California is the top welfare state: 33% of welfare recipients live in CA (gallon, how much)

[pommysmommy]

Originally Posted by joebaldknobber

Have you ever seen what is going on at Parkland Hospital in Dallas. Illegals get full treatment in Texas.

Do you think all those South Dallas gunshot victims have insurance when they're taken to Parkland.

The government pays hospitals money for providing care to illegal immigrants in emergent situations.

[mary54mi]

California is the top welfare state: 33% of welfare recipients live in CA


My brother was an alcoholic during the 90's in CA, he would not move back home to MI bc he said they wouldn't pay him to stay drunk in MI. Weird I know but fact. BTW he has moved on to the heavens, a much better place.

[pommysmommy]

If you are in need of a welfare, substance abuse enabling state, California is the place to go.

[wehotex]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

This is not good for California. Their total population is 1/8 of the nations total yet they have 33% of the nations welfare recipients living there.

There's lots of cuts going on but the welfare in CA is just too attractive even with the cuts.

Nation's largest welfare state makes deep cuts (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/12/28/state/n103700S74.DTL&type=politics - broken link)
Advocates of welfare reform in California often cite one, eye-popping statistic as they have pressed for cuts and changes to the program in recent years: The state has one-eighth of the nation's population but one-third of all welfare recipients.
..
The main reason California has such a high percentage of the nation's welfare cases is because it is one of the few states that continue to provide welfare checks for children once their parents are no longer eligible.
About three-quarters of California's welfare recipients are children age 18 and younger.
..
California's relatively high cost of living and its large number of low-wage jobs make it difficult for residents to make ends meet, she said. By 2009, California saw 1.3 million apply for state assistance, and the number has continued to climb.

Considering the unbelievable amount of immigrants there (both legal & illegal) and the State's generous benefits, this comes as no surprise to an ex-californian like myself.

[pommysmommy]

Maybe humanitarians like Nancy Pelosi will donate money to make up for the non tax paying people of the state. lol

[Caleb Longstreet]

As Margaret Thatcher once said, "The problem with socialism is that sooner or later, you run out of other people's money". How fitting, how true. Social programs are great.....for those that receive them....disaster for those that pay for them. To be sure some are necessary, most are not.

Whether one likes/believes in them or not, one thing is definitely true, you have to figure out how to pay for them. California continues to lead the way in social experimentation and failed social policies. I'm sure most are well intended and more or less, abused with no proper oversight.

Bottom line? You can't afford them. Cut back or economically perish. Your politicians have proved what the white house is now learning....

Sooner or later, you ARE going to run out of other people's money......the difference being of course that you can't print and borrow across the nations back, pork barrel spending notwithstanding........to those that are paying this burden, you have my sympathy.

That or you could insist on the continued stellar leadership of Feinstein, Maxine Waters or Barbara Boxer? Laughable....and folks on the west coast thought that ignorance was the monopoly of the rest of this country?

Maybe some fences, hell landmines, and serious reform is finally something your state should consider? Are you feeling it yet? If not now, when? Companies are moving OUT of California....they are tired of paying the freight. I would think it's citizenry would be as well?

[Jill61]

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

Inflation and increased unemployment are always wonderful.

Paying working people a living wage will only lead to inflation and increased unemployment if the greedy hoarders at the top continue to refuse to share the company profits with the actual workers who generate them.

Both Walmart & Starbucks, for example, could easily afford to give every one of their employees in the United States a $5,000 a year raise and not raise the price of their products one single penny. And they'd both still have billions of dollars a year in profits.

No inflation, no increased unemployment.

There is no excuse for this.



None. Well, except greed and selfishness.

I have no clue what makes those on the Right think that average working people in America don't deserve to share in the rewards of their labor with their corporate overlords.

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

I actually agree with you on that.

Well that's a start.

Originally Posted by plwhit

And what does this have to do with the OP concerning California being the welfare capital of America?

It has to do with why we're seeing such a high percentage of the population needing government assistance to survive anymore. Corporations are literally stealing our wealth by treating us like slave labor. If that stopped and businesses started paying their employees a decent wage, we'd see a huge drop off in the number of people on welfare and it would cost the taxpayers exponentially less.

The American taxpayer isn't subsidizing individuals, we're subsidizing corporations. Our minimum wage laws allow corporations to get away with making everyone else in the country pick up the tab for what companies refuse to pay their employees while they pocket billions and billions in profits and personal wealth at the expense of every single one of us.

Originally Posted by Caleb Longstreet

As Margaret Thatcher once said, "The problem with socialism is that sooner or later, you run out of other people's money".

The problem with Margaret Thatcher's theory is that she thinks the profits from the labor of average workers belongs to their overlords and not to them, thereby getting away with calling it "other people's money." It's not. It's our money. We're the ones laboring for the corporation to earn it, therefore we've earned it. Pay us our fair share. It's ours, not theirs.

Originally Posted by Caleb Longstreet

How fitting, how true. Social programs are great.....for those that receive them....disaster for those that pay for them. To be sure some are necessary, most are not.

There would be less need of social programs if the people on the right-hand side of the above chart paid the labor force a fair wage for their work. It isn't social programs that are destroying this country - it's the inequity in how corporate profits are distributed among all the people who work to generate them, not just those at the very top.

Originally Posted by Caleb Longstreet

Whether one likes/believes in them or not, one thing is definitely true, you have to figure out how to pay for them. California continues to lead the way in social experimentation and failed social policies. I'm sure most are well intended and more or less, abused with no proper oversight.

I'd rather not figure out how to pay for them and force corporations to pony up what belongs to the workers for the sweat of their labor so that social program spending would fall naturally.

[jerseygal4u]

I read one time California and other states like NJ send more money to Washington than it receives back.
Maybe that's the problem,if Cali was allowed to actually keep most of the money it sends to Washington it wouldn't being going bankrupt.

The same thing with my state of Nj,for every dollar sent to the feds we get 10 cents back.

So all these posters commenting that live in red states need to check the facts. You guys get more fed money then you send in. How is that for states rights?
If you guys want states rights so bad and a decentralized goverment most southern states would actually go broke.

[jerseygal4u]

Every state also has different criteria about who is and isn't considered a welfare receipent.

Some states count everyone getting food stamps only(even if they don't get cash benefits).
Some count only those who receive cash assistance and food stamps.
Still others report everyone on Medicaid,even if they don't receive cash assistance nor food stanps.

[waterboy7375]

Originally Posted by jerseygal4u

I read one time California and other states like NJ send more money to Washington than it receives back.
Maybe that's the problem,if Cali was allowed to actually keep most of the money it sends to Washington it wouldn't being going bankrupt.

The same thing with my state of Nj,for every dollar sent to the feds we get 10 cents back.

So all these posters commenting that live in red states need to check the facts. You guys get more fed money then you send in. How is that for states rights?
If you guys want states rights so bad and a decentralized goverment most southern states would actually go broke.

Actualy ya get about 60 cents back per $1 paid. Not good , but better then a dime.

TaxProf Blog: Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed