Question:
What's your opinion on California's Welfare to Work (CalWorks) Program or Welfare recipients in general?
Leo
2010-05-15 12:53:04 UTC
What's your opinion on California's Welfare to Work (CalWorks) Program or Welfare recipients in general?:
Are they sponges too lazy to work for themselves? Scum of the universe? So on and so on...
-OR-
Do you feel these types of programs are necessary to ensure the people that need it are provided for (babies, single parent families, etc.)?
Do you feel your tax dollars are going to a good cause? Or just to druggies trying to score extra money for their addiction?
Please give me all your thoughts and opinions on any matter related to California's Welfare system. Thanks!
Four answers:
?
2010-05-15 13:05:54 UTC
Hey guess what...The governator is discontinuing that program, so you can relax now.

How about providing mental heath care to the 'druggies'? Instead of giving it to Mexicans who turn around and send it to mexico.

Watch the news now and again.
2010-05-15 13:10:49 UTC
Do you feel these types of programs are necessary to ensure the people that need it are provided for (babies, single parent families, etc.)?

==================================



Children are very, very, very expensive. They are something you plan for, or you harm them generally as they grow up, although not intentionally. You plan for them, or you are then throw onto general welfare, and my tax dollars pay for that, and I do not support my paying for the families of others instead of paying for my own family.



I adamantly appose it. I want the welfare stopped, and I want an education program that makes it clear that if you have a child, the person who forks up the money to pay for everything won't be the taxpayers. Do it anyway you like.. do not ask the taxpayer to pay any money for that child.



In California, muscle head discover the illegal aliens came to town and had two children on that welfare process and very decidedly expanded into yet more welfare for those kids. All of it out of the pockets of the California Taxpayers, and they did not like it. Part of the reason for the collapse of the housing market in this society has been the proclivity to set up welfare programs like that, and dump it on the home owners. If Arnold wants more people to move to California, and I don't think they will, he need to wack those programs even more.



The people using it? The full gamete of the population. It is thoroughly abused and under the philosophy of... they don't commit crime if we give them welfare. Put them in work farms down in El Centro or the Central Valley and it is more than a good bet that they will find other ways to do what they need to do without doing crime.

========================================



One thing needs to be clear here. People set up businesses and when they do, they sell it at a price that covers costs, and provides a profit. While some people say the taxes on the business is not passed along to the customer, they are bat wing crazy. The consumer pays for every single element of a society. Let the people decide what that society will provide and you have one thing. Let government decide, and they will spend every dime they get, borrow for more, raise your taxes, and then go deeper in debt. That tax is an incredibly bad idea.
2010-05-15 13:15:44 UTC
California is the one state in the union that refused to institute the Clinton era welfare reforms. The result is that it is now a magnet to every welfare case in the nation. California hosts a full third of all welfare recipients in the country. One in five people in L.A. County is on welfare. The state is broke and is just about to go into even deeper debt by boycotting Arizona on ideological grounds. In short, we elect actors and activists out here, not people who actually know anything about governing a state.
Chulis
2010-05-15 13:01:53 UTC
I believe that the welfare system should be handled differently. I don't have a problem with any one that uses it in order to survive. However, they should not make it their only source of income for eighteen years. In addition, I don't thing that the monies should go directly to the parents. Instead, they should make direct payments in order to meet the child's need. After all, sometimes the child does not get all the benefits that he/she is entitled to (clothes, shoes, etc.). Instead he will be walking around with an old shirt, ripped jeans and raggedy shoes while mom sports a nice hair do and acrylic nails.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...