Schwarzenegger's solution to California's budget woes: End welfare

page: 9
31
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Are you people insane? What about those with disabilities? Jesus, when are people going to start remembering that we're all in this together. You guys that support this # need to start thinking about others rather than yourselves.




posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by nixie_nox
 



be better just to let her sit home and care for the kids herself....




You do realize many of these women are single mothers? I have the luxury of being able to stay home with my (still not born) child. There are many women who do not. Taking child care would leave them in a place were they might be unable to work. Then how do they feed their kids?



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
absolutely good idea the poor are poor because they sit back and don't pull their weight. we must not give them handouts for free, we should force them to work even if they hate work. no more handouts.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


umm....I wasn't stereotyping anything,....
by son spent a summer babysitting for one of the neighbors while she worked at a resturant for around minimum wage...
I know the gov't was paying her three dollars for each kid, of which two needed care from my son the whole time she was working, and the other one was in school part of the time, but well.....if you added it all up, she didn't make the cost of that childcare....so, well, she would in fact need more support from the government than she needed without working!

as far as the some go to college, some work there way into better paying jobs...ummm....
ya, and MANY, I BET DON'T!!
what the heck, there's alot of people graduating from college now and finding that well...the jobs they can get, aren't enough to pay off those student loans that they've accumulated while attending school...
and then, you would have to add the cost of you single mom going to school to the total cost to the taxpayer, still seems like a losing proposition to me!

still don't understand how all of this is better, or more cost efficient than well, letting the little lady keep her little cashier job if she want, hey, she might be the best cashier in the whole world and totallly getting into her job, and well, expecting the business that has hired her to pay enough for her to have those kids in child care, shelter them, feed, them and well, support them....with the father's child support contribution of course!!!

it has to be beter, and more cost efficient than setting up a myriad of gov't agencies hiring an army of social workers, and redirecting money from the taxpayer pockets (which, may, in some cases, cause those taxpayers to need those agencies help themselves!! ) and into theirs!!

on a side note, when I first had my kids, I could get a job, earn minimum wage, and still make a little profit from working.....as a wife of a wage earner....
but well, by the time the kids got to be four or five, well, the gov't had stuck their nose into the mess, and then, well.....I would have had to make that $9 or so an hours just to not take a loss at the venture...
all these single moms out there, not really having to care how much they got p aid, their child care wasn't an issue to them, their housing costs, heating cost, none of those were an issue...they just needed a job, any job, any wage...to please the gov't....
well....how long do you reckon I was out of work??



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by redxiii
Are you people insane? What about those with disabilities? Jesus, when are people going to start remembering that we're all in this together. You guys that support this # need to start thinking about others rather than yourselves.


What does the article say:


Schwarzenegger's budget proposals would see spending cuts of 12.4 billion dollars and include the elimination of California's welfare-to-work program and virtually all child care for low income families.



Does it say it is going to eliminate welfare completely? NO... it says it is going to eliminate the WELFARE-TO-WORK program... that is not socialized welfare.

Big freak'n difference.

Oh it says 'VIRTUALLY all child care' which is another subsidized agency under the WELFARE-TO-WORK program. It is not socialized welfare.

People read the headlines and are totally stupid to see the difference between "SOCIALIZED WELFARE" and "WELFARE-TO-WORK".... this is simple... what do you think the goal of "WELFARE-TO-WORK" is? To put people to work?

Oh good... it puts people to work... no free lunch.

WRONG... it's a program so the state doesn't pay any welfare! It's sounds good, right? Idiots.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Great. Following Reagan's footsteps. I'm glad Arnold is only Governor and not president.




posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 


actually, I the welfare to work was started while clinton was in office, and newt and friends were in congress....
the republicans bought into this "make them work for their checks" bit...
but, as I am trying to explain...it is in reality...costing the taxpayers more money...
add to the child care subsidy, the help they are getting for clothing, the car that they are helped to buy, or the public transportation, education, well....it is alot more than the jobs they are getting!! there is no way it's not costing more, unless they luck out and get one really good paying job!

it is only serving to throw the economy more out of wack! the child care costs rise, the wages are depressed more....
some of us have to live without these nice handouts ya know???


[edit on 16-5-2010 by dawnstar]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by dzonatas
 


actually, I the welfare to work was started while clinton was in office, and newt and friends were in congress....


It was actually started before that time, there was just a division in California law around Clinton era to de-criminalize many of the actions. Where it used to be a criminal act for some things it became of civil action. Where there used to be District Attorneys doing all the work, there are now subsidies.

The effort to de-criminalize much of the welfare-to-work program took it out of the public's eye.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
HAHA that will NEVER happen... If they cut off welfare the state of komiefornia will BURN. Think of the Rodney King riots x 1,000,000.


Deebo



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
Then how do they feed their kids?


Most of the Counties in California have implemented a somewhat socialized welfare program to keep the kids fed and housed. Even if all welfare programs were totally cut from the State, it won't affect what the Counties already do.

Get foodstamps. Those are paid by county taxes. There is no shortage of collected property tax.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by dzonatas]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas

Most of the Counties in California have implemented a somewhat socialized welfare program to keep the kids fed and housed. Even if all welfare program were totally cut from the State, it won't affect what the Counties already do.

Get foodstamps. Those are paid by county taxes.


No, foodstamps are run with federal funds. They are administered on a county and state basis.

en.wikipedia.org...

Again, if these women can't get child care and cannot find anyone to watch their kids, how will they work?



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolfenz
 



Arizona for one ! but who going to do the lawn for your Churches! or who is going to serve the Homeless at the Soup Kitchens in California ! ? ohh well
I guess they will have to (pay)hire people or get an the OLD retire to do the JOB!


The same people who've been mowing the yards and tending the kitchens, church members, their youth groups, and volunteers.

If a church is hiring illegals (which is illegal) to do this type of work, it makes me ponder upon the people of that particular church.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


The woman shoulda thought about the consequences of getting pregnant. If she knew she could not afford it, shoulda used protection.


Deebo



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by antonia


Again, if these women can't get child care and cannot find anyone to watch their kids, how will they work?


They can open a daycare center in their home. That would allow them to be at home with their own children, while earning an income.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
It is beginning to gel with people (even government people) that there is nothing left. The lemon has been squeezed dry. No more lemon aid.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
I've figured out a way California can make some money, then everyone will be happy. They need to start The University of Sacramento Online. The curriculum and tuition would be based off of:






posted on May, 16 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Like in the USA there are imigrants who do not realise they are our guests. This is what bothers me....they are GIVEN support by the government and it will not take long before they demand support, abuse the (legal) ways to receive support and bring over their families to do the same.

Our welfare is in some cases a small fortune for them in their homeland. Their mentality and traditions are completely different than ours and does clash. It is a fact that the prisons in Holland are mainly occupied by guests who cannot find their way to adapt or never have enough. Remember...never the twain (the two) shall meet?

Not all of our guests are that way but this disrespect, crime and abuse of government help is frustrating for the people who work. If these problems are mentioned you will soon be accused of being a racist or ungratefull for letting these people doing our dirty work.

This is a delicate problem for our government because how can it adress these people without being accused of discrimination.

Slowly but surely laws are being implemented to prevent abuse and initiatives are being organised to bring the different cultures together. The only solution is that we will understand eachother if we want to live in harmony.

The other side is.....if you do not like it and refuse to adapt...go home.







[edit on 16-5-2010 by zatara]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
No, foodstamps are run with federal funds.


That is a separate program. Not all counties have the luxury to have their own program, especially the smaller counties that are mainly agricultural based that don't collect much property tax. (There is obviously still food.)


Again, if these women can't get child care and cannot find anyone to watch their kids, how will they work?


Give the kids to the dad to watch them. The women can work, too.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by dzonatas]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
This is an extremely poor decision, the repercussions of which he can't imagine.

When is California going to elect a real politician instead of a pretty face?

This will never, never work. The Feds will have to step in on this one.
They can step in before and prevent it, or step in afterwards to do damage control with the National Guard. Take your pick.

eta: This is targeting the poor regardless of legal status. Want to save money? Hit on the poor. Why not? They have no power.

[edit on 5/15/2010 by ladyinwaiting]


i say good.....attack the poor. It may sound bad and insensative.....but it needs to be done. to many of them have gotten used of getting hand outs.All these welfare systems are damaging the entire united states economy.

Welfare was intended to be a hand up.

not a hand out.

Let them riot...its gonna happen either way.

Its time to wake up....we have to institute austerity measures or we are FINISHED.

The current spending and debt is unsustainable. SUCK IT UP.

And before you say im some kind of 'corperate shill' i am a lower middle class american.

I would suffer from this move as well as the poor if austerity measures were implemented.

But im still calling for it. Why? because i know there is no other choice. We have to get our house in order or we will collapse. Its common sense.

So im gonna say it now.

Those of you who are poor.....suck it up. We all need to tighten our belts and get ready to be screwed up the butt....but im calling for it. because ITS THE ONLY WAY.

DONT YOU PEOPLE GET IT?? THERE IS NO OTHER CHOICE!!

so go ahead and riot...have your temper tantrum. It either this or collapse...you pick.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by antonia
No, foodstamps are run with federal funds.


That is a separate program. Not all counties have the luxury to have their own program, especially the smaller counties that are mainly agricultural based that don't collect much property tax. (There is obviously still food.)


Again, if these women can't get child care and cannot find anyone to watch their kids, how will they work?


Give the kids to the dad to watch them. The women can work, too.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by dzonatas]


You forget one thing though....it takes two working parents today just to get by.

More women are in the work focr anyway now then men....because men are the ones being fired.

I guess you got to luck at a big butt in the work places now adays not to get depressed.





new topics
top topics
 
31
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum