• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

California mulls Schwarzenegger's proposal to end welfare

glenn1

Lifer
That this is even being considered, is IMHO evidence that the state is finally starting to get serious about ways to reduce their spending. I have no doubt this will be a painful process, but unfortunately is a necessary one - no state program is sacred when you don't have the money to pay for it, including welfare.

Story link
 
That's fucking retarded. Welfare that encourages work is what we should be SUPPORTING, ending it is moronic. Even conservatives should support that kind of idea. If anything, this shows that the California government shouldn't be trusted to run a local hardware store, much less the biggest state economy in the country.
 
This is a huge problem for entitlement programs. People become dependent upon them, and when gov't cuts them because they can't afford them, it is very painful to those people. It is much better to see the light at the end of the tunnel and gradually cut these programs out before it comes to this kind of situation.
 
Originally posted by: bamacre
This is a huge problem for entitlement programs. People become dependent upon them, and when gov't cuts them because they can't afford them, it is very painful to those people. It is much better to see the light at the end of the tunnel and gradually cut these programs out before it comes to this kind of situation.

You mean like a welfare-to-work program? The exact type of program California is talking about cutting?

Edit: This is obviously a reply to the next post...good game FuseTalk...
 
Welfare does NOT encourage work.

In many cases work actually imposes a 100% tax on work. If you can get $3,000/month on welfare or get a entry level job paying minimum wage - $1,400/month - that is actually a 200% tax.
 
Originally posted by: bamacre
This is a huge problem for entitlement programs. People become dependent upon them, and when gov't cuts them because they can't afford them, it is very painful to those people. It is much better to see the light at the end of the tunnel and gradually cut these programs out before it comes to this kind of situation.

The huge problem with no entitlement programs is that people will kill you if it's the only way they can eat. People have the stupid habit of becoming dependent of food.
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: bamacre
This is a huge problem for entitlement programs. People become dependent upon them, and when gov't cuts them because they can't afford them, it is very painful to those people. It is much better to see the light at the end of the tunnel and gradually cut these programs out before it comes to this kind of situation.

The huge problem with no entitlement programs is that people will kill you if it's the only way they can eat. People have the stupid habit of becoming dependent of food.

There are plenty of people who get their only food from private charities.
 
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: bamacre
This is a huge problem for entitlement programs. People become dependent upon them, and when gov't cuts them because they can't afford them, it is very painful to those people. It is much better to see the light at the end of the tunnel and gradually cut these programs out before it comes to this kind of situation.

The huge problem with no entitlement programs is that people will kill you if it's the only way they can eat. People have the stupid habit of becoming dependent of food.

There are plenty of people who get their only food from private charities.

And there are a lot of people who are willing to leave the state because they are sick of being over taxed and paying for programs they do not benefit from....

...oh wait...that has been happening for years....

Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: bamacre
This is a huge problem for entitlement programs. People become dependent upon them, and when gov't cuts them because they can't afford them, it is very painful to those people. It is much better to see the light at the end of the tunnel and gradually cut these programs out before it comes to this kind of situation.

The huge problem with no entitlement programs is that people will kill you if it's the only way they can eat. People have the stupid habit of becoming dependent of food.

There are plenty of people who get their only food from private charities.

Exactly. Cut out the middle man IE government that does nothing and give directly to charities.
 
The huge problem with no entitlement programs is that people will kill you if it's the only way they can eat. People have the stupid habit of becoming dependent of food.
Agreed, but the entitlement and social welfare programs in California are plagued by abuse and incompetent management. How do you cut off the leeches while ensuring that the truly needy receive the benefits necessary to survive?

Interestingly enough, it seems the unions in CA are most concerned about the cuts:
State's budget crisis opens rift between unions and Democrats
Unions want the state to raise taxes and maintain an unsustainable and arguably excessive slate of benefits. The state government does not want to raise taxes, particularly during a recession, which means some of those benefits need to go.

Everyone is feeling the pain of this recession. Corporate benefits are certainly drying up. Baby Boomers hoping for golden parachutes from corporate America are having to now work well past 65. The unions will need to make similar concessions, but it appears they too have become overly dependent on entitlement benefits.


 
Originally posted by: sandorski
That's a pretty drastic Cut. Not only will it not fly, it'll probably be the end of his Political Career.

If it does happen, it'll probably catapult him to the front of the Republican ticket in 2012.
 
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: sandorski
That's a pretty drastic Cut. Not only will it not fly, it'll probably be the end of his Political Career.

If it does happen, it'll probably catapult him to the front of the Republican ticket in 2012.

Um...He is not a "natural born citizen"...
 
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: sandorski
That's a pretty drastic Cut. Not only will it not fly, it'll probably be the end of his Political Career.

If it does happen, it'll probably catapult him to the front of the Republican ticket in 2012.

Possibly, and the Democrats to Victory.
 
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: sandorski
That's a pretty drastic Cut. Not only will it not fly, it'll probably be the end of his Political Career.

If it does happen, it'll probably catapult him to the front of the Republican ticket in 2012.

Possibly, and the Democrats to Victory.

You really think the Democrats stand a chance?

When Geithner goes to China to give a speech at a university and is laughed at when he says "America is a safe investment" you know the country is in trouble.
 
Originally posted by: Patranus
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: sandorski
That's a pretty drastic Cut. Not only will it not fly, it'll probably be the end of his Political Career.

If it does happen, it'll probably catapult him to the front of the Republican ticket in 2012.

Um...He is not a "natural born citizen"...

That didnt stop a different president from running and winning. 😉

*Ends republican tin foil hat propaganda mode


Anyways, I want him to come over to IL to be govenator! He cant be any worse than what we have now.


 
Starbuck: Agreed, but the entitlement and social welfare programs in California are plagued by abuse and incompetent management. How do you cut off the leeches while ensuring that the truly needy receive the benefits necessary to survive?

M: I don't know. It's a huge problem and I am a nobody. I have some thoughts the value of which I can't vouch for:

I don't think people should get stuff for free because they do not value it then. To get welfare people should be required to contribute something. Almost everybody can plant and water and tend gardens, so one thing I would try is that. The state supplies land and accommodations and services and those who need help live and work public farms. The produce goes to feed clothe and house the people who work. Income could also be earned by taking coursed and getting an education, learning a trade, etc. The same could be done in prisons and the more you work, the more you produce, the more you learn, the shorter the sentence.

The poor are especially infected with self hate and one of the cures for it is capacity. It's becomes harder and harder to believe you are the worst person in the world when you can do things.
 
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: sandorski
That's a pretty drastic Cut. Not only will it not fly, it'll probably be the end of his Political Career.

If it does happen, it'll probably catapult him to the front of the Republican ticket in 2012.

we call that the scent of dumass where I come from lol. Smell it?
 
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: bamacre
This is a huge problem for entitlement programs. People become dependent upon them, and when gov't cuts them because they can't afford them, it is very painful to those people. It is much better to see the light at the end of the tunnel and gradually cut these programs out before it comes to this kind of situation.

The huge problem with no entitlement programs is that people will kill you if it's the only way they can eat. People have the stupid habit of becoming dependent of food.

There are plenty of people who get their only food from private charities.

Nothing wrong with being dependent on private charities. Bonus if they're religious!

/s
 
Originally posted by: Patranus

Exactly. Cut out the middle man IE government that does nothing and give directly to charities.

What middle man? Government cuts welfare, WIC, etc. directly.
 
Originally posted by: SammyJr
Originally posted by: Patranus

Exactly. Cut out the middle man IE government that does nothing and give directly to charities.

What middle man? Government cuts welfare, WIC, etc. directly.

Think about how many levels of government each dollar goes through before it reaches the welfare recipient.

You pay federal taxes. Taxes go though many levels of bureaucracy in DC and end up at the state. The taxes go thought another few levels of bureaucracy and end up at the county. Go thought another few levels of bureaucracy and end up at the city. Go thought another few levels of bureaucracy and end up at the charity (through grants) or direct government program.

Just cut out all of that, lower taxes, and encourage donation to local program. This would also allow local governments to raise taxes. Why does Washington DC need to be involved in food handouts in California? It doesn't. It just creates layers and layers of red tape that return pennies on the dollar.
 
Originally posted by: Patranus
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: sandorski
That's a pretty drastic Cut. Not only will it not fly, it'll probably be the end of his Political Career.

If it does happen, it'll probably catapult him to the front of the Republican ticket in 2012.

Possibly, and the Democrats to Victory.

You really think the Democrats stand a chance?
:laugh:
 
Originally posted by: SammyJr
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: bamacre
This is a huge problem for entitlement programs. People become dependent upon them, and when gov't cuts them because they can't afford them, it is very painful to those people. It is much better to see the light at the end of the tunnel and gradually cut these programs out before it comes to this kind of situation.

The huge problem with no entitlement programs is that people will kill you if it's the only way they can eat. People have the stupid habit of becoming dependent of food.

There are plenty of people who get their only food from private charities.

Nothing wrong with being dependent on private charities. Bonus if they're religious!

/s

I would rather be dependent upon an organization that is funded voluntarily than one not.
 
Back
Top