Page 26 of 26 FirstFirst ... 16242526
Results 251 to 253 of 253

Thread: New Mexico to end food stamp supplement

  1. #251
    User
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    10-14-13 @ 10:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    128

    Re: New Mexico to end food stamp supplement

    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Welfare should be designed to get those that are capable of working off of welfare, not to create a life long dependency on it. If we were to do something along those lines, we wouldn't need to have this discussion, because the money would be there to give to those that can't work and support themselves.

    The problem I have with most liberals is they never want to fix anything, their idea of fixing it is to spend more, tax the wealthy …. and blame Bush, ….. take away those 3 things and they have little or nothing to say.
    If you have a brilliant idea of how to make welfare more progressive and yet not cost alot of money to jumpstart, go and serve your country instead of waiting for someone else to step up.

  2. #252
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    03-23-13 @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,265

    Re: New Mexico to end food stamp supplement

    Quote Originally Posted by Animus View Post
    If you have a brilliant idea of how to make welfare more progressive and yet not cost alot of money to jumpstart, go and serve your country instead of waiting for someone else to step up.
    You can't do anything if you don't put some money in to jump start any program the key is to show in realistic way where that money spent is going to give a better return ..

    Yes I do have an idea .. Welfare for the working capable .. should be a temporary entitlement.

    They get what they are getting now .. plus they are send to a trade school .. or any 2 year degree .. paid for .. child care if needed is supplied .. after the 2 year time period for school .. your benefits will continue (except for schooling) for one more year .. time enough to get a job . then they are reduced by 33 % for the next three years .. at the end of 6 years you're done with welfare

    I know most liberals won't agree to such a thing .. but to me if you feed someone .. house them, pay their bills .. send them to school, and take care of their kids, then continue for 4 years of reducing benefits .. you've done enough

    So yes for 3 years there would be more spent on welfare .. but anyone can see that 10 years from now .. we would be lowering the amount we spend on welfare in this country and by a considerable amount . . considering we spend roughly 500 billion a year (federal and state) it could be a good way to level off or even reduce this expense .. and see to it that it got to those that really needs it.

    Is it brilliant no .. it's very basic and simplistic as are most efficient things.

  3. #253
    Don't Mess With Texas
    mertex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Seen
    10-14-14 @ 03:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    2,382

    Re: New Mexico to end food stamp supplement

    Quote Originally Posted by Barbbtx View Post
    How do you feel about regulations that have killed thousands and thousands og people?
    What is og people? Old geezers?

    CAFE Standards Kill: Congress' Regulatory Solution to Foreign Oil Dependence Comes at a Steep Price
    Despite the new regulatory "reform," high gas prices have lawmakers in Washington debating, once again,8 whether to impose even steeper CAFE standards. For instance, Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) proposed burdensome across-the-board legislation to increase CAFE standards to 35 mpg on both light trucks and cars by model year 2017.9 Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) have also recently called for CAFE increases.10
    But such increases have unintended safety consequences for the safety of drivers and passengers. The reason is because carmakers build lighter and smaller cars that burn less fuel to comply with CAFE standards.11 The trade-off is these lighter, smaller cars fare much worse in violent crashes, resulting in greater rates of death and injury for occupants.
    An extensive 1999 USA Today analysis of crash data found that since CAFE went into effect in 1978, 46,000 people died in crashes they otherwise would have survived, had they been in bigger, heavier vehicles. This, according to a 1999 USA Today analysis of crash data since 1975, roughly figures to be 7,700 deaths for every mile per gallon gained in fuel economy standards.14
    [/QUOTE]

    Sounds to me the ones at fault here are the automobile manufacturers. Perhaps they shouldn't make the cars that burn less fuel so flimsy that they don't withstand crashes as well as heavier models. But, also, this is hard to prove, because we don't know the reasons for the crashes in these smaller vehicles - it could have been the drivers were texting - something that "Perry" thinks it is okay to do while driving. The idiot just vetoed the bill in Texas to ban texting while driving - now that is how smart Perry is.



    "I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them."
    --Adlai Stevenson, Politician





Page 26 of 26 FirstFirst ... 16242526

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •