Governor plans to completely eliminate welfare for families

Originally posted by Phedreus
We are seeing in Ca. a prequel to what is going to happen to the fed. gov.
the ponzy scheme called social sec. and medicare and the entire welfare state are now on the brink of collaspe. previous post have stated correctly that Ca. is just the tip of the iceberg. Our gov. has bred a generation of leeches that have finally sucked dry the host they rely on. We are going to see riots not only in Ca. but across the country, as both fed, and state gov. finally admit that the welfare state is unsustainable. Those that have the means to flee Ca. will simply find themselves delaying the enevitable, as state by state and nation by nation the collapse gains speed. A dark time is coming, the parasites will be desprerate to keep getting their free ride, and the producers will find themselves taxed to the point of ruination. My message to those who have the means and the ability to survive the coming conflict is this. prepare and hunker down. The new mantra for survival of what is coming is "Me and mine, "

Well said and you're absolutely right, all most people in this Country are concerned with having the rent paid, big screen TV and a 6-pack in the fridge and thats what they call living. Nothing is going to sink in on this until they are personally affected and then it will be too late. We here in Michigan have long been considered a Welfare State for decades, Gov Granholm is pretty much blind in downsizing government but always trying to figure out a way to generate more taxation, now she wants to tax gasoline at the wholesale level. The problems in this country rest on the backs of the voters as they aren't educating themselves, keep putting the incumbents back in and believing the rubbish in the campaign Ads with all the freebies and too good to be true BS, Obama was giving us the world and look whats happened so far.

Personally, I don't see a great many welfare recipients. Does anyone know what percentage of the state budget goes to welfare, and how much of that goes to support bureaucracy for welfare? What I see is the big chunks going to schools, medical which is medicaid which mainly goes to subsidize illegal immigration, and for some reason a large increase in the budget for the judiciary.

www.lao.ca.gov...

2007-08 Budget Package
General Fund Spending by Major Program Area

(Dollars in Millions)
Actual 2005-06- Estimated 2006-07 - Enacted 2007-08 - Change From 2006-07 - Amount Percent

K-12 Education $36,425 $38,523 $39,445 $921 2.4%

Higher Education 10,232 11,310 11,941 631 5.6

Health 17,124 19,542 20,276 734 3.8

Social Services 9,218 9,876 9,443 -434 -4.4

Criminal Justice 10,243 12,154 12,924 770 6.3

Transportation 1,699 2,986 1,481 -1,505 -50.4

All other 6,651 7,264 6,749 -515 -7.1

Totals $91,592 $101,656 $102,258 $602 0.6%

Judicial 10.5% increase.

Why are we seeing a 6.3% increase in criminal justice? Are we seeing large increases in crime rates, and why so much to the judicial? Can anyone say bureaucracy?

Crime rates per 100,000 are dropping! Why do we need to increase the budget for criminal justice?

www.disastercenter.com...

Maybe they are cutting welfare hoping for an increase in crime to justify further increasing the power of the police state.

The same goes for higher educations costs, most of it is going to bureaucracy. We should be increasing the availability of online college courses which should be decreasing the cost of college, but the bureaucrats aren't about to let that happen.


The biggest problem is our states subsidy of illegal immigration, which the state government insists on ignoring.

www.rightsidenews.com...

While these annual costs for illegal immigration have been steadily draining California's budget year after year, the costs have risen and are placing an even greater strain on the state's resources in 2009. The original 2004 cost estimate was based on an illegal alien population estimated at 2,900,000. Today, FAIR estimates California's illegal alien population has grown to 3,200,000, a 10.3 percent increase. As a result of both the continued growth in the illegal alien population and the higher cost of governmental services, the current fiscal cost outlays for the illegal alien population in California are now approaching $13.1 billion annually more than half the projected shortfall for next year.

"California is melting down with an unemployment rate of 9.3 percent, 257,400 jobs lost in 2008, median home values plummeting 50% since spring of 2007, and the lowest S&P bond rating of all fifty states," said Dan Stein, President of FAIR. "While Governor Schwarzenegger is proposing draconian cuts in spending, ordering furloughs for state employees, and delaying expected taxpayer refunds, he continues to ignore the budget-busting cost of illegal immigration. With the highest concentration of illegal aliens of any state nearly one in eight residents is illegal it's no wonder California is in the mess it is."

"California state officials need to acknowledge the fiscal impact of illegal immigration and remove the welcome mat to those who are not entitled to residence, employment or most benefits. A big chunk of the state deficit could be cut over time if the state adopted measures that effectively complemented federal efforts to deter illegal immigration. The interests of law abiding residents of California must take precedence over continued pandering to ethno-centric special interest amnesty groups and unscrupulous employers looking for cheap labor," observed Stein.

The Govinators goals seems to be to continue to subsidize illegal immigration pushing down wages, while increasing the size of the police state to take away our rights.

Nothing lasts forever

i'm all for abolishing welfare. Or atleast major reform.
Though i don't think that it's necessarily what the Governator was talking about, i did perk up quite fast when i read the title.

reply to post by mikerussellus


This all gives rise to the pressure of the ecconomic crisis.

I think its a good idea. The welfare program is abused and done completely wrong. Unemployment, disability and SS should be the only thing the government pays for. Unless they want to nationalize healthcare and that could screw up standards. Why do we need welfare when we can simply raise the minimum wage? Done. I should be president, I figured it all out in 1 minute.

Raising minimum wage will do nothing but raise inflation. I can't understand how on this forum people can be so ignorant about the creation of money. Every other post has people talking about the fed inflating the dollar supply and what it will do. If anything they need to give us competing currencies so the dollar doesn't get inflated to hell. The reason why the poor need to keep getting raises is because of the rate of inflation which causes the dollar to loose value and prices to rise.

Want to eliminate California's fiscal problem, end prohibition of drugs and prostitution. This will save a huge amount of money on law enforcement and prisons, reduce crime, put a lot of people in legitimate jobs, and increase tax revenue at the same time.

It is working in Europe, it can work here in the states. Check out this thread, it provides all the facts.

What Are The Netherlands Doing Right?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you really, honestly, want to reduce the size of government, this is the way to start.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by poet1b]

Originally posted by poet1b
Want to eliminate California's fiscal problem, end prohibition of drugs and prostitution. This will save a huge amount of money on law enforcement and prisons, reduce crime, put a lot of people in legitimate jobs, and increase tax revenue at the same time.

Eliminate California's fiscal problem?

Nonsense!

It would only reduce crime directly associated with and in proportion to the drugs and prostitution that are legalized.

It would actually do nothing to alleviate any of California's problems.

The revenues collected from new sin taxes on legalized drugs and prostitution will hardly offset the costs it would generate in new addictions and spread of STDs which will ultimately fall upon the state as most of the victims of either cannot afford health care. It would create a huge additional drain on the system.

Nice try... Go for it!

You'll see I am right.

This fantasy fix for the problem will not work.

If you are a druggie or a sex addict, maybe both I am sure it sounds great.

Originally posted by jkm1864
Raising minimum wage will do nothing but raise inflation.

Hi Jkm,

Raising minimum wages would only create a potential inflationary effect if you have to 'print' money to feed into the economy by ways of banks. Inflation is however, at least classically and as far as i am aware, mostly the result of more money chasing fewer goods; the money supply increases faster than the supply of goods. With respect to the US economy and declining purchasing power trough lower wages the inflationary effect obviously has nothing to do with higher minimum wages and everything to do with money being fed into the economy far, far faster than goods are being produced&purchased.

You can look into the term 'stagflation' to see how it applies to current macroeconomic policies&conditions in the US.

I can't understand how on this forum people can be so ignorant about the creation of money. Every other post has people talking about the fed inflating the dollar supply and what it will do.

Yes absolutely ( plenty of ignorant people around, including myself ) but you and many others presumes that this money finds it's way into the real economy where it will be spent on physical goods. As we can clearly see the massive increase in the dollar supply have not secured wages nor were minimum wages raised or purchasing power increased. What seems to happen is that everyone is aware that there is plenty of dollars in circulation, and prepares accordingly, but no one really knows who has it or what they might do or not do with it. In my lay opinion we can measure a economy's stability in terms of the inflation number.

If anything they need to give us competing currencies so the dollar doesn't get inflated to hell.

Why do you believe this to be the case?

The reason why the poor need to keep getting raises is because of the rate of inflation which causes the dollar to loose value and prices to rise.

No, actually the reason why the poor needs raises is because their wages are not being automatically adjusted each year to account for inflation; if salaries are not automatically adjusted people are in effect having their salaries slashed by that number each year provided a good many other fungible's stays the same.

The following thread is quite relevant here as it discusses the 'real' minimum wage' even if the comparison to precious metals is a bit dated.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If this thread continues in it's current way i will probably post some collected data on the true inflation/minimum wage numbers any ways...

Stellar



Stellar

reply to post by Walkswithfish


Not only would it decrease the crime directly associated with these activities, it would greatly reduce the crime created by the criminal elements working these profitable crimes.

Not only would there be revenue from sin taxes, but also from income taxes associated with all of the new jobs that will be created, and agricultural hemp is included in this.

Yes, it would solve our state budget problem, by literally saving $$$billions.

Follow the link I provided, the success in Europe has already proven you wrong in your claim that this would create a huge drain on the system. Just the opposite happens, doing drugs is no longer considered to be cool, so teenage usage drops, and prostitutes who are required to get tested are more likely to use protection, so the spread of disease is reduced.

If you want to reduce the size of government, get rid of these prohibition laws that increase the size of government more than anything else.

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by Jessicamsa

 

Well, They need to definately change their laws in those states. That isn't right, I used to think NJ was one of the hardest states around, but where you lived is really hard. Btw, there are programs for women of domesttic abuse all over the country. But there is a burden of proof. And usually they will and do relocate you and the children. That is not fair to keep anyone in one place when the jobs arent there. But, I'm sure your kind of situation happens far less than the people actually just outright taking advantage of the system.

It's actually standard in many places to trap the women in the NCP's environment. If the women want to move away, they force the woman to give her child(ren) to the NCP and then she becomes the NCP. Men I've encountered tend to dump the kids off on their new wives, girlfriends, or their mothers and not really raise the kids themselves.

Motherhood is way underappreciated.

I was not helped by so called programs geared toward helping women. My husband had even volunteered for the local battered women's shelter.

There are more animal shelters in this country than there are shelters for battered women. And the shelters tend to only let the woman stay there for 30 days. That is definitely not enough time to get on one's feet. It can sometimes take years, depending upon the victim. Some victims have been so psychologically damaged by their abusers that it takes years for them to function in society on a normal basis.

Many of those on welfare ended up there after fleeing abusive homes. Many of them would have been forced back with their abusers if they had not had welfare to depend on.

In my case, they knew what my husband was doing. His cop buddies even destroyed evidence before trial so that he'd get off. The local DA even said he didn't care what my husband did to me, that he was not going to prosecute him for anything.

Quite frankly, I think that women in these situations need to start getting together and helping each other. Unfortunately, women often do not band together.

Originally posted by Jessicamsa
In my case, they knew what my husband was doing. His cop buddies even destroyed evidence before trial so that he'd get off. The local DA even said he didn't care what my husband did to me, that he was not going to prosecute him for anything.

Hi Jessica,

As a women you might probably be aware ( depending on your age, i will leave it at that ) that until 1975 no husband in USA could be prosecuted for the rape of his wife and that it took until 1993 for all US states to remove those restrictions. That is just the legal aspect and obviously, as you seem to have experienced, the patriarchal system and it's officers of the law doesn't have much patience with this 'silly' notion of women getting raped by their husbands.

Progress it is but it's not moving along very fast.

Quite frankly, I think that women in these situations need to start getting together and helping each other. Unfortunately, women often do not band together.

And why would they cooperate being as propagandized and bible thumped ( i hope your not religious ) into the submissive behaviour , and competition for acceptance by men, they still are.

Then again if you listen to men, here on ATS too, you would think that women run the world.....

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by Jessicamsa
In my case, they knew what my husband was doing. His cop buddies even destroyed evidence before trial so that he'd get off. The local DA even said he didn't care what my husband did to me, that he was not going to prosecute him for anything.

Hi Jessica,

As a women you might probably be aware ( depending on your age, i will leave it at that

) that until 1975 no husband in USA could be prosecuted for the rape of his wife and that it took until 1993 for all US states to remove those restrictions. That is just the legal aspect and obviously, as you seem to have experienced, the patriarchal system and it's officers of the law doesn't have much patience with this 'silly' notion of women getting raped by their husbands.

Progress it is but it's not moving along very fast.

Quite frankly, I think that women in these situations need to start getting together and helping each other. Unfortunately, women often do not band together.

And why would they cooperate being as propagandized and bible thumped ( i hope your not religious

) into the submissive behaviour , and competition for acceptance by men, they still are.

Then again if you listen to men, here on ATS too, you would think that women run the world.....

Stellar

I am definitely a Christian.

The Bible says husbands are supposed to love their wives as Christ loves the church. Husbands are hardly loving their wives if they're beating them.

Mine occurred after 1993. Although, I did meet him in 1993. I was only 16; he was 26 going on 27. I did not even want a relationship with him, but he told me that if he couldn't have me no one else would and he would not take no for an answer.

I fled the home in 1995 after a severe beating. This beating is what the charges were based upon. His cop buddies destroyed all photos. The medical records disappeared. I needed help to get around even during the trial a couple months later, but the judge still said my injuries were not significant enough for it to have been assault and battery. He had beat me into a wall, medicine cabinet, heater, etc and I was in pain for years. I still suffer problems from the injuries, 14 years later. I have trouble holding down a job, because physical activity ends up causing severe pain and I end up immobile. Before the beating, I was a lot more mobile and could do a lot more. I have tried getting put on disability, but so far have been unable to do so. I have never been able to hold down a job due to health/physical reasons.

Just because women are Christians do not mean they should not help one another. In fact, scripture wants Christians to help one another. Most Christians I encounter these days are bitter and would not help anyone. That's not the way it's supposed to be. We are to treat each other with kindness and mercy.

I think single mothers should combine resources/households and help one another. This has its drawbacks, of course, because some single moms, just like other groups, are predatory and may take advantage of the others, but most of the time it shouldn't happen. It's best to be cautious. Trust is important. The more this is able to be done though, the better.

I think in a society as wealthy as our own, people should be given a hand when down on their luck, but I don't think people should be allowed to live on welfare for more than six months. After a certain amount of time, instead of just providing money, people who can't hold a job should be required to move into a controlled environment, where they are required to do the basics in order to continue live where they live, like get up in the morning, clean their house, do chores for the community, attend classes, and all these sorts of things. Failure to comply would mean being put out.

reply to post by Jessicamsa


Your story is a good example of why we need to dismantle the police state in this country. Prohibition laws and safety laws and such give cops too many excuses for abuse of the system.

reply to post by poet1b


It is a problem in our society that rises due to overpopulation and a stressed and exhausted economy.

reply to post by Tentickles


There are many people on welfare that don't have the rights given to them to work because they are discriminated due to mental and or physical disabilities, yet they are more than able to be well productive within the working field.

reply to post by StellarX


I think that the American government needs to address this act accordingly as a constitutional problem within the realms of a political downfall and therefore seeing and acting as an appeal towards the government and the people as a whole of society.

While working at a grocery store in Pa, I can tell you the Welfare program/food stamps program here stinks. People are using welfare money here for booze for one thing. Also, 90% of the food stamps people that come into my store all have a ton of jewelry on and you can see them getting into cadillacs or other high end model cars. Also, they buy nothing but the most expensive foods like seafood and expensive steaks and all. My parents aren't on these programs and we struggle to buy the food we get now but aren't eligible for stamps. I think it's a sin what some people buy. Also, we're not required to ID people when they use their cards, and they have other people's cards all the time. Like they'll be in line and be like, "oh wait I have to call and find out what the PIN number is." It's like, ok that's not fraud (sarcasm). I know people who have told me that they know of people that sell their monthly balance for a lower amount (ex. you have $200 in food stamps, you sell the card for $75) for drug money.

What I think needs done is Food Stamps should be converted to something like the WIC program. The WIC program is used for families with children newborn to 5 years old. But that's not what I like about it. What I like about it is it lists what you're allowed and not allowed to buy. It has a list on the WIC check what they're allowed to buy like 3 gallons of milk, 2 pounds of cheese, 46 oz of cereal etc. If the Food Stamps program was like this, it would be a lot better. We'd be required to ID them, and they wouldn't be able to buy all that junk food and expensive seafood/steaks they buy. There are a lot of elderly people who come in and use their stamps and it's good that they get them because a lot of them do need it. But there are a TON of people who come in and you know that they're cheating the system. The state needs to regulate more and reform this program to make it as efficient as possible. It's horrible how it is right now.

edit: here's the link about welfare to buy booze: Welfare to Buy Booze

[edit on 5/27/2009 by PennKen2009]