Perchoutofwater Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Obama want's to cut California's stimulus if they cut the wages of union workers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Obama want's to cut California's stimulus if they cut the wages of union workers. which is why socialism will take over here. there are more have nots than there are haves. the have nots are in power now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Yay for the poor getting their wages back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 I actually worked with that program for ten years. I started The Huddle while on that state contract. It allows blind, disabled and aged people to remain safely in their home. It saves the state a ton of money over sticking them all in institutions which there would not even be enough to house the 440,000 people enrolled. When I left EDS in 2001, care givers were not unionized though and only making about half that amount. Regardless, it does save the state a ton of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted May 8, 2009 Author Share Posted May 8, 2009 which is why socialism will take over here. there are more have nots than there are haves. the have nots are in power now. Pretty much what Mr. Franklin says in my sigline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted May 8, 2009 Author Share Posted May 8, 2009 I actually worked with that program for ten years. I started The Huddle while on that state contract. It allows blind, disabled and aged people to remain safely in their home. It saves the state a ton of money over sticking them all in institutions which there would not even be enough to house the 440,000 people enrolled. When I left EDS in 2001, care givers were not unionized though and only making about half that amount. Regardless, it does save the state a ton of money. And that is a state that needs to save a ton of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 I actually worked with that program for ten years. I started The Huddle while on that state contract. It allows blind, disabled and aged people to remain safely in their home. It saves the state a ton of money over sticking them all in institutions which there would not even be enough to house the 440,000 people enrolled. When I left EDS in 2001, care givers were not unionized though and only making about half that amount. Regardless, it does save the state a ton of money. That's the problem that remains unacknowledged - tons gets spent and simple people think it is wasted without understanding that if it isn't spent, the cost will be even greater. On a micro-scale, there's a $400,000 program here in MN that is under the hammer even though spending that $400k is estimated to save $3 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted May 8, 2009 Author Share Posted May 8, 2009 That's the problem that remains unacknowledged - tons gets spent and simple people think it is wasted without understanding that if it isn't spent, the cost will be even greater. On a micro-scale, there's a $400,000 program here in MN that is under the hammer even though spending that $400k is estimated to save $3 million. Wouldn't you rather see the amount Minnesotans give to the federal government in taxes reduced and have the state fund the program? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Wouldn't you rather see the amount Minnesotans give to the federal government in taxes reduced and have the state fund the program? It's not relevant. What is relevant is the constant howling about "welfare" when that "welfare" is often a darn sight cheaper than what would be needed if it was removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 That's the problem that remains unacknowledged - tons gets spent and simple people think it is wasted without understanding that if it isn't spent, the cost will be even greater. On a micro-scale, there's a $400,000 program here in MN that is under the hammer even though spending that $400k is estimated to save $3 million. Sure, but the conservative mindset would not have either amount spent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Sure, but the conservative mindset would not have either amount spent. It's OK, charities will take over and automatically do a better job and take up the slack. Families will not shirk their responsibilities to the old and the infirm. And nice fluffy bunnies will cross the rainbow bridge...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 It's OK, charities will take over and automatically do a better job and take up the slack. Families will not shirk their responsibilities to the old and the infirm. And nice fluffy bunnies will cross the rainbow bridge...... All the government needs to do is spend some money on boot straps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted May 8, 2009 Author Share Posted May 8, 2009 It's not relevant. What is relevant is the constant howling about "welfare" when that "welfare" is often a darn sight cheaper than what would be needed if it was removed. It is relevant. The states know better what their people need. Let the states and charities provide the welfare as needed. You cut out he middle man, and improve efficiency. You don't have to worry about your money being withheld because you aren't doing what the ruling class in Washington likes. I guarantee if the states and charities did it, it would be done cheaper and with less corruption than the federal government doing it. Well that is true for most states. With the way Minnesota handles elections maybe they are more corrupt than Washington, but that isn't true for most states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Obama want's to cut California's stimulus if they cut the wages of union workers. Darn those Democrats for upholding a federal law! It is downright un-American to follow what the law says! Oh wait . . . . Perch, you are exactly right on the Chrysler issue. You are dead wrong on vilifying the administration for actually following the law. Just like you are slamming the current administration for actuially ENFORCING the laws regarding companies that sneak out of paying billions in taxes. It is somehow wrong to get mad about someone enforcing the law? Hell, I dont agree with most speed limits, but that doesnt get me any clemency when a cop pulls me over . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted May 8, 2009 Author Share Posted May 8, 2009 Darn those Democrats for upholding a federal law! It is downright un-American to follow what the law says! Oh wait . . . . Perch, you are exactly right on the Chrysler issue. You are dead wrong on vilifying the administration for actually following the law. Just like you are slamming the current administration for actuially ENFORCING the laws regarding companies that sneak out of paying billions in taxes. It is somehow wrong to get mad about someone enforcing the law? Hell, I dont agree with most speed limits, but that doesnt get me any clemency when a cop pulls me over . . . What law is he upholding? Where have I slammed this or any other administration for enforcing lawas regarding companies not paying taxes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Schwarzenegger's office was advised this week by federal health officials that the wage reduction, which will save California $74 million, violates provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted May 8, 2009 Author Share Posted May 8, 2009 (edited) Oh, ok, it violates the law that was passed in the middle of the night that nobody got tor read, and that wasn't posted for 5 days like he said he would. Well, since I was pretty much against the entire bill to begin with, I'm against the dems protecting their campaign contributors at the expense of tax payers. Honestly didn't know it was in there. So again it goes back to protecting the base at the expense of the tax payer. Still, where have I ever supported companies not paying taxes owed? I think the whole tax system in this country is f'd up but I still pay and think everyone and every entity should pay what is owed, including Obama's appointees. Edited May 8, 2009 by Perchoutofwater Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Oh, ok, it violates the law that was passed in the middle of the night that nobody got tor read Through this point, I thought you were referring to the Patriot Act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted May 8, 2009 Author Share Posted May 8, 2009 Through this point, I thought you were referring to the Patriot Act. Nope, the Patriot Act has many flaws, and things not to like, but if it is truly harmful, it can be overturned and that is it. With the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act our grand kids will be paying for that mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 We need to pay welfare for illegal immigrants, but not pay for this. WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is asking Congress to slash almost in half a 43-year-old Justice Department program that provides death, disability and education benefits to the families of slain police and public safety officers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted May 8, 2009 Author Share Posted May 8, 2009 We need to pay welfare for illegal immigrants, but not pay for this. I've got no problem with it. Cut it, let the states and counties pay for it. Also cut the amount the Federal government takes in by what ever that program costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts