terrible oppression of women, but the principle of the social enterprise is applied. Widows join together to form a business by which they can meet their needs without government assistance (since there is no government assistance in India for them). It is really unfortunate that they can’t usually gather together to form some more dignified and safer type of work, such as the linen weaving factories of Egypt. Although, I did hear of a story of a divorced Indian women who inherited an apple orchard from and employer that she ran as a cooperative with other widows and divorcees.
Currently, we have an upsurge in maternity homes for pregnant unwed women. They were generally set up by adoption agencies by churches as a place where pregnant women could live for free until they give their child up for adoption. Some have evolved into being a place where pregnant women can live until they give birth to their baby and keep it. Then they are required to move out. Republicans now expect these organizations to run on private charity. Democrats want to give them millions of tax dollars directly and through colleges through The Pregnant Women Support Act. A social enterprise approach would allow them to be run like the Ancient Egyptian linen factories, on profits that they themselves earn.
The social enterprises approach could allow us to use the maternity home to greatly reduce unwed pregnancy and greatly reduce the cost of running our welfare system. We could give homeless unwed pregnant women the option of moving to a social enterprise instead of a homeless shelter and replace all welfare assistance to unwed pregnant women with a social enterprise approach. Unwed pregnant women could all live and work in the same proximity, like a small apartment building with some type of attached franchise like a Burger King, or a publishing company, or a home health agency for the elderly. Appropriate behavior could be required by contract. Everyone who violated the contract could be sued, have their children taken away, and be required to move to a homeless shelter. Such social enterprises could provide the very specific hope of eventually cleaning up a vast amount of crime in the ghettos, preventing ghetto crime from migrating from the suburbs, and greatly reducing the amount of children who grow up abused in America; at little or no cost to taxpayers.
According to the contract no one could live in the social enterprise but people who are working at the attached profit making venture. The rent and food would be free as long as they did their share of the work. The profits for the franchise would meet their needs. If more profit is needed, store fronts could be also rented to businesses on the bottom floor of the apartment building. Under this arrangement, these mothers wouldn’t need food stamps, or Medicaid, cheese, milk and formula, welfare checks or child care subsidies. If their venture earned more than what was needed to meet everyone’s need stipend bonus checks could be distributed. This would assure that their civil liberties weren’t being violated.
Of course some mothers would be content to live in this arrangement for all of their lives, having large families to multiple fathers. However, this may not be the goal of policy makers. They may want them to become self-supporting single families. So, if they get pregnant again the would be stuck living on the same amount of cash that they lived on before they had this additional child without wedding. If they don’t excel and learn to be self-sustaining they would also be stuck. If they became involved in crime they would lose their children and go directly to jail. Men who might try to treat these social enterprises as their own brothels could be slapped with restraining orders, and sent directly to jail if they violate the restraining orders. If they were planning on living with a man, who is not supporting himself or the children, they would not be allowed to do so, unless they can demonstrate that they can support themselves, the children, and the man, on their own, outside of the social enterprise. If they want to marry, this would be allowed because legally marriage is a contract that could supersede the social enterprise contract. However, they would be required to move, on their own, outside of the social enterprise. If they marry, they would could qualify for food stamps, Medicaid, milk, cheese, and baby formula, welfare checks, and child care subsidies, if the couple’s income dropped below the poverty level. In order to move out as a single they would have to learn either how to run the franchise, so they could move out and run their own franchise, go to school part-time and land a high demand job such as nursing, or accounting, or how to successfully run something like an Ebay business until they could become self-supporting. Otherwise they will be stuck there. This would train them to live more responsible lifestyles, and keep them from becoming a burden to taxpayers, while their most basic needs are being met.
Reagan said that it’s the government’s job to provide opportunity and foster productivity; inferring that it was not the government’s job to eliminate poverty in America. Social enterprise programs provide opportunity and foster productivity for those who have become a burden to society. They could be used to minimize poverty in American through non-taxpayer dollars. They could be used to provide hope that the rat race will end for the poor, without major government assistance. Social enterprise programs can provide a specific list of hopes at little or no cost to the government. Good-bye socialism. This list could include everything from retraining unemployed people to fill the deficit of engineers, and returning small new factories to the heartland of America to replacing non-Medicaid indigent health care programs with insurance/live/work cooperatives. As conservatives we don’t need to do nothing, we need to provide opportunity and foster productivity for social enterprises. Social enterprises can become our Neo-thousand Points of Light.
Chelsea Sam said:
On this website, the meeting place listed is the Pioneer Museum, but on Facebook, the meeting place listed is Acacia park. You may wish to consider clarifying this. . .
April 6th, 2009 at 7:32 am
Gladys Smith-Duran, MSW said:
We Need More Than Just Tea Parties
A Neo-thousand Points of Light
Democrats offer hope. What kind of hope? They offer tenuous hope in the form of borrowed cash, to those who received a portion of the bail out money. But for most people it is an ambiguous kind of hope at worst, and whatever kind of hope you hope it is at best. What do the Republicans offer? The same old hopeless rat race. Its better to hope for something ambiguous than it is to hope for nothing.
There was a time when Republicans offered hope. What kind of hope? They offered the kind of hope that the best free market economy in the world can offer; the hope that, with grit and wit, our children’s lives would be more prosperous than ours. But, the free market can be cold and unforgiving. So at first they offered us a free market tempered with ‘Trickle Down Economics’, and then they offered us a free market tempered with ‘A Thousand Points of Light’. Now, neither of those offerings are tempering the rat race. The result has been the creation of a vacuum of hopelessness. The Democrats realized this and swooped in to fill this vacuum with an ambiguous form of hope. What we need is a more specific hope. A hope of a free market run by small government and tempered by neo-populist solutions. We need a neo- thousand points of light.
During tough economic times of the past, when we have needed more than just ‘A Thousand Points of Light, people have turned to populist solutions, such as cooperatives. As a result cooperatives have been an effective form of small government solutions. By the way, cooperatives are now called social enterprises with a multi-stake holder cooperative model; more about that later. Small cooperatives have been forming for centurions in the form of guilds and various relief organizations for poor workers. However, surprisingly the first time our nation utilized large cooperatives as a solution to a downturn in our capitalist market was before the Great Depression. It was during the Depressions of 1873 and 1893. These are now called the Panics or 1873 and 1893. In 1876, farmer’s who were losing their farms to the depression, banded together to form the Farmer’s Alliance. It was like a farmer’s wholesale buyer’s club, but better. Long story short, its no longer in existence today; lasted for about 14 years. One of the most successful forms of large cooperatives is the utility cooperative. The second time our nation utilized large cooperatives was during the Great Depression. Many of these are still in existence today. They were created by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, of the of the Democrats, as part of the New Deal between 1933-1935. The provide wholesale power and phone service to rural areas. Solutions similar these could offer the specific kind of small government hope that is we now need.
Now there are a very few neo-populist visionaries that offer a small government plans for hope. As a group neo-populist visionaries tend to be liberals and advocates of communism, neo-communism, or socialism. However, there is a very small faction of them that are advocates of capitalism. The constitutes, on the other hand, who largely call themselves Progressive Populist, are the opposite. They are largely conservatives and advocates of capitalism. Very few constitutes are liberals. There is a faction of constitute neo-populists that are mildly advocates of neo-communism, namely labor union members and ACORN members, but most are small town citizens. It is really unfortunate that there are so few neo-populist visionaries who are capitalist because there are a large number of Progressive Populist tax payers that would love to vote for some sound small government capitalist solution to the hopeless rat race.
But neo-populist visionaries just don’t get it. Take for example, visionary and author Professor James Petras. As a neo-populist he is quick to point out that a solution to this recession is to move from a high-risk mortgage investment economy to a small business/manufacturing economy based on high tech inventions by American engineers. This is a small government capitalist solution. This idea could bring a lot of specific hope to Progressive Populist. It could eventually bring new small factories back to their small towns. But, then Petras proposes that the only way to accomplish this is to move into big government socialism and use tax payer monies to force the market to make the change. Boooo. Then, he further alienates conservatives from himself by insisting that we cut our budget by changing our foreign policy towards Israel by abandoning them as allies. Boooo again. What we need is someone with a vision to add a few government dollars, or tax cuts, to a few corporate dollar, or programs to bring specific hopes. This is not a purely neo-populist approach, but it is a low-risk approach with a distinct neo-populist flavor. Conservatives would love it.
President Bush said,
“I have spoken of a thousand points of light, of all the community organizations that are spread like stars throughout the Nation, doing good. We will work hand in hand, encouraging, sometimes leading, sometimes being led, rewarding. We will work on this in the White House, in the Cabinet agencies. I will go to the people and the programs that are the brighter points of light, and I will ask every member of my government to become involved. The old ideas are new again because they are not old, they are timeless: duty, sacrifice, commitment, and a patriotism that finds its expression in taking part and pitching in.”
–George H. W. Bush, Inaugural Address, January 20, 1989
But where were the ‘Thousand Points of Light’, when houses where foreclosing? Why couldn’t these non-profits offer us some form of foreclosure prevention, affordable mortgages, high-paying jobs that would allow us to qualify for A rated mortgages, or some other viable solution? Why didn’t a group of investment bankers volunteer to run foreclosure prevention clinics? Where was the federal government financial backing to such local government-backed programs that already existed within first time home buyers programs? Why didn’t any neo-populist educator administrators volunteer to develop an effective program to respond to The US Engineering Workforce Commission’s warnings that we are facing a 49.8% shortage of engineers? What about the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers? Why didn’t any union organizers volunteer to recruit engineers from amongst their members? Where were the ‘Points of Light’ that we needed then? Solutions would have been so much easier then than they will be now.
Presidential Candidate John McCain said,
“If you find faults with our country, make it a better one. If you’re disappointed with the mistakes of government, join its ranks and work to correct them. Enlist in our armed forces. Become a teacher. Enter the ministry. Run for public office. Feed a hungry child. Teach an illiterate adult to read. Comfort the afflicted. Defend the rights of the oppressed. Our country will be the better, and you will be the happier. Because nothing brings greater happiness in life than to serve a cause greater than yourself.”
–John McCain, September 4, 2008
But how can these solutions better help the economy to recover in a way that is more effective than profuse federal spending? Where are the organizations we can join to help us now? Why didn’t Tea Party advocates have any more solutions than complaining about overtaxing and resisting socialism?
Enter the social enterprise. Social enterprises are social welfare programs that are funded by private corporations or small businesses instead of tax payers. A cooperative is a form of social enterprise. Social enterprises don’t have to be owned by the people, like a cooperative. They can be owned by regular corporations that have a mission to offer a social welfare benefit to society. The social enterprise is one step above donating large amounts of corporate money to causes. It is actually running a program where the profits are invested in one way or another into helping the poor. If we had a visionary who would add some type of government support behind social enterprise, instead of spending billions on bailouts and stimulus plans, we would have hope for leaving the hopeless rat race behind us. If we had a visionary who was very astute about designing such a government/social enterprise endeavor, we could have a specific set of hopes.
There are thousands of ways to apply social enterprises. As an example, the social enterprise approach could be applied to welfare. Before the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, many taxpayers objected to welfare for unwed mothers who could get more welfare by having more children without wedding. One way that a social welfare approach may be applied to this situation is to replace all welfare to unwed mothers with a comparable social enterprise program. Examples of such social enterprises can be found in India and Ancient Egypt. Now the India model is a negative example, but the the principle has been applied. The Ancient Egypt model is a more positive example.
In Ancient Egypt their laws vigorously defended marriage and punished infidelity, even infidelity with the permission of the wife, so unwed mothers (not widows) were not a problem that they had to cope with. But, they did have to cope with men who married harems. Their way of coping with this situation was to set all these women up in the same house. In this house there was also a linen loom factory. It was the job of these women to make linen in their free time. This kept them busy and out of trouble. It also help relieve the one husband of some of the cost of keeping so many wives and it gave the wives some spending money of their own. It was a win, win, win. The principle of the social enterprise was applied because several women ran a linen factory for the purpose of meeting their own financial needs, without government assistance.
The negative example in India can be found in how some widows survive there today. In Ancient India, if a husband died, the widow was required to jump onto his burning dead body during the funeral ceremony. It was and still is today, considered her fault that he had died, because it is considered a wife’s job is to bring her husband good luck. It’s now against the law to commit suicide during your husband’s funeral, although widows still do it from time to time. Still today, if they don’t commit suicide at the wedding, they are condemned to a life as a social outcast. They are not welcome amongst their relatives, and they often can’t find work. They usually can’t remarry. If their husband doesn’t leave them an inheritance to live on, they will usually end up in houses of prostitution, where several widows live in one house. The most attractive amongst them will usually prostitute herself to feed the others. This example is an example of terrible oppression of women, but the principle of the social enterprise is applied. Widows join together to form a business by which they can meet their needs without government assistance (since there is no government assistance in India for them). It is really unfortunate that they can’t usually gather together to form some more dignified and safer type of work, such as the linen weaving factories of Egypt. Although, I did hear of a story of a divorced Indian women who inherited an apple orchard from and employer that she ran as a cooperative with other widows and divorcees.
Currently, we have an upsurge in maternity homes for pregnant unwed women. They were generally set up by adoption agencies by churches as a place where pregnant women could live for free until they give their child up for adoption. Some have evolved into being a place where pregnant women can live until they give birth to their baby and keep it. Then they are required to move out. Republicans now expect these organizations to run on private charity. Democrats want to give them millions of tax dollars directly and through colleges through The Pregnant Women Support Act. A social enterprise approach would allow them to be run like the Ancient Egyptian linen factories, on profits that they themselves earn.
The social enterprises approach could allow us to use the maternity home to greatly reduce unwed pregnancy and greatly reduce the cost of running our welfare system. We could give homeless unwed pregnant women the option of moving to a social enterprise instead of a homeless shelter and replace all welfare assistance to unwed pregnant women with a social enterprise approach. Unwed pregnant women could all live and work in the same proximity, like a small apartment building with some type of attached franchise like a Burger King, or a publishing company, or a home health agency for the elderly. Appropriate behavior could be required by contract. Everyone who violated the contract could be sued, have their children taken away, and be required to move to a homeless shelter. Such social enterprises could provide the very specific hope of eventually cleaning up a vast amount of crime in the ghettos, preventing ghetto crime from migrating from the suburbs, and greatly reducing the amount of children who grow up abused in America; at little or no cost to taxpayers.
According to the contract no one could live in the social enterprise but people who are working at the attached profit making venture. The rent and food would be free as long as they did their share of the work. The profits for the franchise would meet their needs. If more profit is needed, store fronts could be also rented to businesses on the bottom floor of the apartment building. Under this arrangement, these mothers wouldn’t need food stamps, or Medicaid, cheese, milk and formula, welfare checks or child care subsidies. If their venture earned more than what was needed to meet everyone’s need stipend bonus checks could be distributed. This would assure that their civil liberties weren’t being violated.
Of course some mothers would be content to live in this arrangement for all of their lives, having large families to multiple fathers. However, this may not be the goal of policy makers. They may want them to become self-supporting single families. So, if they get pregnant again the would be stuck living on the same amount of cash that they lived on before they had this additional child without wedding. If they don’t excel and learn to be self-sustaining they would also be stuck. If they became involved in crime they would lose their children and go directly to jail. Men who might try to treat these social enterprises as their own brothels could be slapped with restraining orders, and sent directly to jail if they violate the restraining orders. If they were planning on living with a man, who is not supporting himself or the children, they would not be allowed to do so, unless they can demonstrate that they can support themselves, the children, and the man, on their own, outside of the social enterprise. If they want to marry, this would be allowed because legally marriage is a contract that could supersede the social enterprise contract. However, they would be required to move, on their own, outside of the social enterprise. If they marry, they would could qualify for food stamps, Medicaid, milk, cheese, and baby formula, welfare checks, and child care subsidies, if the couple’s income dropped below the poverty level. In order to move out as a single they would have to learn either how to run the franchise, so they could move out and run their own franchise, go to school part-time and land a high demand job such as nursing, or accounting, or how to successfully run something like an Ebay business until they could become self-supporting. Otherwise they will be stuck there. This would train them to live more responsible lifestyles, and keep them from becoming a burden to taxpayers, while their most basic needs are being met.
Reagan said that it’s the government’s job to provide opportunity and foster productivity; inferring that it was not the government’s job to eliminate poverty in America. Social enterprise programs provide opportunity and foster productivity for those who have become a burden to society. They could be used to minimize poverty in American through non-taxpayer dollars. They could be used to provide hope that the rat race will end for the poor, without major government assistance. Social enterprise programs can provide a specific list of hopes at little or no cost to the government. Good-bye socialism. This list could include everything from retraining unemployed people to fill the deficit of engineers, and returning small new factories to the heartland of America to replacing non-Medicaid indigent health care programs with insurance/live/work cooperatives. As conservatives we don’t need to do nothing, we need to provide opportunity and foster productivity for social enterprises. Social enterprises can become our Neo-thousand Points of Light.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Craigslist Job Scam said:
Great Post!…
[..] A little unrelated, but I absolutely liked this blog post [..]…
March 4th, 2010 at 4:08 pm