California contemplates ultimate reform - no welfare (Congressmen, salary, drugs)

[Huckleberry3911948]

terminator is playing chicken again with sacramento. its the only way he can get them to do their job. launching 1/2 million angry welfare recipients upon them works great.
what the welfare recipients dont know is terminator has already approved the most user hostile automated welfare system known to man--- to be launched in a matter of weeks.

[thatguy1]

Originally Posted by dcashley

Will the government just let people starve? Turn to crime? Riot in the streets?

Hopefully the government will let people get off their asses and work.

[brokensky]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Anifani, let me try to make it easy. Does America have problems? Yes. Can they be solved by whining that "people should have done better"? What's your reply?

Your solution is to send every American a memo, saying "it's your own fault".

No? That's not your solution? Then what is? How do we get health care for 40-million people, besides just calling them stupid rednecks, or ****** or ******** or ***** or *******?? What do you propose to make life better for the American people that we've already got, warts and all?

I never said to send everyone a memo that says "IT's your fault!!!" And I don't believe in whining - I believe in solutions!

I have a lot of ideas about dealing with poverty as well as reforming healthcare. However, these issues are addressed by politicians - and even tho they are supposed to listen to their constituents, they don't! They listen to contributors, lobbyists and "experts" (who often have a vested interest in the subject).

I believe in grassroots level solutions. The states across this country screwed themselves when they started accepting federal dollars instead of depending on their own budgets to fund the programs/infrastructure in their communities. My feeling is that if you don't have the tax revenue that will allow you to build the new school, the new hospital, the new roads . . . you don't build them. If you don't have the programs to send 4 year old "at risk" kids to pre-kindergarten, you don't have that program.

I could write pages on this but I guess it comes down to fiscal responsibility. If I ran my household like a government, I would have been bankrupt long ago.

At this stage of the game, California has few choices but to start cutting out programs. Slash and burn. Plain and simple. Attrition will take care of some of the problems - people will simply leave for greener pastures.

The next step after cutting out programs is to raise revenue, so that means taxes have to go up. And that's that. Not much else California can do but cut programs and raise taxes.

[HowardRoarke]

Welfare has become its own government controlled industry, just like public education. Welfare=votes.

My home state of NY is welfare queen central. Fully $45B+ of that state's budget goes to Medicaid, and in NY Medicaid provides ALL of the benefits which the federal gubmint says states can pick and choose from. No co-pays, dental is 100% covered, and the list goes on.

NY is one of those states where one can see welfarites with $400 cell phones, new cars, flat screens, etc.

Medicaid reimbursements to doctors and hospitals keep getting cut, so, anyone with private insurance has to pick up the tab, making NY one of the most expensive states for health premiums.

Expect NY, CA. and a few other Blue states to go bankrupt, soon, which I'm sure Obama will be more than delighted to pick up the tab, for.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by anifani821

I never said to send everyone a memo that says "IT's your fault!!!" And I don't believe in whining - I believe in solutions!
.

I never said you did. You responded to my reply to Miu, which places me in the position of not knowing the position of people that challenge me to explain. Take my explanation as being a response to Miu, and not to you. go back and read Miu, then look at what I replied.

My position remains the same. People who do not suggest solutions to existing problems are not, well, offering solutions.

Miu thought I was saying we should have only one person to do the job of 100. What I was saying is that it make no sense to develop highly mechanized industry and put 200 people to work to do the work of 100.

[nebulous1]

Originally Posted by dcashley

California contemplates ultimate reform - no welfare

OUCH....this will hurt millions of very poor, destitute people...

Will the government just let people starve? Turn to crime? Riot in the streets?

It will only be denied to American citizens. If you come from another country, you will get aid....

[HighPlainsDrifter73]

Originally Posted by jtur88

So, let me see if I understand. The only reason we force people to simultaneously commute by the millions on clogged freeways to places where they perform mindless unproductive tasks, is some equally mindless fear that if they did not do that, they would swirl down into some sewer of indignity.

I'm one of those people who commutes to work on the freeways and I sure don't perform mindless unproductive tasks. I have a significant position in our information security area along with others and my position involves the safe storage and access of company confidential and proprietary data. If these tasks are not handled because of insufficient staffing, we can be sued.

I do not believe that companies pay individuals to not work or because of some social reason. I'm here to do specific and required tasks. If I stop doing them, I'll be looking for work. I am a well compensated professional and am not willing to rock the boat. I'm fairly pleased with my life and my job and wish to change nothing about it at this time.

I'm not sure I understand some of the statements you've made on this forum.

[brokensky]

Originally Posted by jtur88

I never said you did. You responded to my reply to Miu, which places me in the position of not knowing the position of people that challenge me to explain. Take my explanation as being a response to Miu, and not to you. go back and read Miu, then look at what I replied.

My position remains the same. People who do not suggest solutions to existing problems are not, well, offering solutions.

Miu thought I was saying we should have only one person to do the job of 100. What I was saying is that it make no sense to develop highly mechanized industry and put 200 people to work to do the work of 100.

Thank you for clarifying. I like posting with you b/c you challenge people to think.

America's roots were agrarian. Farming is a business. In my state, farming created situations that were conducive to entrepreneurship. Thus, we have many small businesses here. We used to have many small factories (textile, furniture manufacturing, specialty businesses contracting w/ auto manufacturers, etc). This state (NC) has been profoundly anti-union - meaning - people prefer autonomy in both running businesses and in how they plan their careers. Unions impede individual decisions (and responsibility) for workers and impede innovation for manufacturers. My opinion and no, I am not interested in arguing about that if anyone disagrees. I am a small business owner, have worked for small businesses, and altho there are exceptions (firefighters, teachers, etc) most unions encourage an anomosity b/n labor and owners.

Here in NC, owning your own business - or being a freelancer or contract worker - is an aspiration. Why? Our natives are genetically predisposed, Hee Hee. Honestly, I do think children learn f/ parents and it has been common here to espouse autonomy, freedom of choice and to avoid total dependence on an employer to supply one's total income. Underground businesses exist, as well . . . no, not talking about meth labs or stolen goods, but craftsmen and artists and farmers who make income "on the side" . . .

The one biggest thing that this government could do to put people back to work is to encourage them to create their own businesses. However, this needs to be at the grassroots level - incubators, tax breaks, group purchasing power for needed services and benefits.

I have watched the Viet Namese who came here as refugees in the mid to late 70s. Many came thru/ church sponsorships. They arrived with nothing and the charity of churches helped set them up w/ housing, household goods, and jobs. I see these families 30 years later and what they have accomplished is amazing. Even the second generation owns businesses. They figured out how to generate income by providing services and they saved their money, bought homes, invested in the community and became tax paying citizens. I have watched them and thought - could I have gone to THEIR country and survived - indeed - created a good life for myself, moved up the ladder financially? Why were they successful? It is b/c they understood that having one's own business means having control over one's future.

So instead of shuffling people into the roles of entitlement programs, how about teaching them to be successful? Most people who malinger on "welfare roles" were lousy students (for whatever reason - maybe they had a crackhead momma and no daddy; maybe they have a learning disability; maybe they were addicted to meth by 12 - who knows why?) and most didn't even complete high school. Sending them off to get their GED may seem feasible and for some, perhaps this is an opportunity. But for most, a mentoring, hands on program - working w/ successful business people - to learn how to run a business would be more valuable. Of course, that only works if people have an incentive as malingerers who are drawing monthly checks and getting freebie services (housing, healthcare, WIC, foodstamps, etc) are not motivated to do crap. So . . . these entitlement programs cannot reward people for sitting on their arses. Therein lies the rub. They have to EARN their bennies.

There is a lot more I could say . . . entitlements don't end w/ welfare - our penal system is a big drain on society, as well. Anyone who thinks prisons "rehabilitate" offenders obviously has not worked in or with the system. Jailing people who are substance abusers is absurd. Substance abuse and addiction leads to criminal behavior but only b/c the offender needs $$ to procure more of their drug of choice. Couple that w/ impaired judgment and you get thugs. I could write about this all day, too. But simply put, our penal system and sentencing guidelines need to be changed - and mental health and substance abuse treatment need to be accessed, along w/ real rehab, to get people out of the system and into the workforce as stable, tax paying citizens.

Then there is the military . . . and various civilian corps that could be re-worked to provided hands on mentoring and job training for young people from at risk situations.

So there are things that can be done to increase employment, but it has to start w/ the individual, and it cannot be incentivized on the basis of current welfare laws, wh/ reward the unmotivated.

[tallrick]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Then we gained nothing from industrialization. In fact, we lost ground. We've regressed from one industrial worker per family, to two. Industrialization simply created twice as much work that had to be done to sustain us. I can hardly wait for the next big miracle breakthrough, when children will have to be sent to work, too, in order to produce all the necessary goods and sevices..

Much of this is not due to industrialization but speculation on non-productive things like residential real estate. Around here it was common for people to spend 50% of their income just on housing! Imagine how much money "earned" goes to mandatory money pits like income taxes, sales taxes, energy taxes, property taxes, and various Government mandated expenses like auto insurance, user fees and the like. The way to handle unnecessary workers is to allow everyone to live tax free in their own homes. Relax needless Government control to entrepreneurs can start businesses without requiring expensive Government licensing and overpriced insurance. If someone cannot get a job then that one could raise their own food and survive till they can. Really all one needs is food, water and energy, period. Welfare would not be necesary if Government was not so big. Automation and technology improves our lives while "financial services" have reduced our living standards drastically. Eliminating financial services and cutting government is the solution.

[elamigo]

Originally Posted by dcashley

California contemplates ultimate reform - no welfare

OUCH....this will hurt millions of very poor, destitute people...

Will the government just let people starve? Turn to crime? Riot in the streets?

I am for it. However, I am aware there are people that truly could use some help. I believe that a moral fiber of a society is reflected on how we take care of our children, elders and the bonafide poor. I am not for just letting people rut on the streets.

I have not problem with some social programs that are geared on helping people to learn to take care of themselves, not just give them money without earning and learning anything. That is conducive to laziness and abuse of taxpayer money.

I do agree that there will be some social upheaval because people are used to free government assistance. They look at it as right and demand it.

This is one more example of what happens when a government system has socialistic programs. Eventually, the seems will bust because it becomes very expensive and wasteful.

The same happened in the former Soviet Union and its satellite states. Canada is starting to feel the pinch of the expense as the systems expands because the demands expands meaning more burden on the taxpayers. England and France to say the least are also starting to see the seems stretching and ocassionally cutting programs to make it work. Eventually, they will feel the pain and they must do what the Soviet Union and company had to do.

If that happens it will be painful but in the long run it will help and also make the people become more self sufficient.
You have a great day.
El Amigo