SSI Governor's budget 2010 proposes another cut (tax, authority, design)

[Nedely]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

I wish he would cut all entitlement programs and wish the Feds would cut all of theirs as well. We were not originally a socialistic nation but are now. Do what the rest of the world does, prepair for retirement on your own and if you save the money needed to retire then go for it, or move in with a relative, or keep working. What a concept huh? If you get pregnant and need assistance, go to your family. Why should I pay for it? Why should I pay for anyone to live a lifestyle that they can not afford on their own?

This topic is not about such things, and your post is just a bunch of typical republican rhetoric that offers nothing to the discussion. Do you even know what SSI is? It is an income given to people who take care of the ill or elderly. Those who can't take care of themselves. The government does this and has similar programs, because they realize it's only right to HELP their citizens, not say "the heck with you if you have to take care of your ill mother, starve!" That's what makes this country great. If you can't understand that, that's your problem.

Californians don't mind the programs, but don't want their taxes raised. I think that's the only option left, apart from cutting services. The citizens need to realize this. California is a democratic state (obviously), and democrats are usually in favor of social programs. So why is there such an uproar about raising taxes? The state can't rely on property taxes right now because of so many homes lost. If taxes can't be raised, then programs have to be cut or done away with. That's the way it works.

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

It is an entitlement program. No where in the Constitution does it say anything about entitlements. Why should I pay you to take care of your family member? You don't need me to do that, do it on your own.

[LASam]

Originally Posted by Ludachris

I see all the criticism of the high speed rail project. But back in the depression era, how many people really thought we needed all the highways or dams that the government funded? I'm sure there were some skeptics when those projects were being proposed - especially in that economic climate. I'm sure there were Americans all over the place saying "look at the bright side, at least we'll have a nice new dam in Arizona" as they rolled their eyes.

I'm not saying it's a good or bad idea, I'm just saying that some critics might want to research what we've done in past recessions and how much we rely on some of those things today.

I agree in principle with what you are saying with regards to government spending on infrastructure as a way to stimulate the ecomony. I disagree however with the choice to invest these dollars on inter-city rail rather than the roads, airports, and most importantly to me... public transportation within cities.

[Ludachris]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

It is an entitlement program. No where in the Constitution does it say anything about entitlements. Why should I pay you to take care of your family member? You don't need me to do that, do it on your own.

You're right, social programs are not mentioned in the Constitution, they are voted in by the people. Maybe not by you, but by many of your peers. Obviously not everyone shares your view or we wouldn't have these programs. You've got a lot of work to do to change the minds of the majority.

[Ludachris]

Originally Posted by LASam

I agree in principle with what you are saying with regards to government spending on infrastructure as a way to stimulate the ecomony. I disagree however with the choice to invest these dollars on inter-city rail rather than the roads, airports, and most importantly to me... public transportation within cities.

And everyone is going to have an opinion on how the money can be better spent. But that will always be the case. Inter-city rail is intriguing because of how much it's used in Europe and other places. I don't know if it's a great idea in this particular case, but I also don't think it deserves as much criticism as it's gotten. It just might create a lot of opportunities, but then again, it might not. The options you mentioned have their own risks as well - for instance, public transportation isn't always widely used in some cities.

[nightbird47]

Originally Posted by heartfocus

Minor to you, but not to us struggling while paying full market rent! He cut it three times last year, why harm the poor and elderly over his budget problems?

I took my check to Oklahoma a bit over a year ago and lost a couple hundred a month in the process. The cost of living here is about half that of California so I am doing fine. And nobody took my fifty dollar raise. But I have a friend who despite housing is barely making it there. It sounds like the governer is trying to squeeze where he thinks people can't fight back. This makes me glad that the money I spend is NOT subsidizing this man's vendetta.

I feel for my friends who for various reasons cannot just leave and find an affordable place to live. All of my relatives are planning to move out so soon I'll have no reason to go back.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by Nedely

This program is being cut all over. Here in NM, not only is the income lacking, but it was cut for the first time, and the cut was pretty significant. And the waiting list for new applicants is well over a year. My mother receieved SSI when my sister was alive, and she got cut several times over the years. None were ever as minimal as 15 dollars. Consider yourself lucky.

Actually, the baseline for SSI was $907 a year ago, so the reduction would be a total of $77 from the base.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

I wish he would cut all entitlement programs and wish the Feds would cut all of theirs as well. We were not originally a socialistic nation but are now. Do what the rest of the world does, prepair for retirement on your own and if you save the money needed to retire then go for it, or move in with a relative, or keep working. What a concept huh? If you get pregnant and need assistance, go to your family. Why should I pay for it? Why should I pay for anyone to live a lifestyle that they can not afford on their own?

Not to turn this into a P&OC type of debate, but you are very inaccurate in that comment. Also, many of the folks receiving SSI are handicapped, so it doesn't have to do with getting pregnant or not working.

Folks with spina bifida, cerebral palsy or trisomy 21 don't have the ability to sufficiently generate income. This reduction is on top of the prior reductions, which would now total $77 per month. Also, they have eliminated all eye care and dental care for these folks too in California.

Perhaps you would just like to declare them "normal", and have the problem go away...

[Fiddlehead]

Some of the critical thinking-challenged fall for this right-wing radio garbage.

Truth is, any civilization cares for the young, old, weak, and otherwise infirm. To do otherwise would be barbaric. Of course the Glen Beck disciples would have us care for returning Iraq veterans but not for some slacker with spinabifida or cerebral palsy. These arguments that caring for people or the environment = socialism are so moronic that it is depressing. Of course we need government in a country and civilization as advanced as ours. And we need to protect the natural heritage of all from the greed of a few.

De Toqueville observed in the 1820s that our country had the seeds of an industrial aristocracy and a servant class of workers with unbridled industrialism. He was right, and many of the "entitlements" of the last century has served to create that bridle and protect us from the horribly inequitable conditions that have plagued societies throughout history. I am proud of entitlements, as I am of the donation I sent to Haiti today. Generosity is the most American and patriotic of sentiments. All creeds teach it.

I do believe we need to have a thoughtful discussion of each of our programs and how we can fund them. This country has always walked a fine line between personal liberty and grotesque selfishness. Bogus, black and white rhetoric about "socialism" and "entitlements" does not help us in this struggle for our future and that of our children. I hope we chose and open hearted approach, but we must be sensible about how to pay for it, and willing to make sacrifices to make ends meet.

[Nedely]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

It is an entitlement program. No where in the Constitution does it say anything about entitlements. Why should I pay you to take care of your family member? You don't need me to do that, do it on your own.

You don't get it. Selfishness and ignorance this disgusting would be less unsettling if it were coming from a teenager, but you're actually an adult.