rushmc 23 #1 May 7, 2009 this is nuts http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/2009_05_07_Free_cars_for_poor_fuel_road_rage/srvc=home&position=also"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #2 May 7, 2009 this is dreamdancer's "dream" come true "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #3 May 7, 2009 It sounds like a decent program to me. The cars are donated, are not given to those who have access to public transportation, and the fringe benefits that come with them end if the people end up back on welfare. It seems like a low cost way of trying to help people get off the state's payroll. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
redlegphi 0 #4 May 7, 2009 QuoteIt sounds like a decent program to me. The cars are donated, are not given to those who have access to public transportation, and the fringe benefits that come with them end if the people end up back on welfare. It seems like a low cost way of trying to help people get off the state's payroll. Blues, Dave +1 Rage over this reminds me of the rage conservatives had when they saw a picture of a homeless guy at a shelter with a cell phone. You want to yell at them for being on welfare but then you don't want them to have any of the tools required to work in a modern society. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #5 May 7, 2009 Quote this is nutshttp://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/2009_05_07_Free_cars_for_poor_fuel_road_rage/srvc=home&position=also The devil is in the details..... Quote To get the cars, they must be unable to reach work by public transportation and have a clean driving record. The program is only available to families on welfare with children. Kehoe said the bulk of cars go to places with less public transportation, such as Fitchburg, New Bedford and Lowell. Sounds like rural areas where your kind of people live Marc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #6 May 7, 2009 QuoteIt sounds like a decent program to me. The cars are donated, are not given to those who have access to public transportation, and the fringe benefits that come with them end if the people end up back on welfare. It seems like a low cost way of trying to help people get off the state's payroll. Blues, Dave So the point remains. How far should it go? Just as well but them the dam car, give them a house or make the mortgage payments and get them goceries the the one crying lady stated on network news the night Obama was elected. Context and perspective and this is just another little step toward less for those who chose to work....."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #7 May 7, 2009 QuoteContext and perspective and this is just another little step toward less for those who chose to work..... Did you not see the part about being required to show that you are working to maintain the benefits, or are you being intentionally obtuse? If your only complaint is that they get to keep the car if they lose their job, then maybe you have a legitimate point, but that point is tempered by the fact that the cars are donated by private entities NOT the government. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,089 #8 May 7, 2009 >get them goceries . . . . Well, they've got the car, so stopceries aren't going to be notably helpful. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #9 May 7, 2009 I didn't realize AAA was essential for basic human dignity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #10 May 7, 2009 Quote this is dreamdancer's "dream" come true i've already got a car stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #11 May 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteContext and perspective and this is just another little step toward less for those who chose to work..... Did you not see the part about being required to show that you are working to maintain the benefits, or are you being intentionally obtuse? If your only complaint is that they get to keep the car if they lose their job, then maybe you have a legitimate point, but that point is tempered by the fact that the cars are donated by private entities NOT the government. So, how far is far enough? Nobody has yet answered the question. How much is your care insurance a month? Just for liability? I know the cars were donated. So why dont those donated the insurance too? Why is it the peoples job to provide this for someone? Again, how far do you go? What is the next step? Well?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #12 May 7, 2009 QuoteHow much is your care insurance a month? Just for liability? According to your article, the total statewide funding for this program is $400k. That's not much in the context of a state budget. I'm not saying that the implementation of this program is great, but I think the intent is good. The intent is to reduce the barriers and get people to work. It primarily uses resources donated by a faith-based charity (your kind is supposed to love those). QuoteWhy is it the peoples job to provide this for someone? It is not the people's "job" to provide anything. The state, through its elected representatives, has decided that spending state resources to reduce dependance on welfare is a good thing. I agree. You clearly would prefer that welfare be cut entirely and people with children in hard hit economic areas starve to death. I don't think that is in the broader interest of society, so there we will have to disagree. QuoteAgain, how far do you go? What is the next step? I don't know. What do you think is enough, or is any state expenditure to help ther poor too much? - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #13 May 7, 2009 Quote Quote this is dreamdancer's "dream" come true i've already got a car Great, now Mr. Bean is without wheels.How can you live with yourself? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #14 May 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteHow much is your care insurance a month? Just for liability? According to your article, the total statewide funding for this program is $400k. That's not much in the context of a state budget. I'm not saying that the implementation of this program is great, but I think the intent is good. The intent is to reduce the barriers and get people to work. It primarily uses resources donated by a faith-based charity (your kind is supposed to love those). QuoteWhy is it the peoples job to provide this for someone? It is not the people's "job" to provide anything. The state, through its elected representatives, has decided that spending state resources to reduce dependance on welfare is a good thing. I agree. You clearly would prefer that welfare be cut entirely and people with children in hard hit economic areas starve to death. I don't think that is in the broader interest of society, so there we will have to disagree. QuoteAgain, how far do you go? What is the next step? I don't know. What do you think is enough, or is any state expenditure to help ther poor too much? So, more than this is ok with you? Ok, I know this is as close as you will come to an answer. And you have to do that by putting words in someone elses mouth. Nice"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #15 May 7, 2009 Quote Quote Context and perspective and this is just another little step toward less for those who chose to work..... Did you not see the part about being required to show that you are working to maintain the benefits, or are you being intentionally obtuse? If your only complaint is that they get to keep the car if they lose their job, then maybe you have a legitimate point, but that point is tempered by the fact that the cars are donated by private entities NOT the government. DING DING DING.... we have a winner Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #16 May 7, 2009 QuoteSo, more than this is ok with you? "More than this" is a little hard to define. In some cases, yes. In others, no. Believe it or not, I'm not running for public office so I don't have a ready to paste and clip welfare program on my desktop. QuoteOk, I know this is as close as you will come to an answer. Where's your answer? I asked you where you would draw the line. I haven't seen your plan, either. I'll ask again, "Is any state expenditure to help the poor too much?" - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #17 May 7, 2009 Quote Quote So, more than this is ok with you? "More than this" is a little hard to define. In some cases, yes. In others, no. Believe it or not, I'm not running for public office so I don't have a ready to paste and clip welfare program on my desktop. Quote Ok, I know this is as close as you will come to an answer. Where's your answer? I asked you where you would draw the line. I haven't seen your plan, either. I'll ask again, "Is any state expenditure to help the poor too much?" DING DING DING... Another winner Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
redlegphi 0 #18 May 7, 2009 I'd like to point out that, as long as the people receiving the car can stay employed, the program pays for itself since it stops the welfare payments to the family. So, since 80% of the people on the program stay employed, the actual cost of the program would appear to be something closer to $86,000. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #19 May 7, 2009 Quote Quote So, more than this is ok with you? "More than this" is a little hard to define. In some cases, yes. In others, no. Believe it or not, I'm not running for public office so I don't have a ready to paste and clip welfare program on my desktop. Quote Ok, I know this is as close as you will come to an answer. Where's your answer? I asked you where you would draw the line. I haven't seen your plan, either. I'll ask again, "Is any state expenditure to help the poor too much?" What do you mean where is my answer. You avoid the question by asking one. I never said what you post here nore have I ever. Again sir, how far is too far for you? Or, how far is far enough? Avioding an answer (which I am thinking you will continue to do) is all you can do. That, and implying something about others stands!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
redlegphi 0 #20 May 7, 2009 The problem is you're asking us to approve or disapprove of a non-existent program that is left up to our own imaginations to create. It'd be a lot easier to answer the question if you suggested a program for us to judge. For example, if you said "Do you think we should give everybody on welfare a yacht?", I'd say no. The program that was talked about in the post that started this thread makes sense to me, so I'd say yes to that one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #21 May 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteIt sounds like a decent program to me. The cars are donated, are not given to those who have access to public transportation, and the fringe benefits that come with them end if the people end up back on welfare. It seems like a low cost way of trying to help people get off the state's payroll. Blues, Dave So the point remains. How far should it go? Just as well but them the dam car, give them a house or make the mortgage payments and get them goceries the the one crying lady stated on network news the night Obama was elected. Context and perspective and this is just another little step toward less for those who chose to work..... We're talking about welfare recipients, i.e. these are people who are already getting their housing and groceries paid for by the state, and this program helps them go out and earn the money for those things rather than simply having it handed over. And the money they get for those things is reduced when they participate in this program. So what's the problem...a program that nearly pays for itself and encourages people to go to work instead of sit at home and collect welfare? Personally, that sounds like a good thing. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #22 May 7, 2009 This program seems fine to me. It encourages the right things at a net cost that seems quite low. If you'd like to give me another program to analyze I'll give it a shot. Your question "How far is too far?" is unanswerable. I already said I don't know and neither does anyone else. Your question is like asking "Is war justified?" It's pretty vague and any answer I give would be incomplete. The question, "Is this particular war justified?" is much easier to answer. If that is avoiding the question, then so be it. I can't answer an impossible question. My question is a simple yes or no and you refuse to answer it. Who's evading? - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #23 May 7, 2009 QuoteYour question "How far is too far?" is unanswerable. I'll give it a shot: 2 hovercrafts per resident is too far. I wont comment on only 1 hovercraft per person, or if illegal aliens should also receive 2 hovercrafts: thats where the lines blur.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #24 May 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteYour question "How far is too far?" is unanswerable. I'll give it a shot: 2 hovercrafts per resident is too far. I wont comment on only 1 hovercraft per person, or if illegal aliens should also receive 2 hovercrafts: thats where the lines blur. And thats about the best it can be aswered. In the end it depends if ones opinion is we need and should have a welfare type state or something different. (I am not talking about no safety net as this is being stretched to.) Is this too far? If it is not it is damn close in my opinion Point? Many here want to go much much further so, I ask again, how far is far enough?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #25 May 7, 2009 Quote And thats about the best it can be aswered. [snip] so, I ask again, how far is far enought? Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
