California considers scrapping welfare

jimpeel

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
SOURCE

California contemplates ultimate reform - no welfare

By Cynthia Hubert | Sacramento Bee

Could California become the first state in the nation to do away with welfare?

That doomsday scenario is on the table as lawmakers wrestle with a staggering $24.3 billion budget deficit.

County welfare directors are "in shock" at the very idea of getting rid of CalWORKs, which has been widely viewed as one of the most successful social programs in the state's history, said Bruce Wagstaff, director of the Department of Human Assistance in Sacramento.

"It's difficult to come up with the right adjective to react to this," Wagstaff said. "It would be devastating to the people we serve." (As well as his job - j)

H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for the state Department of Finance, said California is in an unprecedented fiscal situation that has made all programs, from education to human services, vulnerable to deep and painful reductions.

"I don't wish for a moment to minimize the profound impact" that eliminating CalWORKs would have, (Putting all of those state workers out of work - j) Palmer said. "But the easy decisions are way past being in the rearview mirror for us. We face the specter of California not having cash on hand to pay its bills in July."

Wagstaff and other administrators are betting that the state will rescue the "welfare to work" program. But they are bracing for cuts that would slash benefits to the lowest levels since the late 1990s, when CalWORKs began as part of the federal government's bold reform of the welfare system.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah that will be great won't it? All those lazy ass disabled people who haven't won SSA or SSI can just starve in the streets! I am sure the good "christian" people will help them as long as they aren't faggots or having children out of wedlock or some other brand of undesirables.

I guarantee you crime will go up because it will be the last resort for some folks. Oh yeah and all you morons who oppose a woman's right of choice will really have something to be pissed about because if they can get them done I am sure many more of them will need to be done.

Don't forget women who leave their abusive husband so as not to get beaten or killed. They will have lots of incentive to stay with him like a good woman should and take what's coming to her for lipping off to him.

I imagine they will have to scale it back as far as they can and it should only be for emergency type situations anyway, but I think thats just a pipe dream Jim and it won't actually happen (much to your chagrin I'm sure).
 
randomJACKASS said:
Yeah that will be great won't it? All those lazy ass disabled people who haven't won SSA or SSI can just starve in the streets! I am sure the good "christian" people will help them as long as they aren't faggots or having children out of wedlock or some other brand of undesirables.

I guarantee you crime will go up because it will be the last resort for some folks. Oh yeah and all you morons who oppose a woman's right of choice will really have something to be pissed about because if they can get them done I am sure many more of them will need to be done.

Don't forget women who leave their abusive husband so as not to get beaten or killed. They will have lots of incentive to stay with him like a good woman should and take what's coming to her for lipping off to him.

I imagine they will have to scale it back as far as they can and it should only be for emergency type situations anyway, but I think thats just a pipe dream Jim and it won't actually happen (much to your chagrin I'm sure).
Click to expand...

Another unsolicited testimonial from the Party of the Outstretched Open Hand (POOH).

There was a time when charities took care of these things before the government took over. People are not pleased with their taxes, which will be taken from them by armed men if they refuse, being given away, without their consent, to those who will not, or cannot, work and pay taxes.

The fact is that there are numerous private companies and charities which will put people to work if they but ask. Wal-Mart is a prime example. We have several disabled people, three in wheelchairs, at my store alone. We also hire the mentally and learning disabled.

Perhaps it is time to return to our roots. After all, Americans are the most generous, giving people on the planet.
 
randomJACKASS said:
Yeah that will be great won't it? All those lazy ass disabled people who haven't won SSA or SSI can just starve in the streets! I am sure the good "christian" people will help them as long as they aren't faggots or having children out of wedlock or some other brand of undesirables.
Click to expand...

Its not the governments job to provide for those folks, and you know it. Why else would you then continue with the following diatribe...

rj said:
I guarantee you crime will go up because it will be the last resort for some folks. Oh yeah and all you morons who oppose a woman's right of choice will really have something to be pissed about because if they can get them done I am sure many more of them will need to be done.

Don't forget women who leave their abusive husband so as not to get beaten or killed. They will have lots of incentive to stay with him like a good woman should and take what's coming to her for lipping off to him.
Click to expand...

Your only 'saving grace' is the following statement I've bolded...

rj said:
I imagine they will have to scale it back as far as they can and it should only be for emergency type situations anyway, but I think thats just a pipe dream Jim and it won't actually happen (much to your chagrin I'm sure).
Click to expand...

and it should be paid back when the emergency is over on a payment plan...
 
Gato_Solo said:
Its not the governments job to provide for those folks, and you know it
Click to expand...

Obviously I disagree. It wasn't governments responsibility in the beginning no, but you seem to think peoples families should help? That just would not happen, and doesn't happen. Most of their families can't afford it these days. Hell most folks have a hard time affording themselves these days it seems. Whether you like it or not, Social Security was made to be responsible to help folks that can't help themselves and it's a damn good thing for such people.
 
randomJACKASS said:
Obviously I disagree. It wasn't governments responsibility in the beginning no, but you seem to think peoples families should help? That just would not happen, and doesn't happen. Most of their families can't afford it these days. Hell most folks have a hard time affording themselves these days it seems. Whether you like it or not, Social Security was made to be responsible to help folks that can't help themselves and it's a damn good thing for such people.
Click to expand...

Social Security is not what I was talking about. I was talking about welfare...free medical care...section 8 housing...

You see...when it was used correctly...as a trust fund...Social Security was a good thing. You paid into it, and you received back out most of what you put in. If you never worked, or your husband/father/wife/mother didn't work, you got nothing. Then came the idea to include SS in the general fund. Then our government was awash with cash, and spending became uncontrollable. "Balance the budget? Why? We have cash to spare!" was the reality of the day. Still is, but some folks are seeing the true end, and it isn't the ones who we continue to re-elect because those we put into power throw just enough cash our way to make us think they're doing a good job. Not buying votes outright, but all you need is to look at this site to see how most folks get 'bought off'. If you look, our votes come rather cheap when looked at through the scope of the entire budget.

Anyway...the only way to get the change we need is for people to stop looking at the elected officials and start looking at themselves.
 
I'm all for free medical care, but I do not agree with the gvmnt giving away money.*


*There are special cases, but I bet that's less than 1% of the current beneficiaries
 
......widely viewed as one of the most successful social programs in the state's history.....
Click to expand...

What is their definition of a "successful social program"?

Most sane people would agree a successful welfare system would be one that works so well it is no longer needed. Recipients would be going back to work and not need assistance.

From the librul view, the more poor people there are depending on government entitlements for their basic needs the more successful the program is.

It means somewhere, somebody is hoping for more poor people and more failure for more funding and their own job security. It is truly a case where in order for some welfare administrator to have a job, there must be poor people applying for help.

But never fear, 0blahma will come riding to the rescue with buckets of freshly printed money to give away before the career welfare deadbeats burn the state down.
 
Cerise said:
From the librul view, the more poor people there are depending on government entitlements for their basic needs the more successful the program is.
Click to expand...

this is exactly the kind of thing that keeps many of us from taking your posts seriously.
 
2minkey said:
this is exactly the kind of thing that keeps many of us from taking your posts seriously.
Click to expand...

Government budgets are built on usage. Bureaucrats always want to build their budget so they build their usage. The legislators see this increased usage as the program being successful because so many people are flocking to use it.

Haven't you ever seen the advertisements on TV on your right to government assistance and "just call this toll-free number" to see how you qualify?
 
jimpeel said:
Government budgets are built on usage. Bureaucrats always want to build their budget so they build their usage. The legislators see this increased usage as the program being successful because so many people are flocking to use it.
Click to expand...

Not true.
 
Say what? If your department doesn't spend its full budget, they will get less (of an increase) next year.
 
we all know how budgets work. so what? this does nothing to support the idea that somebody, somewhere, wants more poor people. that's fucking ridiculous.
 
If you want to keep your job, you want more people on your program. Ask any Senator.

If they didn't want more people, they'd quit advertising. They'd also quit lowering the standards to be eligible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top