BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
BIMMERPOST Universal Forums Off-Topic Discussions Board Politics/Religion Hillary or Bernie?

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      06-01-2016, 09:45 AM   #507
fecurtis
Banned
United_States
3169
Rep
6,302
Posts

Drives: 2014 BMW 335i M-Sport
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Arlington, VA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fundguy1 View Post
One of the worst things obama did was repeal Clinton law that said you had to work to get welfare. This alone put tons of people on the sidelines making them have no skills, experience, unhirable, and unable to rise from job to job to better themselves and their families.
What law was that?

Only reason I ask is that it doesn't make much sense to me. What forms of welfare exactly? It'd be...counter-intuitive to need to be working to qualify for unemployment insurance. And stuff like EITC (while not theoretically welfare) requires you to be working...hence the earned income portion of it.
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2016, 09:56 AM   #508
other_evolved
Lieutenant Colonel
1583
Rep
1,689
Posts

Drives: 2015 Chevrolet SS
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Saint Louis

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fundguy1 View Post
One of the worst things obama did was repeal Clinton law that said you had to work to get welfare. This alone put tons of people on the sidelines making them have no skills, experience, unhirable, and unable to rise from job to job to better themselves and their families.
Oh, brother. I had a long response typed out, with sources, and then I deleted it because you won't read it, and will accuse me of being _____ because it does not fit within your narrow world view. I'll just say this.....you are incorrect in asserting that Obama "removed the work to get welfare" language.
__________________
Present
2015 Chevrolet SS
2014 Jeep Cherokee Trailhawk V6
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2016, 10:25 AM   #509
SumBMWGuy
Major
1151
Rep
1,474
Posts

Drives: A German Car
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
After he protested the federal government he changed his party affiliation. He also supported his followers using the threat of violence to get their way. Fundy dared someone to point out a Republican who was protesting violently, I gave him an example. He has yet to respond.

I could also bring up Bundy's kid who "protested" in Oregon.

The Republicans are not some Ghandi like group that only protests peacefully.
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2016, 10:37 AM   #510
Fundguy1
Major General
Fundguy1's Avatar
1992
Rep
8,339
Posts

Drives: 335 e93
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Orlando, fl

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by fecurtis View Post
What law was that?

Only reason I ask is that it doesn't make much sense to me. What forms of welfare exactly? It'd be...counter-intuitive to need to be working to qualify for unemployment insurance. And stuff like EITC (while not theoretically welfare) requires you to be working...hence the earned income portion of it.
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/238501-obama-kills-welfare-reform
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2016, 10:38 AM   #511
Fundguy1
Major General
Fundguy1's Avatar
1992
Rep
8,339
Posts

Drives: 335 e93
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Orlando, fl

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by fecurtis View Post
What law was that?

Only reason I ask is that it doesn't make much sense to me. What forms of welfare exactly? It'd be...counter-intuitive to need to be working to qualify for unemployment insurance. And stuff like EITC (while not theoretically welfare) requires you to be working...hence the earned income portion of it.
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/238501-obama-kills-welfare-reform
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/day-8-obama-edict-repealed-1996-welfare-reforms-work-requirement/article/2536341
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2016, 11:25 AM   #512
fecurtis
Banned
United_States
3169
Rep
6,302
Posts

Drives: 2014 BMW 335i M-Sport
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Arlington, VA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fundguy1 View Post
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/238501-obama-kills-welfare-reform
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/da...rticle/2536341
Quote:
Under the policy, states must meet a whole new set of federal requirements in order to obtain and keep a waiver. Plus, states have an incentive to get people off welfare and into jobs, since that would free TANF funds for other services for low-income families.

“I think — and now remember I’m a Republican — that the ad is very misleading,” Haskins said.

We’ll go into more detail about the new policy later, but first let’s review how we got here — beginning with “The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996” that created the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.

The welfare overhaul was designed to help move unemployed Americans from welfare to work. The federal government strengthened work requirements on families receiving cash assistance, and for the first time imposed lifetime limits (generally up to five years). After two years on TANF, the parent in the household must be engaged in “work activities.”

The law also generally requires states to document that 50 percent of all families receiving cash assistance are participating in such work activities. But work-participation rates peaked at 38 percent in 1999 and started to decline — prompting Congress to attempt to strengthen the rules when it reauthorized TANF as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

Still, the work-participation rates remained low. The most recent data available show the rate was 29.4 percent in fiscal year 2009. Many states rely on options in the current law that allow them to be in compliance with requirements even though their rates are below 50 percent.

The new work-participation rules did have one impact on states: They were time-consuming to comply with and counterproductive to helping people find jobs, as documented by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office in a 2010 report. GAO’s welfare experts were among those questioning the value of the work-participation rates as a measure of success.

“The emphasis on work participation rates as a measure of program performance has helped change the culture of state welfare programs to focus on moving families into employment, but weaknesses in the measure undercut its effectiveness,” Kay E. Brown, the GAO’s director of Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues, testified before a Senate committee on June 5. “Are the work participation rates providing the right incentives to states to engage parents, including those difficult to serve, and help them achieve self-sufficiency?”

It was against this backdrop that the Obama administration acted.
On Feb. 28, 2011, the president broadly directed his administration to work with state, local and tribal officials to find ways to provide more flexibility in complying with federal regulations. As a result, the Administration for Children and Families within the Department of Health and Human Services solicited recommendations from state officials on how to improve its programs.

One of the responses ACF received was from Kristen Cox, executive director of the Utah Department of Workforce Services. “Utah is especially interested in the development of a waiver authority in the TANF grant,” the Aug. 1, 2011, letter said.

The Utah letter said the federal work-participation rules focused too much on process and not enough on outcome. “The lack of focus on outcomes makes the program less about the need to help parents find and retain work and more about the need to assure that parents are active in prescribed [work] activities,” the letter said.

Utah expressly said it would not use a federal waiver to avoid work requirements. “The expectation to participate fully in specific [work] activities leading to employment is not the issue,” the letter stated. Instead, Utah was seeking the flexibility to overcome the “narrow definitions of what counts [toward work participation] and the burdensome documentation and verification process.”

The Obama administration cited the Utah letter when it announced its new policy on July 12. The policy provides exactly the kind of flexibility Utah was seeking.

Under the new policy, states may receive a waiver if they submit plans for a “demonstration project” (not to exceed five years) that provides a “more efficient or effective means to promote employment.” States also must submit an “evaluation plan” that includes a “set of performance measures that states will track to monitor ongoing performance and outcomes.” States also must set up “interim performance targets” and, if states fail to meet those, they will be “required to develop improvement plans.”
“Repeated failure to meet performance benchmarks may lead to the termination of the waiver demonstration pilot,” the rules state.

Is Obama “dropping work requirements,” as Romney’s ad claims? No. He is allowing states to change the work requirements, but he is not dropping them. The changes could be made to a variety of federal requirements, including “definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates.”

A lot will depend on what a state proposes and how it is implemented. There is nothing inherent in the waivers that guts work requirements.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/doe...elfare-reform/
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2016, 11:29 AM   #513
other_evolved
Lieutenant Colonel
1583
Rep
1,689
Posts

Drives: 2015 Chevrolet SS
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Saint Louis

iTrader: (0)

^^^Also of note, this change was at the request and urging of some Republican governors. It was essentially letting the states decide how best to use run their federally funded welfare programs within set procedures. However, I suppose "Obama dropped the work requirement" makes for an easier, more effective, sound byte.
__________________
Present
2015 Chevrolet SS
2014 Jeep Cherokee Trailhawk V6
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2016, 11:30 AM   #514
John Tanglewood
Porn Star
John Tanglewood's Avatar
Jamaica
1112
Rep
3,244
Posts

Drives: '15 yaaaas
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Stamford, CT

iTrader: (12)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fundguy1 View Post
Show me a video of a Republican rioter. Show me the republicans that refused to prosecute the rioters in Baltimore. Show me a Republican bussed in and paid to mess up a Bernie or hillary riot.
Why does it always have to be Republicans vs Democrats, Liberals vs Conservatives?

Nobody likes to be labeled!
__________________
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2016, 11:48 AM   #515
bbbbmw
Major General
2387
Rep
6,083
Posts

Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

Well since you asked....

Ann Coulter wrote a book: "Demonic: How The Liberal Mob is endangering America" - that discusses this exact topic. Some may not like Coulter, but her books are all NYT's best sellers, and well-researched and well-written. If you're interested in this topic, it's a good read.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/03073...=1&pc_redir=T1

"Liberal Enemies: €œInstead of €'counterrevolutionaries,’ liberals' opponents are called "haters,"€™ "those who seek to divide us,"€™ "tea baggers,"€™ and "€˜right-wing hate groups."€™ Meanwhile, conservatives call liberals "€˜liberals," and that makes them testy."


From Wikipedia:

"the left's image-based arguments, combined with their frequent adoption of utterly contradictory positions, it turns out, are classic earmarks of mob mentality. Then, of course, there are the frequent explosions of violence from the left, when mob psychology leads to something more frightening than confusing, and becomes an actual, literal mob."

Her publisher's book description says:

"Democrats have a history that consists of pandering to mobs, time and again, while Republicans, heirs to the American Revolution, have regularly stood for peaceable order. Hoping to muddy this horrifying truth, liberals slanderously accuse conservatives of their own crimes—assassination plots, conspiracy theorizing, political violence, embrace of the Ku Klux Klan. Coulter shows that the truth is the opposite: Political violence—mob violence—is always a Democratic affair."

"In a 2012 column noting the release in paperback, Coulter stated that much of her book is based on the work of French sociologist and social psychologist Gustave Le Bon."
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2016, 02:04 PM   #516
Fundguy1
Major General
Fundguy1's Avatar
1992
Rep
8,339
Posts

Drives: 335 e93
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Orlando, fl

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Tanglewood View Post
Why does it always have to be Republicans vs Democrats, Liberals vs Conservatives?

Nobody likes to be labeled!
Agreed. I'm socially more liberal on many issues, but conservative on the economy as I'm a financial guy for 20 yrs and understand it and I'm a hawks hawk.
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2016, 02:53 PM   #517
bbbbmw
Major General
2387
Rep
6,083
Posts

Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fundguy1
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Tanglewood View Post
Why does it always have to be Republicans vs Democrats, Liberals vs Conservatives?

Nobody likes to be labeled!
Agreed. I'm socially more liberal on many issues, but conservative on the economy as I'm a financial guy for 20 yrs and understand it and I'm a hawks hawk.
I don't understand the "socially liberal/fiscally conservative " thing. From what I see, most of the socially liberal ideas and positions impact the fiscally conservative:

- sleep with whomever or whatever you want, until you get AIDS or an STD and then expect someone else to pay for your cure

- have kids out of wedlock, and then create a permanent underclass of single parents, and a second generation of welfare dependency

- do drugs and become schizophrenic, and then expect society to pay for your care

"Liberal" typically equates with lesser responsibility - yet the responsibility will be borne by someone - whether the inside all or someone else/society. Am I misunderstanding this position?
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2016, 03:07 PM   #518
fecurtis
Banned
United_States
3169
Rep
6,302
Posts

Drives: 2014 BMW 335i M-Sport
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Arlington, VA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
I don't understand the "socially liberal/fiscally conservative " thing. From what I see, most of the socially liberal ideas and positions impact the fiscally conservative:

- sleep with whomever or whatever you want, until you get AIDS or an STD and then expect someone else to pay for your cure
Yes, if only you could practice some form of sex...safely? Maybe we could call it safe sex.

Quote:
- have kids out of wedlock, and then create a permanent underclass of single parents, and a second generation of welfare dependency
Not sure what form of social liberal thinks it's cool for single people to start popping out kids. That's pretty much universally seen has a poor idea both for yourself financially and for the well-being of the child. There's a difference between a social liberal and someone who's just flat out irresponsible.

Quote:
- do drugs and become schizophrenic, and then expect society to pay for your care
We should ban alcohol and smoking too. Wait, I thought it was a liberal thing to want to ban shit to appease the lowest common denominator. From a cost perspective, you're assuming its free or inexpense to tie up jails and the court system over these ridiculous pot related offenses. Plus if you legalize it, you can tax it...exception being DC.

Quote:
"Liberal" typically equates with lesser responsibility - yet the responsibility will be borne by someone - whether the inside all or someone else/society. Am I misunderstanding this position?
No it doesn't.
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2016, 05:00 PM   #519
Doc Oc
Captain Fatbelly
Doc Oc's Avatar
United_States
1379
Rep
2,026
Posts

Drives: C63 amg
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Upyourbuttandtotheleft

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by other_evolved View Post
^^^Also of note, this change was at the request and urging of some Republican governors. It was essentially letting the states decide how best to use run their federally funded welfare programs within set procedures. However, I suppose "Obama dropped the work requirement" makes for an easier, more effective, sound byte.
You'd think Fundy would be all for putting the power back in state hands. He's always talking about it. What's up with that bud?
__________________
2013 c63 Amg coupe p31, v7 tune, plm headers, armytrix downpipes, EflexFuel

2008 dct coupe, evolve engine/dct tune, ttp, ms intake, megan exhaust, cf ds. Sold.
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2016, 05:04 PM   #520
Doc Oc
Captain Fatbelly
Doc Oc's Avatar
United_States
1379
Rep
2,026
Posts

Drives: C63 amg
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Upyourbuttandtotheleft

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
I don't understand the "socially liberal/fiscally conservative " thing. From what I see, most of the socially liberal ideas and positions impact the fiscally conservative:

- sleep with whomever or whatever you want, until you get AIDS or an STD and then expect someone else to pay for your cure

- have kids out of wedlock, and then create a permanent underclass of single parents, and a second generation of welfare dependency

- do drugs and become schizophrenic, and then expect society to pay for your care

"Liberal" typically equates with lesser responsibility - yet the responsibility will be borne by someone - whether the inside all or someone else/society. Am I misunderstanding this position?
At risk of pissing you off I'd say you don't understand it because, like most republicans, your politics are highly intertwined with your religion, whereas Fundy's are not. I also identify as a socially liberal/fiscally conservative independent.

Look up the real definition of the word liberal btw.
__________________
2013 c63 Amg coupe p31, v7 tune, plm headers, armytrix downpipes, EflexFuel

2008 dct coupe, evolve engine/dct tune, ttp, ms intake, megan exhaust, cf ds. Sold.
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2016, 05:35 PM   #521
bbbbmw
Major General
2387
Rep
6,083
Posts

Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Oc
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
I don't understand the "socially liberal/fiscally conservative " thing. From what I see, most of the socially liberal ideas and positions impact the fiscally conservative:

- sleep with whomever or whatever you want, until you get AIDS or an STD and then expect someone else to pay for your cure

- have kids out of wedlock, and then create a permanent underclass of single parents, and a second generation of welfare dependency

- do drugs and become schizophrenic, and then expect society to pay for your care

"Liberal" typically equates with lesser responsibility - yet the responsibility will be borne by someone - whether the inside all or someone else/society. Am I misunderstanding this position?
At risk of pissing you off I'd say you don't understand it because, like most republicans, your politics are highly intertwined with your religion, whereas Fundy's are not. I also identify as a socially liberal/fiscally conservative independent.

Look up the real definition of the word liberal btw.
No offense taken - perhaps you are correct. But I still honestly don't understand socially liberal/fiscally conservative- it seems like social liberals de facto expect someone else to ultimately foot the bill. How would you see it?

It's probably not that different - What the preachers say in one generation, the doctors say in the next...
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2016, 06:28 PM   #522
Doc Oc
Captain Fatbelly
Doc Oc's Avatar
United_States
1379
Rep
2,026
Posts

Drives: C63 amg
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Upyourbuttandtotheleft

iTrader: (0)

You see socially liberal differently than I do. I don't see it connected to banging lots of people, pumping out welfare brats, and getting high all the time. That's actually kind of offensive. I say I'm socially liberal because I'm pro choice, gay marriage, legalization, green energy, environment, regulations, etc. Look at how much we spend to jail people who like to get high. You don't want to pay for their treatment, I don't want to pay to jail them, especially when they often come out more fucked up than when they went in. Who's right? Don't know but I don't see the things that I listed as being especially costly...in fact there is a ton of money to be made in green (energy and herb!)

Last edited by Doc Oc; 06-01-2016 at 11:06 PM..
Appreciate 0
      06-02-2016, 07:51 AM   #523
gonzo
Lieutenant General
gonzo's Avatar
United_States
8667
Rep
13,864
Posts

Drives: as many as possible
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: TeXXXas

iTrader: (0)

Such a natural when the telepromter goes dark.




Will the Obama’s and Clinton's double date the premier?

__________________
Crazy Diamond
Appreciate 0
      06-02-2016, 08:23 AM   #524
other_evolved
Lieutenant Colonel
1583
Rep
1,689
Posts

Drives: 2015 Chevrolet SS
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Saint Louis

iTrader: (0)

Will Dinesh do a Trumps America propo?
__________________
Present
2015 Chevrolet SS
2014 Jeep Cherokee Trailhawk V6
Appreciate 0
      06-02-2016, 08:34 AM   #525
gonzo
Lieutenant General
gonzo's Avatar
United_States
8667
Rep
13,864
Posts

Drives: as many as possible
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: TeXXXas

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by other_evolved View Post
Will Dinesh do a Trumps America propo?
It would be amusing if someone did. Movie length material could be an issue. Who'd want an hour and a half of "I'm the man?"

Ol' Dinesh put some buckaroo's into that. Set and location changes not to mention actors and wardrobe looks fairly expensive. Maybe Trump backed it.
__________________
Crazy Diamond
Appreciate 0
      06-03-2016, 12:08 AM   #526
bbbbmw
Major General
2387
Rep
6,083
Posts

Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Oc
You see socially liberal differently than I do. I don't see it connected to banging lots of people, pumping out welfare brats, and getting high all the time. That's actually kind of offensive. I say I'm socially liberal because I'm pro choice, gay marriage, legalization, green energy, environment, regulations, etc. Look at how much we spend to jail people who like to get high. You don't want to pay for their treatment, I don't want to pay to jail them, especially when they often come out more fucked up than when they went in. Who's right? Don't know but I don't see the things that I listed as being especially costly...in fact there is a ton of money to be made in green (energy and herb!)
There are substantial costs paid by taxpayers (who don't have a say in the matter):

- pro-choice - taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood, abortions in the military, etc.

- gay marriage - no apparent taxpayer costs

- legalization - I assume you mean of drugs? There are huge social costs here beyond incarceration mental health issues are off the charts, as are abuse, neglect, theft, murder, and many others.

- green energy - is largely subsidized by taxpayers. It's why you get a $7500 rebate on a Tesla, tax credits for solar panels, and other corporate welfare/subsidies for the rich

- environment - there are huge costs borne by the taxpayers - e.g. Ethanol/corn subsidies, EPA regulation costs, killing coal, etc.

- paying for drug treatment isn't a bad idea, but most drug criminals aren't in jail for possession - it's rarely prosecuted by itself, and even more rarely results in jail time. The ones prosecuted are dealing, or commit other crimes in conjunction with possession.

For these examples, I still think social liberal/fiscal conservative is an oxymoron.
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
Appreciate 0
      06-03-2016, 08:10 AM   #527
Doc Oc
Captain Fatbelly
Doc Oc's Avatar
United_States
1379
Rep
2,026
Posts

Drives: C63 amg
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Upyourbuttandtotheleft

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
There are substantial costs paid by taxpayers (who don't have a say in the matter):

- pro-choice - taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood, abortions in the military, etc.

- gay marriage - no apparent taxpayer costs

- legalization - I assume you mean of drugs? There are huge social costs here beyond incarceration mental health issues are off the charts, as are abuse, neglect, theft, murder, and many others.

- green energy - is largely subsidized by taxpayers. It's why you get a $7500 rebate on a Tesla, tax credits for solar panels, and other corporate welfare/subsidies for the rich

- environment - there are huge costs borne by the taxpayers - e.g. Ethanol/corn subsidies, EPA regulation costs, killing coal, etc.

- paying for drug treatment isn't a bad idea, but most drug criminals aren't in jail for possession - it's rarely prosecuted by itself, and even more rarely results in jail time. The ones prosecuted are dealing, or commit other crimes in conjunction with possession.

For these examples, I still think social liberal/fiscal conservative is an oxymoron.
It's ironic that you see being pro-choice as an expensive deal.....I'd argue that pro-life is just as costly, if not more. More unwanted babies adding to the welfare generation. Someone has to raise those babies, and it won't be the moms. I also don't believe legalizing weed would create more addicts. Would you start getting high just because it's legal? Cigarettes are legal and we've got fewer smokers than ever. in fact, having access to pot might help alleviate the rampant alcoholism that plagues this country. It's not ideal but pot is much less dangerous to the user and those around them than alcohol. Environment....regulations are good. Might be costly but it's the most important issue on the table. We should kill coal, no question. There's plenty more opportunity to make money in solar than the dead end that is coal. Getting on the solar bandwagon could create manufacturing jobs, jobs to maintain the panels, jobs to install, home upfits, etc. Seems the ceiling is much higher than it is with coal.
__________________
2013 c63 Amg coupe p31, v7 tune, plm headers, armytrix downpipes, EflexFuel

2008 dct coupe, evolve engine/dct tune, ttp, ms intake, megan exhaust, cf ds. Sold.

Last edited by Doc Oc; 06-03-2016 at 11:21 AM..
Appreciate 0
      06-03-2016, 09:29 AM   #528
wdb
dances with roads
wdb's Avatar
United_States
2113
Rep
2,904
Posts

Drives: '07 Z4MC, '07 E93 328i
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: the perimeter

iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
- green energy - is largely subsidized by taxpayers. It's why you get a $7500 rebate on a Tesla, tax credits for solar panels, and other corporate welfare/subsidies for the rich
I guess you're aware of the extension to those subsidies passed in late 2015 by the Republican controlled Congress.
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:48 PM.




bmw
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST