SSI Governor's budget 2010 proposes another cut (Arnold: how much, income, taxes)

[heartfocus]

As part of the 2010-2011 budget, the governor wants to cut SSI again from $845 to $830. He cut it 3 times last year, and he thinks if he knit-picks us to death, we won't notice it. Please call your state legislator if you care:

2010-11 California State Budget

[Fiddlehead]

Originally Posted by heartfocus

As part of the 2010-2011 budget, the governor wants to cut SSI again from $845 to $830. He cut it 3 times last year, and he thinks if he knit-picks us to death, we won't notice it. Please call your state legislator if you care:

2010-11 California State Budget

What else is he supposed to do? Sounds like a minor cut to me, given the apocalyptic budget situation. And as an Oregonian, I really don't want to bail you all out again, so cuts must come from somewhere or you could alway volunteer for a tax increase....

In fairness, you can also vote against the timber receipts subsidy to Oregon and other timber states. Welfare, plain and simple.

We all need to suck it up and get through this.

[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?

[Nedely]

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?

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.

[LQQKOUT]

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 am sorry to say this but Fiddle has a good point. And I have parents that live on SSI....not in California. But California made some bad investments and now they (meaning the people of California) are paying the price. Sorry for your situation, but something has got to give.

[Ludachris]

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?

Yet he can't raise taxes. Everyone is going to feel the pain with cuts. But what else can be done? The California voters will have to endure this, as they are the ones who voted for all of the unaffordable services in the past which has put CA in this situation.

I'm not saying I don't feel for your situation, I'm just saying I can't see any other way to go about fixing the budget situation - which, by the way, is not only "his" problem. It's the voters' problem. You can thank your neighbors for this, but you can't blame Arnold. He's got to make a lot of cuts to fix what the people voted for. It's the people of CA who are to blame.

Someone should propose a bill that prevents the voters from being able to vote in more programs than the state can pay for - force the voters to be responsible. And then, when the state makes less money to support those programs, there needs to be a black and white plan for prioritizing the programs so that they all get equal and fair cuts - this way the lobbyists have less influence.

[LASam]

[sarcasm]But on the plus side, we're going to get a high speed train![/sarcasm]

The way this state is run makes to sense to me at all.

[Ludachris]

Originally Posted by LASam

[sarcasm]But on the plus side, we're going to get a high speed train![/sarcasm]

The way this state is run makes to sense to me at all.

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.

[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?

[Ludachris]

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?

The rest of the world, the civilized world at least, also has nationalized health care too. But I'm sure you wouldn't want to head down that road. We weren't originally as big on capitalism early on either, yet I'm guessing you're okay with that evolution of our society. We are not a socialist nation as you suggest, we just have socialistic characteristics, among others.