The Governator Comes Through

[OCGuy]

SACRAMENTO, Calif. ? Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger made additional cuts to child welfare programs, medical care for the poor and AIDS prevention efforts Tuesday as he signed an $85 billion compromise spending plan that he called "the good, the bad and the ugly."

http://www.google.com/hostedne...bEfHpj4G7wuLQD99NL79G3





While the Federal government is trying to figure out how to spend more money we don't have, at least someone is making the tough choices to keep this state afloat. Nobody likes to be the one to cut programs, but it has to be done. Thumbs up to Arnie for sticking it to the state congress and making them compromise, and for having the guts to trim back our massive payrolls. A reserve fund for emergencies is a great idea.

 

[MotF Bane]

Something had to give.

 

[theeedude]

Sounds like he's making stupid choices that will jeopardize people's health and cost more in the long run.

 

[her209]

Kicking the can down the road.

 

[theeedude]

The vetoes include $80 million from child welfare programs; $61 million in county funding to administer Medi-Cal, California's version of Medicaid; $52 million from AIDS prevention and treatment; $50 million to Healthy Families, the low-cost health insurance program for poor children; and $6.2 million more from state parks.

So he's cutting money from disease prevention, preventative care, and recreation, meaning sicker more obese people down the road and much higher costs. How much more nearsighted can you get?

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: senseamp

The vetoes include $80 million from child welfare programs; $61 million in county funding to administer Medi-Cal, California's version of Medicaid; $52 million from AIDS prevention and treatment; $50 million to Healthy Families, the low-cost health insurance program for poor children; and $6.2 million more from state parks.

So he's cutting money from disease prevention, preventative care, and recreation, meaning sicker more obese people down the road and much higher costs. How much more nearsighted can you get?

lol so cutting a few bucks from the $30 billion health budget will lead to more sick and fat people? :laugh:

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: senseamp

The vetoes include $80 million from child welfare programs; $61 million in county funding to administer Medi-Cal, California's version of Medicaid; $52 million from AIDS prevention and treatment; $50 million to Healthy Families, the low-cost health insurance program for poor children; and $6.2 million more from state parks.

So he's cutting money from disease prevention, preventative care, and recreation, meaning sicker more obese people down the road and much higher costs. How much more nearsighted can you get?

Maybe down the road we will have the money to take care of those people, but right now we don't.


If you cant make your car payment, they come take your car. You think it matters if you now have no way to get to work? Or if you are sick and need a vehicle to get to a Dr. appointment regularly?


If you cant afford something, it has to go.

 

[Moonbeam]

None of this changes the fact that Arnold and the legislature all need to be dumped and a new constitution be written. Calif state gov is a failure. 7 year of feast need to be tapped for 7 years of famine. This bullshit of spending what comes in every year is total insanity.

 

[zoiks]

The biggest mistake we made was make that dumb buffoon our governer.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: senseamp

The vetoes include $80 million from child welfare programs; $61 million in county funding to administer Medi-Cal, California's version of Medicaid; $52 million from AIDS prevention and treatment; $50 million to Healthy Families, the low-cost health insurance program for poor children; and $6.2 million more from state parks.

So he's cutting money from disease prevention, preventative care, and recreation, meaning sicker more obese people down the road and much higher costs. How much more nearsighted can you get?

Maybe down the road we will have the money to take care of those people, but right now we don't.


If you cant make your car payment, they come take your car. You think it matters if you now have no way to get to work? Or if you are sick and need a vehicle to get to a Dr. appointment regularly?


If you cant afford something, it has to go.

Ever hear that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? You cut AIDS prevention, you are going to have to spend many fold down the road on AIDS treatment. A lot more than you would on interest to borrow $50M to pay for AIDS prevention. Also, what do you think is going to happen to those kids whose health coverage is going to be cut? Instead of getting preventative care at a doctor, they are going to go to ERs more sick, go to school sick and get other kids sick, and it will end up costing a lot more overall with everyone being worse off as a result.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: zoiks
The biggest mistake we made was make that dumb buffoon our governer.

Actually I think allowing ballot propositions with such a low bar has done a hell of a lot more harm.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Ever hear that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? You cut AIDS prevention, you are going to have to spend many fold down the road on AIDS treatment. A lot more than you would on interest to borrow $50M to pay for AIDS prevention. Also, what do you think is going to happen to those kids whose health coverage is going to be cut? Instead of getting preventative care at a doctor, they are going to go to ERs more sick, go to school sick and get other kids sick, and it will end up costing a lot more overall with everyone being worse off as a result.

Maybe, maybe not. We don't have the money, so things need to be sacrificed.

 

[EagleKeeper]

When is the new budget battle going to start?

Smoke & Mirrors only works one time - then hard reality has to be faced

 

[JS80]

What a fucking idiot. He should know he's going to get politically shit on anyway he should have line item vetoed half the budget and taken one for the team.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: senseamp

Ever hear that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? You cut AIDS prevention, you are going to have to spend many fold down the road on AIDS treatment. A lot more than you would on interest to borrow $50M to pay for AIDS prevention. Also, what do you think is going to happen to those kids whose health coverage is going to be cut? Instead of getting preventative care at a doctor, they are going to go to ERs more sick, go to school sick and get other kids sick, and it will end up costing a lot more overall with everyone being worse off as a result.

Maybe, maybe not. We don't have the money, so things need to be sacrificed.

If we don't have money to pay interest on loans to fund AIDS prevention, we sure as hell don't have money to pay for AIDS treatment that costs orders of magnitude more.
Of course we don't know for sure how many more people will get infected as a result, it's not like we had another former actor Republican California governor who thought not funding AIDS prevention and ignoring the problem instead was a great idea, so no lessons to learn from history at all. :roll:

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: senseamp

If we don't have money to pay interest on loans to fund AIDS prevention, we sure as hell don't have money to pay for AIDS treatment that costs orders of magnitude more.
Of course we don't know for sure how many more people will get infected as a result, it's not like we had another former actor Republican California governor who thought not funding AIDS prevention and ignoring the problem instead was a great idea, so no lessons to learn from history at all. :roll:

It isnt my job as a taxpayer to pay for AIDS treatment, so I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Only people with AIDS I feel sorry for are babies born with it.


We dont have the money. It has to go.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: her209
Kicking the state down the road.

Fixed.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: senseamp

Ever hear that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? You cut AIDS prevention, you are going to have to spend many fold down the road on AIDS treatment. A lot more than you would on interest to borrow $50M to pay for AIDS prevention. Also, what do you think is going to happen to those kids whose health coverage is going to be cut? Instead of getting preventative care at a doctor, they are going to go to ERs more sick, go to school sick and get other kids sick, and it will end up costing a lot more overall with everyone being worse off as a result.

Maybe, maybe not. We don't have the money, so things need to be sacrificed.

If we don't have money to pay interest on loans to fund AIDS prevention, we sure as hell don't have money to pay for AIDS treatment that costs orders of magnitude more.
Of course we don't know for sure how many more people will get infected as a result, it's not like we had another former actor Republican California governor who thought not funding AIDS prevention and ignoring the problem instead was a great idea, so no lessons to learn from history at all. :roll:

Look, there's a lot of problems with this world. If any one of us were in charge, regardless of views, I think bringing in money magically would solve a lot of problems. Maybe I wouldn't solve the UHC problem like you would, but certainly if I dumped more money on health care, things would get better.

Bottom line is we DON'T have money in this state. Something has got to give. You can complain complain complain that we're not spending here there and everywhere, but the fact is we don't have money. My car is falling apart and my shock absorbers need to get replaced, but I don't have money at the moment, so I have to make do with what I have to get to work. Next time I bring my car in within a month or so I'll see how much it costs and maybe I can scrounge up some cash. But if our state doesn't have any money, just like some of us are starved for cash, there's nothing you can do.

You can make one item that we skip out on funding for seem like the worst thing in the world when you're fighting for it. Clearly, you're fighting for AIDS prevention very dearly. I could make the argument that money spent for that would better go to education to make crappy schools in Oakland stop churning out America's next gangsters and how the stagnant and non-motivated people of the poor East Bay could benefit from a better generation that will bring some prosperity back to the region, etc etc. But look, without money, we can't do it, so TOUGH. Be glad CA has a budget at least.

 

[alphatarget1]

Thanks Governator!

The current fiasco of CA is the Democrats and Democratic special interests' fault. We need to elect more moderates like Arnold Schwarzenegger (dem or rep, I don't care) into the state government and give public employee unions like SEIU the finger. Hard working CA taxpayers are not taking it up the ass anymore from liberals.

 

[Cutterhead]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: senseamp

The vetoes include $80 million from child welfare programs; $61 million in county funding to administer Medi-Cal, California's version of Medicaid; $52 million from AIDS prevention and treatment; $50 million to Healthy Families, the low-cost health insurance program for poor children; and $6.2 million more from state parks.

So he's cutting money from disease prevention, preventative care, and recreation, meaning sicker more obese people down the road and much higher costs. How much more nearsighted can you get?

lol so cutting a few bucks from the $30 billion health budget will lead to more sick and fat people? :laugh:

Hush now, those fatties needed those millions of dollars to... eat less?

Everyone knows the only way to fix fat is to spend tax money.

 

[olds]

Originally posted by: OCguy
SACRAMENTO, Calif. ? Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger made additional cuts to child welfare programs, medical care for the poor and AIDS prevention efforts Tuesday as he signed an $85 billion compromise spending plan that he called "the good, the bad and the ugly."

http://www.google.com/hostedne...bEfHpj4G7wuLQD99NL79G3






While the Federal government is trying to figure out how to spend more money we don't have, at least someone is making the tough choices to keep this state afloat. Nobody likes to be the one to cut programs, but it has to be done. Thumbs up to Arnie for sticking it to the state congress and making them compromise, and for having the guts to trim back our massive payrolls. A reserve fund for emergencies is a great idea.

While I agree that cuts need to be made, this budget is a POS that relies on smoke and mirrors.
In 6 months they'll be back at the trough looking for more money because they can't pass a legitimate budget to save their lives.

 

[olds]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: senseamp

Ever hear that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? You cut AIDS prevention, you are going to have to spend many fold down the road on AIDS treatment. A lot more than you would on interest to borrow $50M to pay for AIDS prevention. Also, what do you think is going to happen to those kids whose health coverage is going to be cut? Instead of getting preventative care at a doctor, they are going to go to ERs more sick, go to school sick and get other kids sick, and it will end up costing a lot more overall with everyone being worse off as a result.

Maybe, maybe not. We don't have the money, so things need to be sacrificed.

They need to put limits on welfare.
I have a sister in law that has been on it all her adult life and she is sixty. She also collects disability. What's her disability? She doesn't want to work so she sits on her ass all day eating ice cream and potato chips. She weighs over 300 pounds.
She got mad at us a few years ago because we wouldn't give her the money to buy a plane ticket. He'll she probably needs two seats.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: senseamp

Ever hear that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? You cut AIDS prevention, you are going to have to spend many fold down the road on AIDS treatment. A lot more than you would on interest to borrow $50M to pay for AIDS prevention. Also, what do you think is going to happen to those kids whose health coverage is going to be cut? Instead of getting preventative care at a doctor, they are going to go to ERs more sick, go to school sick and get other kids sick, and it will end up costing a lot more overall with everyone being worse off as a result.

Maybe, maybe not. We don't have the money, so things need to be sacrificed.

If we don't have money to pay interest on loans to fund AIDS prevention, we sure as hell don't have money to pay for AIDS treatment that costs orders of magnitude more.
Of course we don't know for sure how many more people will get infected as a result, it's not like we had another former actor Republican California governor who thought not funding AIDS prevention and ignoring the problem instead was a great idea, so no lessons to learn from history at all. :roll:

Look, there's a lot of problems with this world. If any one of us were in charge, regardless of views, I think bringing in money magically would solve a lot of problems. Maybe I wouldn't solve the UHC problem like you would, but certainly if I dumped more money on health care, things would get better.

Bottom line is we DON'T have money in this state. Something has got to give. You can complain complain complain that we're not spending here there and everywhere, but the fact is we don't have money. My car is falling apart and my shock absorbers need to get replaced, but I don't have money at the moment, so I have to make do with what I have to get to work. Next time I bring my car in within a month or so I'll see how much it costs and maybe I can scrounge up some cash. But if our state doesn't have any money, just like some of us are starved for cash, there's nothing you can do.

You can make one item that we skip out on funding for seem like the worst thing in the world when you're fighting for it. Clearly, you're fighting for AIDS prevention very dearly. I could make the argument that money spent for that would better go to education to make crappy schools in Oakland stop churning out America's next gangsters and how the stagnant and non-motivated people of the poor East Bay could benefit from a better generation that will bring some prosperity back to the region, etc etc. But look, without money, we can't do it, so TOUGH. Be glad CA has a budget at least.

That is not what I am seeing. He is cutting these programs to set money aside from a rainy day fund. Meaning he is going to cut most cost effective spending programs to have money just sit there while those cuts lead to much more expensive and serious problems down the line. Prevention and pediatrics are by far the most effective health care spending in terms of bang for the buck. So he is being a complete idiot by targeting those programs, and is going to waste CA taxpayers a lot of money down the road? Is there a recall signature gathering effort going on, I want to sign it. We need to get this idiot thrown out.

 

[miniMUNCH]

Originally posted by: senseamp

The vetoes include $80 million from child welfare programs; $61 million in county funding to administer Medi-Cal, California's version of Medicaid; $52 million from AIDS prevention and treatment; $50 million to Healthy Families, the low-cost health insurance program for poor children; and $6.2 million more from state parks.

So he's cutting money from disease prevention, preventative care, and recreation, meaning sicker more obese people down the road and much higher costs. How much more nearsighted can you get?

Come off it... those programs don't put a dent in those overall problems and the budget cuts only put a dent in those programs. Morevoer, there are numerous federal programs which provide duplicate coverage in many of these instances: fed medicare, the CHIP program, WIC, etc.

Arnie himself sounds like he doesn't what was done but these cuts had to be made somewhere. So where else should he cut... from education? law enforcement? energy initiatives? Environmental initiatives? Infrastructure spending?

Most importantly... CA is in 'all hell is breaking loose' crisis mode. Arnie more or less pushed for cuts with the least negative impact on the CA economy.

Or are you simply basking him because he has a R as his political affiliation? Be honest with yourself here.

 

[miniMUNCH]

Originally posted by: zoiks
The biggest mistake we made was make that dumb buffoon our governer.

Any actual supporting arguments... CA has been heading for economic catastrophe for 10-20 years... one real economic recession and CA was in the shitter for sure.

Most honest observers that I have read on the subject have stated Arnrie's influence has been positive and he altered the course of CA economic policy for the better, not worse... thank Gray Davis and many of his fellow fiscal retards in the state legislature for that.