Dion Lays Out Anti-Poverty Plan

[scribblet]

Define poverty - and didn't the Liberals raise the dollar amount that defined poverty thus decreasing the numbers over night LOL

What they need to do is lower taxes and provide training, the best way to get people off welfare is give them the skills to work. I'd like to see more trade schools and apprenticeship programs.

[jdobbin]

What they need to do is lower taxes and provide training, the best way to get people off welfare is give them the skills to work. I'd like to see more trade schools and apprenticeship programs.

They did lower taxes in the their last budget for low income people. The Tories just raised in when they were elected and then after realized just how it significant was for low incomes.

And poverty numbers came down significantly during the Liberals years. They have to come down more.

If the Tories want to know what true poverty is, they could do what every other OECD nation does including the U.S.: define it with hard numbers.

Edited November 17, 2007 by jdobbin

[scribblet]

If the Tories want to know what true poverty is, they could do what every other OECD nation does including the U.S.: define it with hard numbers.

The tories gave other tax cuts, and besides that's not the whole story/

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Cor...362740-sun.html

Taxes/tax revenues under the liberals since 1993 went up, our net pay went down....

How do we define poverty, there is no official, government-mandated poverty line, if someone's basic needs are met, are they poor or just need more to have a better standard of living than they can earn, or deserve. People on welfare pay no taxes, so do we just up their monthly amount with no expectations that they earn it or try to improve themselves?

Again, the key to improving one's standard of living is in acquiring skills, and I don't mean teaching people how to do a resume and a job search.

[jdobbin]

The tories gave other tax cuts, and besides that's not the whole story/

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Cor...362740-sun.html

Taxes/tax revenues under the liberals since 1993 went up, our net pay went down....

How do we define poverty, there is no official, government-mandated poverty line, if someone's basic needs are met, are they poor or just need more to have a better standard of living than they can earn, or deserve. People on welfare pay no taxes, so do we just up their monthly amount with no expectations that they earn it or try to improve themselves?

Again, the key to improving one's standard of living is in acquiring skills, and I don't mean teaching people how to do a resume and a job search.

The Liberals according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation gave more tax breaks in the first two budgets that the Tories did in two.

Canada is the only country in the OECD without a government determined poverty line. How are the Consertvatives improving standard of living for the poor and helping them to acquire skills?

[Moonlight Graham]

Well, at least Dion seems to care about the poor, unlike the Conservatives. Conservatives won't even support the Make Poverty History campaign.

[geoffrey]

How are the Consertvatives improving standard of living for the poor and helping them to acquire skills?

How is that anyone's responsibility?

[jdobbin]

How is that anyone's responsibility?

I think that is what the word government means.

[geoffrey]

I think that is what the word government means.

What? Ensuring that everything is nicely provided by the State? Does that include a nice SUV or just a compact car? Lobster or chicken? Where are you drawing that arbitrary line?

The State may have an obligation to prevent someone from starving to death, but that's about it. You can do that nicely with oatmeal with raisins and a slice of apple three times a day. Could probably provide that under $50 a month. Anything beyond that is unreasonable. People need to get off their asses and work for what they get, not just expect a freeride.

[jdobbin]

What? Ensuring that everything is nicely provided by the State? Does that include a nice SUV or just a compact car? Lobster or chicken? Where are you drawing that arbitrary line?

The State may have an obligation to prevent someone from starving to death, but that's about it. You can do that nicely with oatmeal with raisins and a slice of apple three times a day. Could probably provide that under $50 a month. Anything beyond that is unreasonable. People need to get off their asses and work for what they get, not just expect a freeride.

I think Canada should do what every OECD nation does which is establish a definition of poverty in Canada and work to provide supports for people who fall below that line.

You are actually on the left wing of those on the right by saying that the government should prevent someone from starving to death.

[geoffrey]

I think Canada should do what every OECD nation does which is establish a definition of poverty in Canada and work to provide supports for people who fall below that line.

How can we get a bunch of university educated, $120k/year earning MP's to agree to a definition of what's poor?

Edited November 19, 2007 by geoffrey

[jdobbin]

How can we get a bunch of university educated, $120k/year earning MP's to agree to a definition of what's poor?

I don't know. How about we do what the U.S. does which first looks at children who go hungry.

From this weekend's USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/...kids16.art0.htm

One of every four children in New Mexico and Texas and one of every five in a dozen other states live in households that struggle to provide enough food at some point during the year, a report released Thursday says.

The report is the first to give a state-by-state look at child hunger based on annual Census Bureau data, says Ross Fraser, spokesman for America's Second Harvest, the nation's largest hunger-relief group, which released the study. It analyzes data from 2003 to 2005, giving a three-year average.

"It is a real eye-opener to see that so many states have such high rates of child food insecurity and hunger," says author John Cook, an expert on child hunger and pediatrics professor at Boston University School of Medicine. He says lack of healthful food can damage a child's physical and mental development.

Nationwide, the report finds that 13 million children, or 18%, were hungry or at risk of hunger. That percentage has held fairly steady in the past decade. New Hampshire had the smallest share of kids facing hunger, 7%, followed by North Dakota with 9%.

States with rates of 20% or above include California, Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee and Utah. The District of Columbia also was in this group.

I think hunger is a good way to judge how poor you are.

[old_bold&cold]

Poverty would mena many things to many people and it is a condition of where and when you are. For someone ina poor area where rent is $350.00 / month with cable included, then $1200.00 per month would not be poor, as long as food and transportation was also within reach.

But if you live in Down town Toronto where rents are $1400.00 / moth and you also pay heta and hydro, then $2400.00 a month would still not cut it and so they would be poor. That is why Canada can nto set a definitive line where poverty starts and stops, because it is not the same for everyone across Canada.

That is why even welfare benefits are different in different places as well. To ask some one to abitrailily set a line is not even a smart thing to ask for. Canada for the most part does not have hungry kids in schools and any that are missing meals have breakfast and lunch supplied at no charge to them by the schools and their volunteers. Just as no kids should need snowsuits as there are places where these can be had. Now yes there are many kids who do not own an Ipod or an Xbox, but that hardly defines poverty in my eyes.

Dion dropped the ball because he saw a chance to smear mud with the Schrieber stuff, but he was not ready to give any good answers to poverty either, so he again is a failure. You have to admit that to most people it would be next to immpossible to screw up calling for issues on child poverty, except when they is no real need for it. But Dion managed to fail at that.

[gc1765]

The State may have an obligation to prevent someone from starving to death, but that's about it. You can do that nicely with oatmeal with raisins and a slice of apple three times a day. Could probably provide that under $50 a month. Anything beyond that is unreasonable. People need to get off their asses and work for what they get, not just expect a freeride.

What about shelter? Is that not necessary? Shelter is not cheap...especially here in Vancouver

[jdobbin]

That is why even welfare benefits are different in different places as well. To ask some one to abitrailily set a line is not even a smart thing to ask for. Canada for the most part does not have hungry kids in schools and any that are missing meals have breakfast and lunch supplied at no charge to them by the schools and their volunteers.

Many schools do not have food programs. And even if they do, the week lasts seven days. There's two other days in the week that children can go hungry.

The Canadian Association of Food Banks reports that 7210,000 people need foodbanks, 39% of them children.

"Nearly 20% of people assisted by food banks report having jobs or utilizing Employment Insurance. This is a sad reality when we live in such a prosperous country," said Katharine Schmidt, Executive Director of the CAFB. "More must be done to address the needs of Canada's poorest citizens. We all have a responsibility, including government, to take a more comprehensive approach to reducing hunger in Canada."

For the first time, HungerCount 2007 surveyed the housing situations of those assisted by food banks. Findings indicate that 85.9% of recipients are renters. 7.7% of people who relied on food assistance own their own homes - jumping to 16.7 % in towns with populations of less than 10,000.

Ed Borkowski, Chair of the CAFB Board of Directors, commented on the report: "It is very concerning that 39% of individuals served by food banks are children under age 18. 51% of assisted households contain at least one child. Children experiencing hunger are at risk of a range of negative developmental outcomes. These include behavioural problems, poor school performance, and mental health issues. We have the ability to ensure the food security of all Canadian families, but we need leadership from federal and provincial governments."

Food bank use has remained above 700,000 individuals per month since 1997. It is 91% higher than in 1989, when the first HungerCount survey was performed.

The Tory answer is that there is no way to determine what poverty is and even if there are poor people, it is their fault and they should get a job. That really doesn't help the nearly 40% of foodbank users that are children.

Edited November 19, 2007 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

What about shelter? Is that not necessary? Shelter is not cheap...especially here in Vancouver

That was another area of concern I was going to mention. In many regions in Canada, it is hard to find rental property for shelters or affordable home ownership. There is a role for government at all levels in solving this problem.

On the municipal level, it requires zoning changes to ensure mixed housing covering a few income brackets. On the provincial level, it means building rental property or helping builders to do the job. On the Federal level, it means continued support from CMHC and a move to help in programs for personal care homes, seniors residences, infill housing, emergency housing and direct aid programs to assist families in finding affordable housing.

[capricorn]

That really doesn't help the nearly 40% of foodbanks users that are children.

I have never heard of a food bank that serves children as clients. Their parent(s) maybe but not children.

[jdobbin]

I have never heard of a food bank that serves children as clients. Their parent(s) maybe but not children.

So children are not users of foodbanks? Volunteering at any foodbank will show you a very large amount of children coming. Food banks even exist schools so that children can access the food themselves.

[capricorn]

So children are not users of foodbanks? Volunteering at any foodbank will show you a very large amount of children coming. Food banks even exist schools so that children can access the food themselves.

Oh great. So the children get supplied by food banks then their parents go get more provisions. What a system.

[Beavis]

I have a solution to the "poverty" problem. Lets increase taxes and throw money at it. Hopefully the problem will go away.

[jdobbin]

Oh great. So the children get supplied by food banks then their parents go get more provisions. What a system.

Anyone familiar with a foodbank knows how diligent they are about abuse. Perhaps you should speak to Gerard Kennedy about it.

Edited November 19, 2007 by jdobbin

[geoffrey]

What about shelter? Is that not necessary? Shelter is not cheap...especially here in Vancouver

Nope, not needed. There are warm places to sleep all around.

[gc1765]

Nope, not needed. There are warm places to sleep all around.

Such as?

[geoffrey]

Such as?

I slept in a university library once by accident, no one gave me any grief.

Other places that come to mind is under a bridge, perhaps in a box, maybe even in one of the ATM places, I always find homeless types in there. I've slept out in the mountains well below -20. It's possible. Chilly, but possible.

Why should I be buying houses for people? Get like 10 of them together and rent the crappiest apartment you can find. Could get your rent down to like $50 or $70 a person depending on your area of Canada.

If people all want their own place, they are dreaming. That's not a reality for most Canadians, let alone the place to draw a poverty line. Possible and comfortable are two different things. We have no business in giving comfortable. Just a possibility to survive.

Unless, or course, they want to work for it. Food and shelter for hard labour. That works for me. But no free rides.

[gc1765]

I slept in a university library once by accident, no one gave me any grief.

Other places that come to mind is under a bridge, perhaps in a box, maybe even in one of the ATM places, I always find homeless types in there. I've slept out in the mountains well below -20. It's possible. Chilly, but possible.

At my university, the library closes at about 10pm and they kick everyone out. It would be hard to stay there after hours without getting kicked out. Otherwise, people could steal whatever they wanted. ATM places also usually require a bank card to get in.

We have no business in giving comfortable. Just a possibility to survive.

Why not? Why shouldn't we give people a reasonable level of comfort. Not a house, or a nice apartment, but a roof over their head.

Unless, or course, they want to work for it. Food and shelter for hard labour. That works for me. But no free rides.

I'm in favour of giving people help who genuinely need it. People who can't work because of disability, people who just got laid off and can't find work. I think that's reasonable. Anyone could lose their job. Now, give them a reasonable amount of time to find a job if they are able to work. If they still can't find a job, after a reasonable amount of time, then sure put them to work for the money. I think I've argued something like this before. As long as they are working for the money, there will be an incentive to find other work. Would you agree to something like that?

[old_bold&cold]

Two people who work at low paying jobs for 40 hours a week will make $32,000.00 per year together. That would pretty much make it so they could live comfortably, if they wanted. Hell if they were ambitious they could probably earn better paying jobs at near $12.00 per hour each and then they would have $49,900.00 to live on

Right now I do not see many jobs around that only pay $8.00 per hour and in the more populated areas, I would say you would be hard pressed to not being able to find employment at $10-12 an hour. What happens I guess is that everyone seems to think that they should all have their own apartments and still be able to party most days. That you can not do on $8.00 per hour. But you can exist on it and that is what those types of jobs were meant to be, a place to start and grow from.