Is this the welfare reform of California?

Joined: 22 Dec 2007 Posts: 461

www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-calworks17-2009jun17,0,6294929.story

I'm at a loss here. I thought the welfare reform that the country did in the 90's was a good thing. I don't understand this concept however of taking away training for single parents and forcing them to take care of their kids 24/7.

I agree in the statement that if the state pays these people to stay home they will become more dependent on the system.

In the short term yes maybe this would save the state money but in the long term it won't. Think about it. If they got a job off of this it means they'd be working which also pays into the system whereas a system of dependency would cycle if they stay on it. The other effects are then anyone getting paid by the state to do the daycare loses money and the schools lose money as well. So clearly more than just the parents are going to be effected by this. If the system works and is an improvement over what was prior why change it?

Joined: 06 Jul 2003 Posts: 8377 Location: Central CA

Are you from California? If you are, then you know what's going on here and have no need to feign confusion. If not, you should probably read up a little on California politics and the tyranny that can be wrought by a political minority in a state under the "super majority" rule that was the main reason that Proposition 13 was put forth in the first place.

First off, why would you think that the Yacht party has any concern whatsoever for what happens to the people after the safety net is shredded? There are no provisions being made for it in any of the rhetoric from either Arnie or the Yacht Party members of the legislature. There will be no "cycle of dependency" because there will be nobody or nothing to depend on.

As is almost always the case, just follow the money. There are a lot of things being cut and done otherwise out here that don't make economic sense and under the present system don't NEED to as long as you're a member of the nothing for the poor, shift the wealth upward, no taxes for the rich, one third plus one minority that rules California.

Most of the cuts have pure politics in the form of acquiescence to the huge Yacht Party political machine as their sole motivational factor and every one of them represent some form of financial "victory" for the Yacht Party. Cutting the jobs training program simply eliminates what the YP sees as a drain on the general fund and eliminates one of the needs to increase their taxes.

For an example outside the arena of "welfare", check out the closure of roughly 80% of our state parks and beaches because the Yacht Party wants them "privatized"... in other words run by private enterprise for profit... for just one easy to understand example. Imagine one of our rugged Coastal areas famous world wide for it's scenic beauty... then imagine it with Waikiki or Miami style developers in charge.

This is how the Yacht Party looks at things, Dovell. Nothing is done that does not benefit them in some way shape or form. It has to increase their income or reduce their outgo... nothing else matters.

This should be important to non-Californians because these kind of things are what's in store for the rest of the country if the ruling class has it's way... they've just been accelerated here through the 2/3 majority requirement for any fiscally motivated legislation.

It's the course that was set in the Reagan days and it's the course that successive administrations, both Republican and Democratic and including the present one, have followed.

Joined: 22 Dec 2007 Posts: 461

I'm not from California I'm from mass.

If this is such the case though then how did Angelides lose?

I was under the impression that much of california (at least from san francisco going down) was more liberal.

I can somewhat understand the lack of change because the same thing happens here. Mass is mostly a one part democrat state. Oddly enough though there's a fair amount of infighting. The speaker of the house (3rd one in a row) is in legal trouble. The war chests and budgets of those in office here are so large due to the lack of competition anyone running against an incumbent has a automatic disadvantage. Infact there's a bylaw that states that incuments names show up on top on a ballot! In some cases it's just near impossible to even want to attempt. The senators both have tens if not 100 million dollars. There's no primary competition and there's constant reelections.

Joined: 06 Jul 2003 Posts: 8377 Location: Central CA

Angelides was up against the Terminator. Do you really think he ever had a chance?

Also, don't believe everything you see or hear in the movies or on TV about California. Most of us out here are ordinary people doing ordinary things just like people in Massachusetts or wherever.

The Democrats are the majority here in CA... they just don't have a 2/3 majority and that, coupled with Ahnold being the governor means that the minority effectively controls everything that happens and their agenda is pretty much as I described it in the above post.

	Forum Index -> Politics Schmolitics	All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1