Schwarzeneggar Proposes to End HIV/AIDS Services - Page 2

JWBear · 06-05-2009, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

...but are similar programs in CA offered for diabetics and cancer patients and other life threatening diseases?

Yes.

scaeagles · 06-05-2009, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWBear

Yes.

In that case, don't discriminate. Cut them all across the board. It would be better to have cuts in each program and keep them each there, I suppose, than to eliminate one all together.

JWBear · 06-05-2009, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I don't think feeding the poor is the responsibility of government...

If not the government, then who? Especially in this economy.

Private food banks have seen a huge increase in applicants, while donations have shrunk. As a consequence, they are turning people away in droves. And even if those in need can find a food bank that can help, it often comes with restrictions. Many religious bases organizations will turn you away if you are of a different faith or if they disapprove of your life circumstances (try getting services from a baptist church if you are a single mother, or gay, or a Muslim).

The government can not discriminate against you for these things.

So Leo, if you suddenly find yourself without money to feed your children, and all the private food banks in your area are unable or unwilling to help you, you would allow your children to die of starvation because it's not the government's place to feed them, right?

scaeagles · 06-05-2009, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWBear

If not the government, then who? Especially in this economy.

I love being mischaracterized. Thanks for chopping of the part of the quote that says "but think it's a great alternative to starvation.".

innerSpaceman · 06-05-2009, 08:17 AM

I think the gov is going thru a petulant stage after the abject failure of the faux-budge-easing ballot measures a few weeks ago, and will be suggesting the most appalling and mean-spirited cuts for a little while till he regains adulthood.

Alex · 06-05-2009, 08:28 AM

I haven't looked at the specifics of the service provided so don't know how I feel specifically yet.

But since the budget shortfall is about 40% (I think that was the number I found when I last looked) of the entire discretionary budget and since every item in the budget has some group who thinks that item is among the 5 most important things the government does and since it is essentially impossible to raise taxes in this state, as CP asks, what should be cut?

That said, I have no doubt that picking some of the highest profile most-likely-to-outrage things to cut is part of the game. That is always part of the game. If a city needs to cut $100 because they can't raise taxes then it will come out of the police or fire department budget, not the secretarial Christmas party budget. You cut the things that piss off the most people because that is how you get them to give permission to increase revenues.

Strangler Lewis · 06-05-2009, 09:21 AM

Somehow I don't think that cutting AIDS services is going to spark a revolt that leads to the repeal of Proposition 13.

Strangler Lewis · 06-05-2009, 09:27 AM

Thanks a bunch, JW Bear. Now Scaeagles gets to go around saying he's clairvoyant.

wendybeth · 06-05-2009, 09:40 AM

Good post, JW. I might add: Why is it the responsibility of the government to go to war? If we are attacked, shouldn't it just be every man and woman for themselves? Why should the government get involved?

Like it or not, any assault on a country's populace, whether that be in the form of war, epidemic, famine, etc- anything that can harm the society as a whole- is the government's business. That's why we have a government, if you follow the Social Contract model, anyway. You choose to live within a society for the benefits it affords you, and there is, was and always has been a cost to the individual. I don't know when in history any government that you (Scaeagles) would approve of wholeheartedly ever existed.

scaeagles · 06-05-2009, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Good post, JW. I might add: Why is it the responsibility of the government to go to war? If we are attacked, shouldn't it just be every man and woman for themselves? Why should the government get involved?
[snip]
I don't know when in history any government that you (Scaeagles) would approve of wholeheartedly ever existed.

Well, simplistically, the Constitution does call for the federal government to provide for the common defense.

Is there a government at any time in history that YOU (WB) would approve of wholeheartedly? As Winston Churchill once said, democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others. Don't get all high and mighty and suggest you don't disagree with things the government has done and will do. I didn't even say I disagreed with what the program does, though will admit my post asking why it was the responsibility of government was provocative, and intentionally so. As CP posted, EVERY program that will get cut will have champions and those who believe it is vital and stupid to cut it. So where do cuts come from?

06-05-2009, 08:17 AM	#5
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	I think the gov is going thru a petulant stage after the abject failure of the faux-budge-easing ballot measures a few weeks ago, and will be suggesting the most appalling and mean-spirited cuts for a little while till he regains adulthood.
	Submit to Quotes

06-05-2009, 08:28 AM	#6
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I haven't looked at the specifics of the service provided so don't know how I feel specifically yet. But since the budget shortfall is about 40% (I think that was the number I found when I last looked) of the entire discretionary budget and since every item in the budget has some group who thinks that item is among the 5 most important things the government does and since it is essentially impossible to raise taxes in this state, as CP asks, what should be cut? That said, I have no doubt that picking some of the highest profile most-likely-to-outrage things to cut is part of the game. That is *always* part of the game. If a city needs to cut $100 because they can't raise taxes then it will come out of the police or fire department budget, not the secretarial Christmas party budget. You cut the things that piss off the most people because that is how you get them to give permission to increase revenues.
	Submit to Quotes

06-05-2009, 09:21 AM	#7
Strangler Lewis Doing The Job Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: In a state Posts: 3,956	Somehow I don't think that cutting AIDS services is going to spark a revolt that leads to the repeal of Proposition 13. __________________ Live now-pay later. Diner's Club!
	Submit to Quotes

06-05-2009, 09:27 AM	#8
Strangler Lewis Doing The Job Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: In a state Posts: 3,956	Thanks a bunch, JW Bear. Now Scaeagles gets to go around saying he's clairvoyant. __________________ Live now-pay later. Diner's Club!
	Submit to Quotes

06-05-2009, 09:40 AM	#9
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	Good post, JW. I might add: Why is it the responsibility of the government to go to war? If we are attacked, shouldn't it just be every man and woman for themselves? Why should the government get involved? Like it or not, any assault on a country's populace, whether that be in the form of war, epidemic, famine, etc- anything that can harm the society as a whole- is the government's business. That's why we have a government, if you follow the Social Contract model, anyway. You choose to live within a society for the benefits it affords you, and there is, was and always has been a cost to the individual. I don't know when in history any government that you (Scaeagles) would approve of wholeheartedly ever existed. __________________ Last edited by wendybeth : 06-05-2009 at 10:28 PM.
	Submit to Quotes