legacycentral bbs

I agree completely. I thought when I put the housing part in there that it might be a bad idea. I guess what I'm thinking of is more like affordable housing rather than welfare housing but you can get that other ways, like pre-fabs.

Yeah, 'affordable' housing up here is what I have where the median price is over $400k and I was able to squeak in just under. You should see the holes I saw between 350 and 450k. I honestly have no idea how people with low paying jobs and kids survive. And the government daycare assistance for a family of 4 here is under $18k when $50k would be fair for survival. I don't know if $18k could support a family of four in Kentucky. But to bring it back around to topic - I think the government housing should only be built to high efficiency standards for long term savings at least.

Well, I can say that 50k is hard to earn here and most people consider 50k to be good money. I myself think it's ok money. Of course, I'm speaking of a one person income.

That's 18k combined. I don't know how a two-earner family working full time could make under 18k. I made 12k in high school at a grocery store. 50k jobs aren't easy to get here without experience/education, but 30k is.

evolutionmovement wrote:Except the low income housing system is partly retarded for the way it perpetuates peoples' need for being there. If you try to save money, they take it. If you get a better paying job, they charge more and even being in poverty won't get you a place since their maximum income goals are impossibly low, encouraging people not to work. It's great there's a place for people, but I think the system (all welfare systems, really) need to encourage saving and working. I'd rather more tax money go to support people for a few years rather than saving a little money each year, but supporting these people for their lives (and likely their children too). Which is another thing, they should discourage children and encourage education while under public assistance. I'd do it, but I'm too damn busy already to run the whole world.

+1, i agree totally

Splinter wrote:Id just like to point out here that cars cause less than 0.13% of greenhouse gasses.

Also, its been shown time and time again a catless subaru can pass emissions.

+1

and i learned on these forums that toyota now owns alot of subaru.



so i read up on toyota right here,
as long as car companies are working to undermine the gov't and lobbying against more "efficient" vehicles nothing big is going to happen, if they can make more money by not doing what they dont have to.

we have the technology to create efficiency but its not being implemented because of "costs" and because companies buy up patents that would ruin their own products, and their markets.

http://www.economist.com/business/displ ... d=10097827

says: "Even more disappointing for some of Toyota's American fans is its decision to team up with Detroit's “Big Three” in an effort to undermine a Senate energy bill that would force American carmakers to reach a not-too-demanding fleet average of 35mpg by 2020."

and to continue this...

not to slam on subaru but awhile back they classified their outback and legacy models as small trucks just so they could be able to sell in the us. i read it in a consumer reports in 2003.

and thats my rant
i think this is one of the best threads on the site, i just learned more about global warming in the past 1.5hrs of reading this than i have my whole school-year so far.
nice job!

The AAM and the AIAAM have dropped their fight. I guess they've seen the public perception. The new CAFE will be set to 35 fleet mpg for cars by 2020. However, they will still be getting their credits for Flexible Fuel vehicles. I doubt that will last - people are quickly realizing how stupid ethanol is as a fuel source. The Department of Agriculture's gift to the farmers at the expense of developing nations can go back into helping subsidize cheap feed for the douche bag industrial farms that process animals.

yep.
+1 again and again and again