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.
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
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