Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Uploaded: Friday, July 24, 2009, 9:35 AM

Agencies serving elderly, kids brace for impact
State cuts to safety-net programs could prove costlier in long run, officials say

by Sue Dremann
Palo Alto Weekly Staff

Posted by Jennifer Moser, a resident of another community, on Jul 24, 2009 at 9:51 am

Now we know what Arnold meant by the budget cuts. He is slashing his own career and the lives of hard working victims of the recession. Kids are going to suffer and will most likely go other states or die in California. The rich are fine, they don't need the poor working in their grocery stores or setting up too many tent cities near the beach. The Republican Terminator and Murderer, he has the blood of millions on his hands.

Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 24, 2009 at 3:17 pm

If we hadn't destroyed "the rich", then we wouldn't have destroyed the businesses that employ everyone who pays the taxes which kept California going, and the people would still have enough money and confidence in their own personal security to keep donating.

Enjoy the results of that lovely class warfare! They are the same results around the world and here at home. Doesn't matter.

So, obviously, to fix this problem, we need more warfare against against the "rich", to make them have even less, ..honestly Jennifer, clearly that is the right solution, so there even fewer employers, less employment, fewer people paying taxes, and fewer people donating.

yup, that is clearly the answer. get rid of the upper 50% of our economic population, then there will be nothing but lower 50% left, which will be so much better for everyone, because THEN, just like in every other society that has had such a cultural revolution ( think China, Cuba, USSR, Venezuela now, etc) where that that d*&^ rich-poor gap shrank, everyone will be SO much better off! yup, good thinking.

Posted by azady39, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jul 24, 2009 at 10:01 pm

Perspective,

Although I see your point, I think that 50/50 is pretty inaccurate. From what I understand,the wealthiest 1% of the population in our nation control 90% of the wealth. Which is why class warfare seems enticing to so many of the have-nots. In those countries you mentioned---whose outcomes admittedly were not good----it got to that point because the greed of the upper classes became too much for the poor to endure. The fact is, corporations subsidize cheap immigrant labor and outsource jobs in order to cut costs and increase profits. They are not providing jobs as much as they are decimating the American economy through globalization. And yes, when things get like this, class war seems like a desirable solution. The results of it are not forseen by the outraged and impoverished masses. I think the whole trickle-down theory has been proven to be disastrous in the last few decades. The American dream is becoming unattainable for even some of the most hardworking and dedicated people. Check out Web Link

Posted by MJJP, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Jul 25, 2009 at 4:25 am

I don't see any cuts in power mobility equipement? No doubt some people need them and they provide a way for people to stay in their homes but I can't see spending thousands of taxpayer dollars to individuals who are well off and can afford to buy them. I know personally of power wheel chair equipement that runs upwards of $20,000 with options. The same model stripped down on the internet can be purchased for around $4000.00. Thats retail! The usual markup is 100%. How do I know? I was an ex dealer who specialized in scooters only and was forced out of business by Medicare who doesn't want to deal with a mom and pop business.

Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 25, 2009 at 6:26 pm

asady39: oh yes, I can see how well that class warfare mentality is working out for the lower 50%. BTW, please cite where you think the top 1% "control" 90% of the wealth.

Did you know that 95% of all new jobs developed since WW2 have come from new, private, businesses, started by individuals ( who probably "got rich" in the process)? Did you know that 95% of all people employed in the USA are employed in small businesses? Did you know that the top 25% of the nation pays 85% of all the taxes? That the other 15% in the Fed budget is paid by the 26% to 58%% of the population ( varies depending on how wealthy the middle part are..the more wealthy the middle part, the more the middle part pays). That this means that the lowest 42-48% pay nothing, and in fact the lowest 20% receive social welfare benefits paid to them by the upper half? That this share paid by "the rich" actually went up in the last 8 years?

So, I have to ask you, exactly at what point have "the rich" paid enough? Should only 25% percent of the population pay EVERYTHING, so that they can be voted into oblivion ( you know, like 2 lions and a sheep voting what to eat for dinner). Above what level of income should we simply take everything? And who will decide whose pocketbook to take? Who will decide when someone has enough? Are you willing to give that power to your government, to tell you how much you are allowed to have, how big of a house to afford, how nice of a car, how much to spend on the bars or the shoes..take your pick. Who do you give that authority to?

And once there are no "rich" left, however you wish to define it, how poor do you think the lowest 20% will be?

I judge the success of a system on how "poor" the poorest 20% of a population is, how likely it is that population will rise above that level in their lifetimes, and how much work there is available to them to be able to work out of the lowest 20%. In our nation, only 1% of any of us who see the lowest 20% economic bracket in our lives, actually stay there our whole lives. That is a very mobile poverty.

In addition, our poorest 20% have the most "toys", living space and food of any poorest 20% in the world.

I would say our system has worked well for the poor. If I were going to be poor anyhwere ( which I was, and I know you won't ever believe it), I would choose to be poor here where I have the best life in poverty, and the most chance of pulling out of it.

Try reading Economic Myths and Fallacies by Thomas Sowell, ..or any of his Economics books, to understand the realities behind the myths.

Sorry, that classist mythology just doesn't fly.

Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 25, 2009 at 6:33 pm

sorry, forgot to tie the thoughts back to the thread..the point being that the richer the "rich" are in this nation, the more likely everyone else is better off also, including the needy, the elderly, the disabled etc.

In the meantime, I hope we can each give what we can..each of us giving even a dollar per week can make a huge difference. There are something like 60,000 people in Palo Alto, right? Imagine if Palo Altans gave even $1/week per person to our local agencies that help the disabled, the elderly, the needy..imagine how much difference it would make!

Posted by azady39, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jul 25, 2009 at 10:21 pm

Sorry, what I meant to say is that the top 1% own more (16.8 trillion net worth)than the bottom 90% (15.3 trillion) These statistics are from 2004--source--the Federal Reserve Board...no doubt the gap has widened in the last few years. That is extreme inequality. I'm not disparaging anyone for becoming very wealthy, and I certainly would not want to live in a society where the government dictates who can own what....but figures like these can only exist in a society that is somewhat skewed. If the wealthiest 25% are being taxed so unfairly, then why do they still have literally billions of dollars of disposable income, while poor families are having their babies in homeless shelters? Web Link It's one thing if the poorest in the nation are managing...but there are many people who are working full-time at minimum wage jobs, and still cannot afford the basic necessities of life, such as food, rent, childcare, etc. I have witnessed this first hand. All I'm saying is that when wealth becomes extremely concentrated, as it is in our country, then the seeds of class war are being sown. I'm not advocating it, but that's simply what happens everywhere. People naturally become frustrated when they're working their fingers to the bone just trying to avoid becoming homeless, when their credit card company is charging usurious interest, when they can't find a job because of companies offshoring the work to somewhere labor is cheap...or lobbying to keep the borders wide open so that the labor market is flooded with a cheap illegal workforce....and they are quite aware that somewhere else in the country, some people are amassing fortunes that cannot possibly be spent in their lifetimes. I know that some wealthy people such as Bill Gates and George Soros have done a great deal of good with their wealth...but there is more that needs to be done. Minimum wage no longer covers the basic necessities, and many people are tied to it because education is also out of reach. It is good for the rich to make certain that the poor are getting their needs met. The best prevention for class war is a strong middle class.

Posted by azady39, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jul 26, 2009 at 11:09 am

By using the 'two lions and a sheep' analogy, are you comparing the wealthy to a sheep? That's amusing. Who has the real power in this country? Is it struggling families? The working poor? The homeless? Those who have worked hard to give their children some kind of a future, and find themselves drowning in debt, with their houses being foreclosed on? So who are the real lions and sheep? I don't think the rich are villains, but I certainly don't see them as the innocent victims of the voters either. Most poor people have very little power, political or otherwise. They are too busy trying to keep a roof over their heads. And everyone knows that the rich are ingenious at finding ways to avoid paying taxes. I cannot feel sorry for them on that account.

I checked out that book you recommended on Amazon.com. Read the reviews. I could tell you were a libertarian from the way you were presenting your facts. It's really a matter of philosophy and ideology, rather than fact. And philosophy and ideology are shaped by life experience. I have studied economic theory from both sides of the political spectrum, leading me to take everything I read, even the liberal stuff, with a grain of salt. All writers present the data that best supports their theory, just as scientists do. What I've seen with my own eyes causes me to view things a certain way. And I've seen some things in my lifetime that would truly shock most Americans.

Thus far this country has been a nation of great economic opportunity. But this recession is exposing the precariousness of many people's financial situation. Their 'wealth' has merely been debt, disguised as wealth. And it has also exposed the weakness of the job market in this country. Since a person's economic stability depends on employment, the inability to find it can devastate people's lives. Yet we as a nation do not invest in education the way we should. More effort should be made in tailoring the workforce to the jobs that are needed. And keeping out the droves of illegal immigrants who are driving down wages and taking away unskilled labor from citizens. But corporations have a vested interest in NOT doing this.

The one thing I can say for libertarians is that they do tend to believe in charitable giving, and I really respect that. I do think that giving to the poor privately, rather than the government doing it through taxation would solve a lot of problems, if people would just do it.

Posted by Same Perspective, a resident of the Charleston Meadows neighborhood, on Jul 27, 2009 at 5:50 pm

I'm a typical silicon valley engineer with a typical double-wage family. Someone said we are above mid-class because we typically don't worry about how to pay monthly dues. But we have to work hard, and pay all kinds of services because we have to work. I believe this profile applies to many tax payers here.

We are paying state taxes, and you know how the numbers in California compared to other states. In return we receive almost no benefits from the state tax. The only thing might state related is my kid's education. But what I heard, in Palo Alto, only one quarter of the school funding comes from state. We donate a lot to PiE etc.

So for all my tax, almost everything goes to all those social service programs. I personally know elders moving from other states to California because of the welfare here.

I'm not against welfare. But they have to be affordable. And they have to be fair for tax payers like us. That's the whole point of the state budget crisis.

So for one, I applaud our terminator's achievement on this issue. If not for anything else, it's for the respect to tax payers and hard workers like us.

Posted by yap, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jul 27, 2009 at 10:54 pm

I have yet another perspective.

I am afraid it has something to do with the amount of time that has passed since I formed basic world views, because I find myself agreeing with Walter a lot.

I learned as a child that how hard you work does not alone determine your success, and there is a kind of fairness that completely overlooks how hard you work.

I once complained to a coworker with a snide comment indicating that a colleague did not deserve to be promoted to her level, when I, obviously much better qualified, was working at a lower level. He asked me, "who is responsible for your level within the company?" Doh.

Self reliance determines success. Each individual has the choice to rank their own values, and take action to align with them. Anyone can tell you hard work is more important than money, or money is more important than honesty or generosity or lasting contribution, but it's up to you to decide these things and act on them.

And our incompetent government has indeed squandered rather than leveraged the efforts of multiple generations and millions of Californians. So we suffer for it.