It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

OMG! California controller to suspend tax refunds, welfare checks!

page: 15
97
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Alpha_Magnum
 


Thank you very much for that Alpha_Magnum. It was a pleasure listening to such well spoken gentlemen. And the subject,... right on the money. Unfortunately, I am left with a sad observation of how horrible "modern" television is. Strange how we call this "progress".

Kind regards




posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Ok so today its Jan 18 . Colin Powel and Joe Biden said around the 21-22. Who else believes that this is the first firecracker. I think we here should all be aware that people like Biden and Powell dont make statements as they did lightly.

This is the exact thing that would setoff the start of the New World for America. I for one will watch closely and as of today the countdown to permanent camping has started. I live very close to the US border and I am expecting top see a rash of unhappy Americans soon.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by sapphirearaidia
 


As I was cleaning up this morning I had an interesting thought. Beside the approximately $700 that I receive from Soc Sec I get food stamps. I have heard so much conversation these days, not necessarily here on ats, about how people on food stamps are having it so easy.

I did the math just now, I get 170 in food stamps and divided that by 30 days for the month. I knew it was nearly impossible to make it, now I see why. If you spread that amount out over 30 days it is $5.67 a day!!!!!

Storing food is not something that most of the poor can do, so preparing for what is coming is going to be pretty hard. Beans and rice are cheap and I try to always purchase 5 or 6 pounds of beans and a 20 pound bag of rice a month, at least I won't starve.

With the richest of the rich getting bailed out, and the poorest of the poor getting screwed perhaps it would be safer to just starve. Sad isnt' it.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
This is extremely disappointing. They're punishing the poorest in society, those who can't afford it and rely on the government. Heck, people could die as a result of this. Surely they could just increase taxes on the highest earners or take a windfall tax from businesses.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by unruly1
 


What did biden and powell say?



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Venit
 


This is just what Obama was talking about doing and he was dubbed Barack the Wealth Distributor and a Socialist. So much for social responsibility. The wealthy seem to be only concerned with amassing their fortunes and come off like Marie Antoinette, "let them eat cake".

On $5.00 a day that is all the poor can eat.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
i've been saying this as the depression develops: wars have been started for less than this.

historically a large divide between the rich and the poor leads to revolution.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
Please don't mix conservative mythology with facts. Show me the people who have been on welfare their whole lives, several generations worth. That's not really possible within the US, unless you are a corporate entity.

Otherwise either add something productive or stfu.


Wow nice way to talk....

Well lets see....

My point was more along the lines that many on welfare who are mentally and physically able might be forced to head in a different direction than just collecting welfare. Being on welfare is a terrible life, but many would rather live that life than to put the effort in to improving themselves to actually get a job.

Cal welfare



One-fourth of all American adults have very low basic skills; that is, they cannot follow simple written directions for performing a single mathematical operation.


Close to 50% of those on California welfare fall into this category compared to 25% for the rest of the country. This creates a lifetime of welfare and services for these people since they provide nothing to the workforce, and since 55% of California's welfare recipient are single parents this lifestyle tends to be passed on to their kids too.

So where is all the taxes going to? There is a reason why Northern California has wanted to for a long time to become a separate state from Southern California. Add in the massive dollar drain in California for all the illegal aliens and it is no wonder this state even with very high state taxes is broke.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by redhead57

With the richest of the rich getting bailed out, and the poorest of the poor getting screwed perhaps it would be safer to just starve. Sad isnt' it.


How do the poorest of the poor get screwed when they put nothing into the tax bucket in the first place. I paid 40k in federal taxes last year and I drive on the same roads as the poorest, and I have not use a single service of the state or federal government, but I pay rather steep taxes.

I think the whole welfare system should be revamped. Those who are mentally or physically able to work should get the support they need to live, no question about it. Those who can work, but lack the skills and will, should be put into a different category. This category supports them as long as they successfully gain new skills through this program and work towards getting off this support. This could mean free childcare for their children even after they are off the support. Some stipulations might be future children would not qualify for free childcare if they continue to have more children that they cannot support, and failure in the program are means to be removed with no support, and possibility the removal of their childern from their care.




[edit on 18-1-2009 by Xtrozero]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I have not use a single service of the state or federal government, but I pay rather steep taxes.


Well dont the police patrol these roads too?

Does not the CIA FBI and such like get paid from your tax's too,

What are you feelings on the millions a day for the war in Iraq, wouldn't you rather see the poor get helped than kill more children and people abroad?



I think the whole welfare system should be revamped. Those who are not mentally or physically able to work should get the support they need to live, no question about it.


This part o your post is on Topic then, unlike the political general debate you having in the rest of it.

So you agree then from what you said above, that in fact the Disabled Children, Blind and elderly who will get no SSI next month at a number of over 1 million people in california is wrong.

Please write to your congressman and tell him so.

Maybe say you are unhappy paying 40k in tax's a year to fund bankers and a war, when the real needy of your country, like disabled children, elderly and disabled adults are abandoned, and the rest of the world looks on in horror as the USA treats its own people like some 3rd world countries.

Kind Regards,

Elf



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

I paid 40k in federal taxes last year and I drive on the same roads as the poorest, and I have not use a single service of the state or federal government, but I pay rather steep taxes.



Ahem!

You drive on the same roads as the poorest (who probably can't afford to drive!), those roads were built, and are maintained (at least in part) with state funds. And are patrolled by state and local police paid for by state funds.



Your children (if you have any) likely go to schools paid for by state funds.

The air you breathe is monitored for your health by state funds.

The water you drink is supplied, at least in part, by state funds.

The sewage you generate is treated by state funds.

Your property is protected from fire by state funds.

The list goes on and on.





Those who can work, but lack the skills and will, should be put into a different category. This category supports them as long as they successfully gain new skills through this program and work towards getting off this support.



To what end?

Even if they acquire the skills and/or the will to work, that is no guarantee that they will Get Work! unless somebody hires them!

Would you, as an employer, be likely to hire some one who was essentially coerced into applying for a job with your firm because they risked losing thier family?

Would you trust such an employee?



And if an employer objected to this kind of "Affirmative Action" policy, would the Government be acting in the best interests of the taxpaying citizens by Requiring employers to give hiring preference to welfare recipients ahead of all other applicants?

Right. I can hear the howls of protest rising from here.






and failure in the program are means to be removed with no support, and possibility the removal of their childern from their care.



Whether the support is direct, in the form of welfare and General Assistance, or indirect, as in additional costs for police, emergency medical assisatence and prisons, the taxpayers, such as yourself, will pay for such a program.

Less now and more, much more, later.


And seriously, you would have the State remove some one's children because they couldn't meet an employment standard?

That is a suggestion worthy of the worst abuses ever alleged in the days of Stalin and Mao.


Furthermore, such action would be counter-productive to the cost-cutting purpose of your plan. Who would then pay for the support of the children so impounded?

The State! that's who. You and me. And of course it would cost us even more because we would have to pay for the state bureaucracy enplaced to care for the siezed children

Big improvement!



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

My point was more along the lines that many on welfare who are mentally and physically able might be forced to head in a different direction than just collecting welfare. Being on welfare is a terrible life, but many would rather live that life than to put the effort in to improving themselves to actually get a job.

Cal welfare



One-fourth of all American adults have very low basic skills; that is, they cannot follow simple written directions for performing a single mathematical operation.


Close to 50% of those on California welfare fall into this category compared to 25% for the rest of the country. This creates a lifetime of welfare and services for these people since they provide nothing to the workforce, and since 55% of California's welfare recipient are single parents this lifestyle tends to be passed on to their kids too.

So where is all the taxes going to? There is a reason why Northern California has wanted to for a long time to become a separate state from Southern California. Add in the massive dollar drain in California for all the illegal aliens and it is no wonder this state even with very high state taxes is broke.



Like I said, offer something besides neocon mythology. The link you offer gives absolutely no indepedent evidence to support any of its claims or conclusions, just cites internal research papers, that as far as I can tell cite other internal research papers as "proof". The link is also seriously out of date, as the last data they show are ten years out of date. For more accurate and up to date info go here:

www.dss.cahwnet.gov...

www.sacbee.com...

Perhaps the reason for the high illiteracy rate is the fact that California ranks 47th in education spending?

Who are you to assert that the number of people on welfare who are lazy and unwilling to work is high enough to be characterized by "many", rather than "some", or "a few"? The problem that faces many on welfare is that they can't find a job that pays better than welfare: no small consideration when you have children. Losing welfare means also losing medical coverage: would YOU take a pay cut AND lose medical AND have no guarantee that the job you are taking will last more than a few weeks or months AND risk being denied when you re-apply for assistance? If you had children would you put them at risk for a minimum wage job?

Education and skill training doesn't help much: as a community college instructor for eleven years I trained lots of students whose jobs had evaporated. Very few ever got jobs in that field, because as soon as the training program geared up the jobs were exported to Korea and India, while many of the jobs that remained were filled with cheap H1-B imported labor. Many of my students were middle-class mid-career age people when I first met them. I often ran into them a year or two later, back in college again, re-training again for more jobs they never got, slipping further and further down the economic scale. Some are on welfare now, having exhausted all savings and resources, and now facing age problems to boot.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by MischeviousElf

So you agree then from what you said above, that in fact the Disabled Children, Blind and elderly who will get no SSI next month at a number of over 1 million people in california is wrong.




They will get their SSI. SSI is federal. They just won't get the little state cherry on top. (state supplemental funds)

There are those who can't work, and there are those who won't.

The won'ts shoulder part of the blame, for taking away from the can'ts.

The poor who "game" the system are no better than the rich politicians who do the same.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 

The social security act of 1935 was the beginning of what would later be the AFDC.

The history of the welfare system is interesting. The government did try to help people by finding jobs for them. I guess as the weight of the numbers of welfare recipients grew so large it was easier to just issue payments to the needy.

It is possible to have four or five generations in a family receiving aid. It becomes a way of life for many. I have seen this happen many times.

You are correct in stating there needs to be an overhaul of our welfare system.

I receive a social security disability check monthly but I paid into the system for over 50 years. That was the original plan and promise.

What chaps my butt is the able bodied young people that are having babies and receiving free medical, dental and food stamps and a monthly check.

Even worse is that many times these girls have babies by a male that receives welfare because of a mental disability. It's a terrible abuse of the system and our tax dollars.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by redhead57

With the richest of the rich getting bailed out, and the poorest of the poor getting screwed perhaps it would be safer to just starve. Sad isnt' it.


How do the poorest of the poor get screwed when they put nothing into the tax bucket in the first place. I paid 40k in federal taxes last year and I drive on the same roads as the poorest, and I have not use a single service of the state or federal government, but I pay rather steep taxes.

I think the whole welfare system should be revamped. Those who are mentally or physically able to work should get the support they need to live, no question about it. Those who can work, but lack the skills and will, should be put into a different category. This category supports them as long as they successfully gain new skills through this program and work towards getting off this support. This could mean free childcare for their children even after they are off the support. Some stipulations might be future children would not qualify for free childcare if they continue to have more children that they cannot support, and failure in the program are means to be removed with no support, and possibility the removal of their childern from their care.

[edit on 18-1-2009 by Xtrozero]


Everyone, especially the poor, pays into the tax bucket through sales taxes. The poor pay a far higher percentage of their net income on sales taxes than anyone else, sales taxes are regressive, not to mention Social Security taxes.

If you paid 40K in federal taxes, I can just about guarauntee that you used more government services than what you paid for: name your field and hobbies and I'll break it down for you. If you're a businessman you've probably gotten subsidized business loans financed by the Social Security Trust Fund monies at zero per cent interest. If you own a lot of stocks, the companies you own are certainly on the corporate welfare teat: show me one that isn't; therefore you are, too.

As to your last point: where are all the jobs you want them to take? I'd agree with this if California companies were required to hire ONLY US citizens, could not import H1-B workers, and couldn't shift jobs out of the state. I've played the retraining game as I mentioned above, the same people chsing jobs that got shipped out as soon as they finished training for them, or even sooner.

[edit on 18-1-2009 by apacheman]

[edit on 18-1-2009 by apacheman]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


300,000,000+ humans in the USA. Say 25% worked the USA would then need 75,000,000 jobs. Now are there 75,000,000 jobs to even do in the USA?



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
This sucks for the people and me. I collect money so I also rely on this for my own job. Sort of a twisted realization.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Europe
reply to post by interestedalways
 


Americans hate any form of socialism, looking after the needy is the very essence of socialism, hence i dont see why people are getting upset over the blind and disabled losing funding from the government.
And being neither blind or diasabled or american for that matter i dont really care who loses funding, a balance book is not discriminatory. [/quote

I, for one, do hate any for of socialism, YET, this is very upsetting. Just another domino falling in the gradual decline into pre planned NWO. This is simple hegelian dialect stuff. David Icke (very bright, once you put aside his reptoid dillusions) constantly talks about problem-reaction-solution. So, here we have the pre planned problem: people desparetly in need of money won't get it, and people that were counting on tax refunds won't get those. Reaction: Riots. Solution = martial law. See how much we need that military in the US??



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by redhead57
reply to post by sapphirearaidia
 


As I was cleaning up this morning I had an interesting thought. Beside the approximately $700 that I receive from Soc Sec I get food stamps. I have heard so much conversation these days, not necessarily here on ats, about how people on food stamps are having it so easy.

I did the math just now, I get 170 in food stamps and divided that by 30 days for the month. I knew it was nearly impossible to make it, now I see why. If you spread that amount out over 30 days it is $5.67 a day!!!!!

Storing food is not something that most of the poor can do, so preparing for what is coming is going to be pretty hard. Beans and rice are cheap and I try to always purchase 5 or 6 pounds of beans and a 20 pound bag of rice a month, at least I won't starve.

With the richest of the rich getting bailed out, and the poorest of the poor getting screwed perhaps it would be safer to just starve. Sad isnt' it.



I've been doing some calculating with my own $$ for food lately, I would try to grow my own but I live in an apt complex with little to no space...
Online there is a protein calculator which will show you how much for a person your height and weight will need in a given day, for me it's around 55 or 56 grams a day
GNC has soy based protein (which takes longer to break down- feel fuller for longer), 51 serving container for $47.00, each serving is 25 grams of protein...
broken down that's pretty much 2 shakes a day for 30 days, hence 50 grams of protein a day! that's pretty damn good in my book
Out here in LA we have 99 cent stores that are chock full of pasta so I can have a dish with my shake... there is my carbs. They also sell veggies but they are cheap enough in the market... right now
As for the remaining 15 or 16 grams of protein, I can eat some tuna as a midday snack or mix some peanut butter in with my shake thereby building up the protein count
When you add it all up it's prob around 60 to 70 dollars a month on food
That comes to about $2.33 a day roughly... not bad right?
Hope this helps a little...
Sorry if this is off topic a bit but thought it might help someone out!


[edit on 18-1-2009 by Numb2itall]

[edit on 18-1-2009 by Numb2itall]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
This is for real and it's going to happen everywhere. Even if you don't live in California, this will happen to you. Here's why.

The economy is contracting, not growing. We also have deflation where prices are falling and people are spending less money, manufacturers are not making as much, business is slowing or even grinding to a halt.

This will have a secondary punch later on -- keep reading.

Government budgets are [ideally] based on a stable economy, but in reality, they are based on a pie-in-the-sky belief of a growing and expanding economy. Budgets are based on estimates of tax revenues and other revenue streams coming in throughout the fiscal year.

Also, most government entities do not have their fiscal year end in December, but usually the end of June, so we're only halfway through, and the timing is difficult for them to change. Changing budgets is a legal nightmare, sort of like trying to turn an aircraft carrier.

This is also a key point to understand that July is going to be very, very bad. New budgets have to be adopted in June.

Besides, it is in the nature of every bureaucrat to spend every dime in their budget, regardless if the funds are really there or not. That's because the two are not directly linked. This is like the husband earning all the money and depositing it into one checking account, the wife completely oblivious to how it’s made and spending all the money using a different checking account, and all future purchases were agreed to a long time ago.

So when TSHTF in California, the government didn't begin to contract with it, staff didn't get reduced, money wasn't saved and horded. They were not proactive, as governments tend to be reactionary.

This would be akin to you planning and committing to a normal Christmas in 2009 based on your financial scenario for the first six months of 2008.

In short, their revenue streams are drying up, yet staff still has the same budget it had six months ago, so they still have the same plan in effect that they had last June.

Like all bureaucracies, there was no incentive to NOT spend all the money they had budgeted. By sheer momentum, the behemoth lurches on. . .

What have they done?

The exact wrong thing, which is cutting the funding of services to the public. Without unemployment checks and welfare, there will be huge numbers of people NOT spending money, which further slows down the economy. Crime will surely increase, the problems will grow larger and worsen. More people will default on their mortgages, more businesses will have to layoff or close because those welfare recipients are also customers.

Here's the second punch and how it will effect you. Most states are funded in large part by sales tax revenue. You know, the extra 9.25% tacked on to every sale? Most of that goes to the state, a much smaller amount goes to the local municipality.

Since people aren't spending money, the states aren’t getting that revenue, even though they have created budgets based on this fantasy. With so many homes in foreclosure (California leading them all), there's also a huge decrease in property tax revenue. Just because it is "owed" doesn't mean it is "paid."

This same scenario is playing out in every state in the nation. California just happens to be six months to one year ahead of everyone else’s collapse. So watch what happens very carefully.

Now, there's also funding which trickles down from the federal government, to the states and eventually to the local cities. The feds don’t have any more money to give. Since cities are the last stop in the food chain, that's where it is going to hurt the worst.

Expect your local government to respond to this "crisis" by doing several things.

1. Jacking up sales tax. Even though less people are spending and this is effectively shooting themselves in the foot, expect sales tax to increase. What is needed is a tax holiday, to get people out spending money on big ticket items which may encourage more spending.

2. Increase in property taxes. The already struggling homeowner will likely be faced with huge increases in property taxes which will push many people over the edge. It will also further limit the number of people who can afford to buy homes.

3. More fines. Expect to see a lot more cops out writing tickets, more speed traps, more red light cameras, and more fines for everything. Arizona just past a law that if any portion of the word "Arizona" was obstructed on your license plate, you get a $136 ticket. Expect more crap like that.

4. People will begin to revolt. Taxpayers who believe that some government action is unjust will feel no remorse in taking their anger out on the powers in charge. Others will turn to crime because they feel that have little to lose. Some people will become pretty desperate.

It’s going to get ugly and it’s coming to the town where you live. Brace yourself.


[edit on 18-1-2009 by VelmaLu]




top topics



 
97
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join