6
   

Free cars for poor fuel road rage

Forums: Politics, Deval-Patrick, American-Politics, U S-Politics, Us-Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 May, 2009 02:46 pm
@Linkat,
Linkat wrote:

I know cars are expensive - but most of these people would own cars any way. Unless you live right in the city, you would need to drive to go to the grocery store, etc to get anything. The only people I know who do not own a car whether they use public transportation or not for work are those that live right in Boston or maybe in the towns surrounding it - that are very "city-like". And the rents and prices of homes/condos/apartments are significantly higher than living where you would need a car so there is a "wash".


It's not a wash, though. There are significant health and life benefits to not owning a car. I don't want one and am glad I don't own one.

I am a 'city guy,' as you would say; and I maintain great health by walking and bicycling everywhere, which lowers my health care bills. I produce zero emissions when I travel. I have a more intimate connection with my neighborhood and community. I am closer to almost every single thing I could possibly want to do than I would be if I had a car and lived farther away. I don't waste time sitting in traffic, which is unhealthy both mentally and physically. While I pay higher rent than I would if I lived elsewhere, the life benefits of rejecting automobiles as are enormous and should not be discounted.

Quote:
The $12k is not realistic. For most there is a higher price - but it is not near what the stats say. This is simply propaganda for public transportation - especially since the prices are most likely going up again soon.


I agree that 12k seems too high a yearly cost for automobiles vs. public transit. But I would be willing to bet that it is no more than 25 to 33% higher than the actual amount.

Cycloptichorn
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 May, 2009 02:48 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Wash financially is all I'm talking about.
0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 06:42 am
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
Woiyo9 wrote:


Get your ******* head out of your ass .


No, you get your head out of your ass! (pretty snappy comeback, eh? I learned that from the Waterboy)

Woiyo9 wrote:

There are families in this country who are now 2nd and 3rd generation welfare recipients. Lazy is hard to break (so is stupid).


I don't doubt it. But then that has very little to do with the car program in Massachusetts.


It has EVERYTHING to do with moving able bodied citizens off the welfare roll. This is just another incentive to stay unemployed.
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 07:07 am
@Woiyo9,
Actually after reading the details of how this program works it only costs MA the amount of the insurance, AAA, taxes, maintenance if the person is not on welfare and working. If they lose their job, MA will not pay anything. Granted they get to keep the car, but the charity donates the car, not MA.

This of course is assuming MA keeps track to make sure the individual is sending proof of employment as they are supposed to and follows up and takes the benefits away if they are not working.
Linkat
 
  2  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 07:07 am
@Linkat,
So in theory this program should encourage employment. If they actually work the program as it is intended, this is probably one of better programs Deval has (and granted he doesn't have a whole lot).
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 07:15 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

It's not a wash, though. There are significant health and life benefits to not owning a car. I don't want one and am glad I don't own one.

I am a 'city guy,' as you would say; and I maintain great health by walking and bicycling everywhere, which lowers my health care bills. I produce zero emissions when I travel. I have a more intimate connection with my neighborhood and community. I am closer to almost every single thing I could possibly want to do than I would be if I had a car and lived farther away. I don't waste time sitting in traffic, which is unhealthy both mentally and physically. While I pay higher rent than I would if I lived elsewhere, the life benefits of rejecting automobiles as are enormous and should not be discounted.

Cycloptichorn


Possibly, one can add an "existential" benefit, since I have heard one's identity in some parts of the country is reflected in the type of car one owns.

One downside to not having a car is that when one has children, and they need to be taken here or there, one might then have to pay for car services, in lieu of not having a car. As children get older, parents not having a car can be a source of embarassment for a peer conscious child.

Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 07:19 am
@Foofie,
In general, living in the city where you do not need a car, is also not ideal for people with children.

It is just a different culture. Single, married couple no children - living in the city, no car is awesome. You walk out the door and everything is right there. You can party your heart out and no worries about driving - you walk home. With kids, like you said there are more committments, a yard is nice, a neighborhood where the kids can play with others, etc.

Just a different lifestyle. I've lived both and they are both good - just different.
0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 07:29 am
@Linkat,
You forgot the cost of repairing the car and getting it ready for sale.

When was the first time, a State Welfare Program ran the way it was "intended" to?

Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 07:40 am
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:


When was the first time, a State Welfare Program ran the way it was "intended" to?



If the free car is going to someone with children, then the car can also be thought of as addressing the welfare of a child. I would not begrudge a car to a parent. And, therefore, those without children might then have to get a free car too. If one does not like having one's tax dollar going for social programs, then one should note that many European countries give more of one's tax dollar to social programs.
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 08:06 am
@Woiyo9,
I agree with it quite possibly not working as intended - we've seen that about a zillion times.

But the cost of repair and getting it ready to be driveable is paid by the charity.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 08:06 am
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:
It has EVERYTHING to do with moving able bodied citizens off the welfare roll. This is just another incentive to stay unemployed.

Do you even read the stories that you post on these threads? Here's what it said:
Quote:

Applicants for cars must have a job or prove they could get one if they had the car in order to qualify. Once they have the wheels, they must send DTA their pay stubs to prove they are employed.

These people don't have an incentive to stay unemployed. THEY'RE ALREADY EMPLOYED, and they must remain employed in order to continue participating in the program.
Woiyo9
 
  0  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 10:37 am
@joefromchicago,
Hey Stupid

What does "OR PROVE THEY CAN GET ONE IF THEY HAD A CAR" mean?

If they already HAVE a car, what the **** are the taxpayers funding another one for?

What is wrong with you liberals? You think you have a right to my property to get these lazy bastards vote for the democrats?
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 11:46 am
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

What does "OR PROVE THEY CAN GET ONE IF THEY HAD A CAR" mean?

If I had to guess I'd say it's a job offer contingent upon reliable transportation.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 11:46 am
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

Hey Stupid

What does "OR PROVE THEY CAN GET ONE IF THEY HAD A CAR" mean?

If you have to ask, you are too dumb to understand anyway (note the correct spelling of "too").

Woiyo9 wrote:
If they already HAVE a car, what the **** are the taxpayers funding another one for?

Because they DON'T already have a car. Really, how is it possible that you're able to type on a computer when you lack opposable thumbs?

Woiyo9 wrote:
What is wrong with you liberals? You think you have a right to my property to get these lazy bastards vote for the democrats?

Don't worry. Most of them can't get to the polling place because they don't have cars.
Woiyo9
 
  0  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 12:37 pm
@joefromchicago,
You are hopelessly stupid.

If they HAVE a job, why do they need taxpayers to get them one for free?

How does anyone know they do not already have a car?

Give it up monkey man. This is a loser topic in a loser State of Mass with another empty suit Governor.

Maybe you dummies in Illinios can use another moron in your State house.
Linkat
 
  2  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 01:06 pm
@Woiyo9,
What I read from this is that they prove they can get a job (not a car) if they had a car. Which I assume, means they show they have applied for a job, but they can get to by public transportation or they need the car for work - like a delivery job.
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 01:10 pm
@Woiyo9,
I would imagine it is easy to find out if one owns a car (unless of course it is not registered which if they get stopped they are in trouble) - the DMV keeps records of who has a registered vehicle.

I don't understand if they have a job - the premise is they wouldn't actually have the job as they don't have the transportation to get there or to use as part of their job requirement.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 06:45 pm
@Linkat,
Linkat wrote:

I would imagine it is easy to find out if one owns a car (unless of course it is not registered which if they get stopped they are in trouble) - the DMV keeps records of who has a registered vehicle.

I don't understand if they have a job - the premise is they wouldn't actually have the job as they don't have the transportation to get there or to use as part of their job requirement.


It may be a wash. If an American car is bought, and given away, or if the same cost of the car is needed to give an additional stimulus to the American car companies, what is the difference? At least, if the American car is bought, and given away, it is helping the American car companies directly. Either way, it comes out of tax dollars. Tax dollars are always spent. They do not go into a piggy bank. And, by the way, we citizens do not have a direct voice as to how the tax dollars are spent.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 May, 2009 09:14 am
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

You are hopelessly stupid.

If they HAVE a job, why do they need taxpayers to get them one for free?

You are really testing the limits of dumb here.

Just because somebody has a job doesn't mean they can afford a car. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Woiyo9 wrote:
How does anyone know they do not already have a car?

The state has a record of everyone who owns a car. Didn't you know that?

Woiyo9 wrote:
Maybe you dummies in Illinios can use another moron in your State house.

Illinois has quite enough as it is without importing them from other states.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND - Discussion by Foxfyre
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona
What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Free cars for poor fuel road rage
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 05:45:26
▲ ▼