rushmc 23 #26 May 7, 2009 Quote Quote And thats about the best it can be aswered. [snip] so, I ask again, how far is far enought? You will not answer it either. 2 reasons, either you have not really thought about it or you know can not be honest to us about what you really think "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 #27 May 7, 2009 Quote Quote Quote And thats about the best it can be aswered. [snip] so, I ask again, how far is far enought? You will not answer it either. 2 reasons, either you have not really thought about it or you know can not be honest to us about what you really think You said yourself we cant answer how far is too far, so how the hell can you answer how far is far enough? On top of that, your questions make no sense grammatically, so how can we answer them?Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #28 May 7, 2009 Quote >get them goceries . . . . Well, they've got the car, so stopceries aren't going to be notably helpful. LOL Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #29 May 7, 2009 Why is it necessary to have a state-run program to hand out the cars? The article says they're being donated by private charities. Why aren't the charities just handing the cars out themselves?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,088 #30 May 7, 2009 >I ask again, how far is far enough? Setting up a program to get donated cars to people who need them is not "too far." It is far enough. Giving them free Lamborghinis paid for by taxpayers is too far. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #31 May 7, 2009 Quote this is dreamdancer's "dream" come true Progressives, thats what they like to be called now, are always charitable with money from others, but never their own. But this is a common practice when you have raised a generation who think they are entiltled to free handouts. Now if I could only get free lift tickets. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #32 May 7, 2009 QuoteWhy is it necessary to have a state-run program to hand out the cars? The article says they're being donated by private charities. Why aren't the charities just handing the cars out themselves? I had not thought of it that way. But it is a good point. I guess only those in government know who is really needy. I also think that if you cant afford a car then maybe you should take it on yourself to move to town where pulic transperation is available. Let along having your insurance, title, tax and registration paid for"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 #33 May 7, 2009 Quote>I ask again, how far is far enough? Setting up a program to get donated cars to people who need them is not "too far." It is far enough. Giving them free Lamborghinis paid for by taxpayers is too far. At least this is an answer, mordant as it is, it is still an answer"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
TomAiello 26 #34 May 7, 2009 Honestly, I think the main issue here is why the government has taken it upon themselves to take over a private charity that appears perfectly capable of doing this by itself. Is our government now so paranoid of private action that they've moved on from taking over banks and auto companies to taking over charities?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #35 May 7, 2009 Are you sure the government "took over" the charity? It sounds to me more like the government and charity partnered together to try to make the charity's work more effective. On its face I see nothing wrong with that, but the actual implementation might not always be proper. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #36 May 7, 2009 I'm not sure of anything aside from the articles statement that the cars themselves are provided by private charities. That makes me wonder why the charities aren't the one's deciding who to give them to. If this whole government program went away tomorrow, isn't it likely that the charities would take up the slack to keep things going?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #37 May 7, 2009 QuoteI'm not sure of anything aside from the articles statement that the cars themselves are provided by private charities. That makes me wonder why the charities aren't the one's deciding who to give them to. If the charities privately gave the cars to Welfare Recipients Mary, Linda, and Bob, do you think all three would take advantage of the opportunity to go to work? And use a sizeable portion of their limited income to maintain insurance? This seems to me to be a way to target needy recipients in a manner that effects positive change. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #38 May 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteI'm not sure of anything aside from the articles statement that the cars themselves are provided by private charities. That makes me wonder why the charities aren't the one's deciding who to give them to. If the charities privately gave the cars to Welfare Recipients Mary, Linda, and Bob, do you think all three would take advantage of the opportunity to go to work? And use a sizeable portion of their limited income to maintain insurance? They would if the charities only loaned them the cars, under the condition that they kept insurance and used the cars to get to work, and with the understanding that once they got back on their feet they'd return the cars, so it could be loaned to someone else who needed it.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
namgrunt 0 #39 May 8, 2009 Hummmmsounds like more CHANGE WE CAN COUNT ONlets take away cars from those evil folks that have more than one car and use them 59 YEARS,OVERWEIGHT,BALDIND,X-GRUNT LAST MIL. JUMP VIET-NAM(QUAN-TRI) www.dzmemories.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
redlegphi 0 #40 May 8, 2009 Quote Progressives, thats what they like to be called now, are always charitable with money from others, but never their own. I'd be curious to see if you have any data on rates of charitable donation comparing progressives to conservatives. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
redlegphi 0 #41 May 8, 2009 QuoteI'm not sure of anything aside from the articles statement that the cars themselves are provided by private charities. That makes me wonder why the charities aren't the one's deciding who to give them to. If this whole government program went away tomorrow, isn't it likely that the charities would take up the slack to keep things going? Assuming they have the cash reserves to take up the slack, they might. I suspect, though, that they don't have those reserves, which is why they're working with the government. It's not like the government isn't benefiting from this as well. They're getting somebody off of the welfare dole and getting them to work, creating a potential future source of tax dollars and adding another consumer family to the economy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #42 May 9, 2009 QuoteConservatives Party Like It's 1992: "The Government Is Giving All Your Money to Welfare Recipients!" Uh oh! Looks like the government is sneakily spending your hard-earned cash to shower welfare moms with Cadillacs again! One of the GOP’s all-time favorite talking points — the racist, classist (and non-existent in real life) specter of welfare recipients living large on the government’s dime — appears to be making a comeback, this time inspired by a Massachusetts car ownership program for welfare recipients. A Fox Nation headline proclaims in outrage: “What?? Free Wheels for Welfare Recipients!” Clicking through to the actual article, or course, reveals that the program’s beneficiaries are hardly awash in luxury. And, despite the fact that the article itself is laughingly biased — one brief quote by an advocate of the program, sandwiched between three quotes by Republicans bloviating about government waste — it’s pretty easy to figure out that the program is not exactly a harbinger of socialism. The state does not pay for the cars, but rather “... the car’s insurance, inspection, excise tax, title, registration, repairs and a AAA membership.” (The cars are supplied by non-profits.) Applicants have to show that they are either employed, or are actively looking for work. In order to get the cars, they have to prove that it is impossible for them to reach work using public transportation. Only families with children are eligible. And on and on. You may have already surmised much of this, because you’re not an idiot. But that’s not something that can be said for Fox Nation readers. The comments that follow the headline are as racist, classist, and generally fucked up as one would expect. I feel gross re-posting samples, but it’s probably important to do so in order to get a true sense of the chilling vitriol and idiocy on display. http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/139934/conservatives_party_like_it%27s_1992%3A_%22the_government_is_giving_all_your_money_to_welfare_recipients%21%22/#morestay 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
DrewEckhardt 0 #43 May 9, 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 Yup. I don't pay $1200 a year to insure and register my German sports sedan, although since it's over a decade old and I had corrosion from running nearly straight water as coolant due to a leak I've averaged $1300 a year on maintainence over the last three years for a $2500 annual total. $6000 a year is ludicrous even when they're throwing in an AAA membership. Given the obscene cost of living in major metropolitan areas, affordable accomodations in the surrounding sprawl, and the low density there making public transportation non-viable low wage workers need cars. It's only a shame that the government is spending $6000 on the effort. Especially since the capital isnt coming out of their pockets and they're big enough to self-insure. The shame isn't former wellfare recipients having the government pay for cars to get them to work; it's the government more than doubling what they should be spending. If I lived there I'd be curious about who was _really_ benefitting from the arrangement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #44 May 9, 2009 I love this site you link to most of the time. It is fucking funny! "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 #45 May 9, 2009 Quote Quote this is nutshttp://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/2009_05_07_Free_cars_for_poor_fuel_road_rage/srvc=home&position=also Yup. I don't pay $1200 a year to insure and register my German sports sedan, although since it's over a decade old and I had corrosion from running nearly straight water as coolant due to a leak I've averaged $1300 a year on maintainence over the last three years for a $2500 annual total. $6000 a year is ludicrous even when they're throwing in an AAA membership. Given the obscene cost of living in major metropolitan areas, affordable accomodations in the surrounding sprawl, and the low density there making public transportation non-viable low wage workers need cars. It's only a shame that the government is spending $6000 on the effort. Especially since the capital isnt coming out of their pockets and they're big enough to self-insure. The shame isn't former wellfare recipients having the government pay for cars to get them to work; it's the government more than doubling what they should be spending. If I lived there I'd be curious about who was _really_ benefitting from the arrangement. But the liberals care. Results of all these goodly intended programs is not the point. It is the fact that they care. Intention over result. It is quite a circle they sit in most of the time"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
