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

reply to post by Blanca Rose


hahaha Oh yeah, just open up a dya care center in their home...Right! You think that is as easy as it was for you to type. There is SO MUCH DISGUSTING red tape to open ANY Business in California, no matter what it is. It cost a frien of mine thousands of dollars and BS red tape just to start selling on eBay at home full time.
I can't imagine the red tape for child care...it would take $10k or more just to get started.

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.

The disabled will continue to recieve aid. Using the elderly and sick as a excuse for the leeches to continue recieveing handouts is the insane thing. And no we are not in this together, we who work are infected with parasites mooching every dime they can from us. The lazy, and the illegal aliensw, need to stop expecting everyone else to keep them up. I hope the border states pass laws requireing illegals 1 month to report for deportation, or face 10 years in prison, at the end of the term face deportation anyway.
It is time for the leeches to be purged from the host. If not sick or elderly, then you must either work or starve. The taxpayers pocket is empty, and when it comes to my family eating or some goverment moocher guess who is going to eat.
What really is needed is population control, we must have the herd thinned. I hope these illuminati conspiracy theories are true. Without their agenda the human species will not survive.

reply to post by odd1out



I'm not sure what the rules are in California, so, you might very well be right. I do know, that in the state I lived in when my children were young, you could run a daycare for up to 4 children outside of your own, without having to get any sort of certification.

Figure, 4 X $100.00 per week. Sounds like a pretty good way of earning money then, doesn't it?

My own kids went to a household like this, and, I supplied the diapers, meals, etc.

Make sure the person is paying taxes on the money they earn in a situation like this, if you want to take a credit on your income taxes.

Also check to make sure they have a good homeowners policy.

$400.00 a week might not seem like a lot to you, but to a person who is getting benefits rather than work, well, here is a solution if they have children of their own.

Wow... now that's (un-) original on behalf of the Emperor of Beverly Hills! Budget cuts to the lower working class, greasing up and butt-licking big corporations... I wonder where he got these neat new ideas from!

Originally posted by tauempire

Originally posted by dzonatas
Give the kids to the dad to watch them. The women can work, too.

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

No duh. I didn't say the dad wouldn't work. I said the women can work, too.

There has been too much incentives (and actual cases) even for more married women to have a kid by adultery just to qualify for child-care/support. There are no laws to stop this. Of course, the mother gets her hubby to work and the adulterer dad to work.

I've known some mothers to make more then $3k a month doing this over and over.

Not a perfect system. It can be cut.

I don't live in California, but do have family there.

To me, it looks like a spending crisis instead of a debt crisis. They just have to pick their least favorite pet project to fund. It will be the projects that costs the politicians the least voting people.

If they were serious, you'd gut the bureaucracy, contract out or sell off everything not governmental in nature, and cut state pensions. This is where the real money is. None of these will be cut.

Any steps taken, have been token. If you can cut a bureaucrat work hours by a day a month, you can fire 1 of every 250 of them just to break even in time, not counting future benefits and pension cost. Multiply this by thousands and you run into hundreds of millions in savings.

Tie state pension programs into social security. Why doesn't social security let you retire at age 50 or 55? The State of California does. Many other states do the same thing, so this is a systemic problem with multiple state budgets. They have budget problems also.

Welfare, welfare, welfare... an easy target. It's illegals, it's handicapped people, it's foster kids, it's single mom, it's .... What it really is, is a combination of events of including groups of people, during good budget time; for votes. There is no easy or neat answer. Just cut the funding.

People are going to have to go back to having family, friends, and yes, even churches, for offers of helping hands. Generations of Americans were born and raised before welfare was enacted. How did they survive? The government is not a baby sitter. It's too expensive and now we are finding this out.

Good intentions. People shouldn't rely on the government to take care of them. America is the next Spain otherwise.

Bad timing though. The state is so far in debt, it can't afford to cut off people's benefits (which are in turned spent IN state by those same citizens). Guess America is the land of doing things ass-backwards.

Originally posted by Echtelion
Wow... now that's (un-) original on behalf of the Emperor of Beverly Hills! Budget cuts to the lower working class, greasing up and butt-licking big corporations... I wonder where he got these neat new ideas from!

Same place people got the idea to cover-up the most corrupt governmental system with a name like 'welfare'.

"Oh they gonna cut 'welfare'... oh no they can't cut out that corruption... bad bad! Why do they attack the poor and want to cur corruption! We should save this corruption... they did a perfect things to call it 'welfare' so every gets the first-line defense to scream bloody murder anytime thinks about any cuts to this corruption!"

[edit on 16-5-2010 by dzonatas]

Originally posted by hinky
People are going to have to go back to having family, friends, and yes, even churches, for offers of helping hands. Generations of Americans were born and raised before welfare was enacted. How did they survive?

That's a theme and question I have backstaged for awhile. Let's say some people can only buy an sell while the rest are on welfare/donations and they can't buy and sell. Let's say it is no upper-class/lower-class division, but merely a means of check-and-balances. It's like a simple law where you either are in business or not, a part of a corporation or not. Churches would not be part of the corporation, as they rely on welfare/donations.

Can we find in history any sort of evidence to the likeness of this system? Yes, we can:

Mark of the Beast doesn't matter anymore?

Scary? No. It just sucks.

Coincidence? Yes. Money is obviously worth it to somebody "whatever it is."

Prophecy? You decide. I don't believe in hallucinations. Welfare system is no hallucination, but there sure is a bunch of insane people that think this welfare-beast is a good thing to have.

No pun intended.

To cut welfare from the State would be just to further separate Church and State. Something California has had a very hard time to do.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by dzonatas]

They wouldn't need to cut so much if pensions had been negotiated wisely with the unions instead of giving them everything they asked for. Then those pension funds were underfunded by the State and not managed wisely, in desperation they gambled on high risk Wall Street financial products to make up the pension funds shortfall. Now they find themselves contractually short on those pensions (they went POOF! on Wall Street) so these civil servants do what all civil servants do, protect themselves and screw the taxpayer in times of crisis. CALPERS retirements can be a sweet deal, especially if you got a high state salary. How many in private industry can retire at 90% of full salary?

California still jails Mexican criminals instead of deporting them and them congratulates itself on how enlightened the State is. They still jail relatively harmless pot smokers. We still pay prison guards 100k+ salaries (that still boggles my mind).

My wife just noticed the coming California election has a referendum for public financing of campaigns but the proposed law will not supply as much money for third parties, it mainly benefits the existing two parties. As Gomer Pyle used to say "Surprise! Surprise!"

Why is it that the FED can bail out Europe (and put us on the hook for the money) and Illinois and California be left to rot?

Originally posted by dzonatas


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

[edit on 16-5-2010 by dzonatas]

There are many women who do not have the luxury of a father willing to watch a kid. Single mothers are called single mothers for a reason.

reply to post by odd1out


back in the 70's, the welfare offices were filled with people who were originally on welfare themselves. they were trained by welfare, and then place in that job, which basically paid about as much as they were getting on that welfare.

there used to be apprenticeships and on the job training.
and there wasn't a bunch of requirements that had to be met to watch someone's kids!

new york has place quite a few requirements on those day caregivers, special training that they feel is needed, ect. well...all that drives up the cost!
just like those welfare offices require a bachelor's degree to get a job in!! it all drives up costs!
it's our own expectations that are driving up costs!!
employers don't offer much in the line of on the job training, they want you to invest in school, and seemingly don't realize that hey, this is gonna drive up their costs, because those employees are now gonna have an additional item in the budget that needs to be funded, college loans!!

businesses don't want to waste time training their employees, they don't want to leave their kids with people who don't have the best training..they don't want any kid left with people without the best training, they don't want any of the little houses lining their street giving any hint of neglect, they don't want hungry kids peering through their windows or slums on their route to work, they don't want the ugliness that comes with proverty....
but...
they don't want to pay for any of it!! not through taxes, not through higher prices that pay for higher wages.....

so, we got bloated federal and state budgets!!!

reply to post by antonia


I think if they took all this welfare money and all these programs and scrapped them. Then took the money and bought a piece of land where people could build a place to live that they didn't have to pay for, and bought another piece of land that people could farm on, and bought some seeds. All these people who don't have the ability to learn how to steal other peoples money by middlemanning them a deal through some corporation to some consumer who is to lazy to cut out the middleman, then these people could function normally without the pressures of materialism.

Simply saying, "These people suck at life", is no qualified answer. It is not their fault that our society is setup so that you HAVE to have some job in order to have a place to live, and food to eat.

Place to live and food to eat should be a given. Let's take a serious look at the problem here.

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by dzonatas


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

[edit on 16-5-2010 by dzonatas]

There are many women who do not have the luxury of a father willing to watch a kid. Single mothers are called single mothers for a reason.

I've known many fathers that want to be with their kids. Single dads are called single dads for a reason.

Gee, must be the same reason.

Originally posted by dzonatas

Gee, must be the same reason.

Which would infer they probably need someone to watch their kid when they are at work right?

As for "county food stamps", i looked high and low. The only thing discussed is federally funded programs like this: www.dss.cahwnet.gov...



[edit on 16-5-2010 by antonia]

Originally posted by antonia
Which would infer they probably need someone to watch their kid when they are at work right?

Which also would imply that they went to court to be separated and the judge made a decision that is really no fault of either parent... except the incentive to apply for welfare because, as you say, you don't seem to have that luxury, so you have the incentive to apply.

Cookie-cutter case.

As for "county food stamps", i looked high and low. The only thing discussed is federally funded programs like this: www.dss.cahwnet.gov...

Gotta go to a County website: www.dhaweb.saccounty.net...

People have to go to one of the DHA offices to apply for the services in person (with exceptions). The application is mixed with the same one used for the State. Obviously, it thought it was an incentive, too.

To end State welfare would only take out about 1/3 of the application, which is the way it should be. The incentive to apply for State welfare shouldn't be part of the same application.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by dzonatas]

Originally posted by dzonatas

Which also would imply that they went to court to be separated and the judge made a decision that is really no fault of either parent... except the incentive to apply for welfare because, as you say, you don't seem to have that luxury, so you have the incentive to apply.

Cookie-cutter case.

you are assuming they got married in the first place. Many of these single mother never do. Anyway, you aren't answering the fundamental question: If you can't pay for child care, and you can't find anyone to watch your kids, how in the hell do you work? You can't leave them alone. You are simply causing another problem.

Gotta go to a County website: www.dhaweb.saccounty.net...

That's the same program. It's federally funded.

Originally posted by antonia
you are assuming they got married in the first place.

No, I didn't assume any couple was married. There still is a judge that determines what parent gets support for the kids.

California, unlike many other places, does not have shared parenting implemented.

If you can't pay for child care, and you can't find anyone to watch your kids, how in the hell do you work? You can't leave them alone. You are simply causing another problem.

I pointed you to the County website for an example on how to get help. I answered your question, so you can avoid a problem. If you don't live in California, then you are pulling my leg.

That's the same program. It's federally funded.

You obviously missed all the programs being listed there that are not funded by the feds. Who cares if they are? If you need immediate help, go get help!

If you want to avoid State and Federal, it explains it to you exactly what to fill-in on the application to receive basic foodstamps.

While you are down at DHA, you can find many papers and links on places that do child-care. You might even be able to volunteer at one until you get hired. Obviously, to do that, you would have to pass some tests.

County Medically Indigent Services Program, which is obviously not federal, will help get basic healthcare if you qualify. If you are a native, this is a RIGHT... not WELFARE! They don't discriminate either way.

I'm obviously not against the County services that provide native or welfare resources. They can still do away with State welfare and keep Federal and County services.

Nobody is going to riot. Child-care services are still available. They just won't be able to get 'aid' from the State like they used to; instead, they will have to do the footwork to go to these many organizations that have always existed, and done the real help, instead of of sitting on their arse to wait for the State check (to blow however they want).

I want to again reiterate that I respect everyone's opinions, and their right to whatever opinion they hold. With that being said however, I simply don't understand - indeed, cannot even fathom - some people's posts. I posted earlier in the thread, and while it got a lot of stars, not one person responded to or acknowledged by post, and instead people have continued to post saying things like "people are poor because they don't pull their weight," etc. So I will do something I try not to do too often at least (with variable success lol,) which is to repeat myself (with some added emphasis.)

Originally posted by AceWombat04
People rely on these benefits. Contrary to what some believe, there are many who really would be doomed to homelessness - legal and illegal alike - if this were to happen. Not everyone on welfare is lazy, an illegal immigrant, or simply not trying hard enough to find work. In fact, there are many people on some form of welfare or another who actually do work for a living, even without any of the niceties people often tell those people to go without to save money (cable, etc.)

I myself live in a two income home. It's a small apartment. We don't have cable. We only have marginal internet. We don't own a car. We don't pay for gas (for our nonexistent car.) We use mas transit. We don't pay for water. All we pay for is our portion of the rent, (heating) gas and electricity, and this internet connection (which is only 30 dollars a month.) We have done a lot to reduce our electric bill. We budget down to the last cent. If we were to lose our housing subsidy, we would be on the street. I grew up in and out of homeless shelters, and if this happens I'll be returning to my childhood nightmare existence at the age of 28. We won't be alone.

We also depend on public health coverage for chronic health conditions.

This cannot be allowed to happen in my opinion, and while I, as always, respect the views of everyone who disagrees with me, I do not understand the positions of those who support these measures given the above facts.

I would ask people who support these budget cuts (and again, reiterating for the third time, I do respect your right to do so and your opinion) to at least read the above and consider people like myself and my family. I am not an isolated example.

I would also like to point out that our governor opposes raising taxes, legalizing and taxing cannabis, or curtailing corporate tax breaks as other savings measures.

[edit on 5/16/2010 by AceWombat04]

Originally posted by dzonatas

Nobody is going to riot. Child-care services are still available. They just won't be able to get 'aid' from the State like they used to; instead, they will have to do the footwork to go to these many organizations that have always existed, and done the real help, instead of of sitting on their arse to wait for the State check (to blow however they want).

So, what you are saying is they are going from one form of welfare to another? Considering the job situation and the fact property tax receipts have gone down due to rampant foreclosures, well, I just can't see how one expects counties to absorb the problems. You do realize this is only the beginning? Cali can slash this and still not have enough to cover the shortfall.