California mulls Schwarzenegger's proposal to end welfare

[StageLeft]

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.

Most of the poor in this country are quite overweight anyway, so could survive for weeks on little more than vitamins and water.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Patranus
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.

Hey, Winnar, how can I get 3,000/month on welfare?
You're the math wiz, explain it to me.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Patranus
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.

$36K/year on welfare? Got a link?

 

[Robor]

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?

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.

Ah, I see you've got your right wing talking points. As I said in another thread, you should stick to lurking.

 

[OrByte]

A fat lady once said she didn't get fat overnight...and she isn't going to get skinny that way either.

same thing applies to the Calworks programs.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
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.

I actually agree with you on this Moonie. Teach a man to fish, etc. I'd happily pay taxes to implement such a system of teaching self-reliance. But as we all know, Americans won't tend gardens. That's work for dirty Mexicans.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

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.

Excellent post.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Patranus
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.

Please read the article and stop talking about "welfare" generically...that's not what's being cut here. Instead, the discussion is about welfare programs that have, as a requirement, participating in employment programs. Welfare in the generic sense MAY not encourage work, but programs designed specifically to encourage work are different.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: bamacre

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.

I'd rather be dependent on neither, but if I was forced to, I'd rather go with the organization that will give me money for schooling and won't force me to live by some religious doctrine.

Example: The Christian homeless shelter near me segregates wives and children from their husbands/fathers because they don't want homeless singles to mingle and possibly **gasp** fornicate. They also don't fund training or education, but if you want to hear about Jesus, they're happy to oblige.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
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.

Wow, today must be a full moon AND a solar eclipse...a post by Moonbeam that I actually, totally agree with! :Q

Good post! :thumbsup:

I totally agree...those who are down and out should not be left out in the cold, but at the same time, there is no such thing as "something for nothing". If they are allowed to sit around and get "free" money, it costs someone something...in other words, us...the working tax payers. I've long believed that welfare should exist, but if someone wants to go on it due to rough times, there is plenty of work that could be done in this country. Even something as simple as picking up trash along roads, or painting fences, would go a long way towards improving our country and teaching these folks the value of a good day's work.

Our country desperately needs to get away from this handout mentality (except for those who truly need it, such as the disabled and the elderly), because such a model is clearly not sustainable.

 

[Vic]

Many Californians also believe they can save money on their housing costs by defaulting on their mortgages. Short-sighted thinking only brings long-term pain.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Patranus
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.

$36K/year on welfare? Got a link?

Not sure about the $36K/year figure myself... but I know if you can keep pumping out the kids... you may get pretty close to that.


Text

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
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.

Wow, today must be a full moon AND a solar eclipse...a post by Moonbeam that I actually, totally agree with! :Q

Good post! :thumbsup:

I totally agree...those who are down and out should not be left out in the cold, but at the same time, there is no such thing as "something for nothing". If they are allowed to sit around and get "free" money, it costs someone something...in other words, us...the working tax payers. I've long believed that welfare should exist, but if someone wants to go on it due to rough times, there is plenty of work that could be done in this country. Even something as simple as picking up trash along roads, or painting fences, would go a long way towards improving our country and teaching these folks the value of a good day's work.

Our country desperately needs to get away from this handout mentality (except for those who truly need it, such as the disabled and the elderly), because such a model is clearly not sustainable.

You do realize that the approach you're describing is in fact how a lot of welfare programs work, right? The idea that "welfare" chiefly consists of handing people money forever so they can stay home all day is inaccurate. Many states have limits as to how long you can receive welfare, and many require you to use their jobs programs to receive it at all (so call "welfare to work" programs).

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: SammyJr
Example: The Christian homeless shelter near me segregates wives and children from their husbands/fathers because of they don't want homeless singles to mingle and possibly **gasp** fornicate.

Or, you know, prevent sexual abuse and/or rape which has a high incident rate among the homeless.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
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.

Wow, today must be a full moon AND a solar eclipse...a post by Moonbeam that I actually, totally agree with! :Q

Good post! :thumbsup:

I totally agree...those who are down and out should not be left out in the cold, but at the same time, there is no such thing as "something for nothing". If they are allowed to sit around and get "free" money, it costs someone something...in other words, us...the working tax payers. I've long believed that welfare should exist, but if someone wants to go on it due to rough times, there is plenty of work that could be done in this country. Even something as simple as picking up trash along roads, or painting fences, would go a long way towards improving our country and teaching these folks the value of a good day's work.

Our country desperately needs to get away from this handout mentality (except for those who truly need it, such as the disabled and the elderly), because such a model is clearly not sustainable.

You do realize that the approach you're describing is in fact how a lot of welfare programs work, right? The idea that "welfare" chiefly consists of handing people money forever so they can stay home all day is inaccurate. Many states have limits as to how long you can receive welfare, and many require you to use their jobs programs to receive it at all (so call "welfare to work" programs).

Not from what I have witnessed, and I have lived in a number of different states/regions.

That might be the way it is supposed to be, but it is incredibly naive to think that is how it actually is.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: SammyJr
Example: The Christian homeless shelter near me segregates wives and children from their husbands/fathers because of they don't want homeless singles to mingle and possibly **gasp** fornicate.

Or, you know, prevent sexual abuse and/or rape which has a high incident rate among the homeless.

The other shelter, the one without the religion, doesn't force segregation or have that problem.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
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.

And this is exactly why I am afraid of the federal government being any charge of pretty much any national level program. Cali is always pointed at as the model. It looks like the model is a sham unless you want to tax the fuck out of everyone in order to pay for the collective utopia.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
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.

You would teach a man how to fish in other words . Noval idea! It probably work to . But If every living person on earth Ate equal portions of food a day . You would not be a happy camper.

 

[CPA]

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.

oh no, let's base our who social structure on whether someone will kill us or not. Horrible logic by you moonie.

 

[CPA]

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 didn't stop Obama

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
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.

I actually agree with you on this Moonie. Teach a man to fish, etc. I'd happily pay taxes to implement such a system of teaching self-reliance. But as we all know, Americans won't tend gardens. That's work for dirty Mexicans.

Well, they'd have to go home, now wouldn't they.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CPA

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.

oh no, let's base our who social structure on whether someone will kill us or not. Horrible logic by you moonie.

You know what is horrible logic? Telling somebody their logic sucks and not actually saying why. I didn't say to base your social structure on whether somebody would kill us or not. I said don't base your social structure on something that will get you killed. (If that was your rebuttal.) I think if you have any logic at all you will see there's a difference.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bamacre

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.

I believe that in the Dark Ages there were no government welfare programs and all of them were privately funded. But then, of course, the logical counter to this point is that we're still in the Dark Ages, at least some of us.

What kind of an imbecile creates a capitalistic system run on competition and hate and then depends on the goodness of human nature which that system systematically destroys, as an answer to the problems it creates, may I ask? The whole God Damned point of religion is to destroy capitalism not support it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Patranus

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.

That's right, cut out the middle man so I can't ever give anything to anybody farther than a block away. What the fuck ever happened to thinking?

 

[Slew Foot]

About f'n time.

There's a welfare office across the street from the hospital, there's more BMWs in that parking lot than in the physicians parking lot across the street.