PoliticalCitizen Posted September 23, 2008 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 That's the problem with making life comfortable for those on welfare. The benefit of making life comfortable for those on welfare is that you don't have to be afraid to walk down a dark alley in a poorer neighborhood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 The other approach we could take - one I prefer - is to pay them MORE. I'm going to ask the question everyone is afraid to, why? and for this new pay raise what is the nation getting in return....the whole concept was welfare was to assist, not be the entire support system.... The 'business class' began attacking the poor when their fortunes fell in the 90's (due to their own shortsightedness, I will add). The attacks on the poor have not stopped since, and have resulted in benefits that are not sufficient to support people. Not everyone here was born with a silver spoon stuck up are arse, most of us have been there done that. shit even today i don't think i would be considered "business class" but i like everyone else works hard for thier money, and we'd like to know what we get for our dime... On topic ... Gun Crime ... it isn't about the adults. It's about the kids growing up on welfare. Crime prevention requires that they be fed, rested, sheltered, clothed and able to learn in school to prevent crime in the future.Current welfare/workfare rates do not provide adequate care for kids. If you grow up angry at the system for shortchanging you on food, poorly developed due to malnourishment, poorly educated due to hunger interfering with learning ... crime may follow. So your saying it's not about chioces, like all the commericials and movies say....your on welfare your bound for a life of crime....i say bullshit...my mother had a full time job during the day, and a part time one at night, then came home and done what every mother across the nation does, made sure her kids where feed and clothed and had clean clothes for the next day....why is it she and her generation can do it, and not todays....we did not have much growing up, but my 3 brothers lead a normal life , got good jobs, the exception is my sister, but thats another story, today she to has a normal life....nobody in jail, or leading the life of crime.... The life of crime is a chioce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 These are urbaqn myths created to allow the money class to continue to rip off the poor. Prove any of these claims, please. Easy enough.... But, a Sun writer said he recently watched her take in at least $500 in five hours and that Bangova's shaking quickly disappeared as she walked briskly to a waiting car at the end of the day.Bangova lives with her son and his three children in a one-bedroom apartment with leather furniture, a big screen TV, and computer, according to media reports. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...474326_20305674 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 That's a simple question with an even simpler answer. Anyone able enough top commit a crime is able enough to get a job. No one unemployable would be able to commit crimes. In order for people to be employed, there has to be work available. Not everyone is suited for the work that is available. The type of work that people on welfare are likely to be employed in is the type of work that always seems to be being exported or subject to cost cutting, etc. There will never be the possibility of full emplyment in this country--this is simply the reality of the capitalist system that you love. We do not live in a society like that of a century or two ago where someone with five dollars in their pocket can walk off a boat and get free land and good credit to start farming, or can walk into a factory and ask for and receive work, or start up a business from scratch. Unless we have a government that is willing to protect Canadian jobs and to seriously invest in job creating in cities, then there is really no legitimate reason for complaining about the unemployed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 The problem is, however, undeniably coming from the black community, Of course you have info to share with us that supports this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 In order for people to be employed, there has to be work available. Not everyone is suited for the work that is available. The type of work that people on welfare are likely to be employed in is the type of work that always seems to be being exported or subject to cost cutting, etc. That of course is nonsense. Mopping is never exported. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 (edited) Easy enough....http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...474326_20305674 She's on disability, not welfare. The Sun reporter is not qualified to make a judgment about that. Eg, People with MS or Parkinsons do not shake when they are "moving briskly", only when at rest. She is not ripping off the public there. Seems to me she's likely legitimately qualified for disability. It is the panhandling that people think is ripping off the public, and people are free not to contribute to that. Two adults and 3 children living in a one bedroom apt? Not exactly living 'high off the hog' is it? Do you want her life? Do you think it's 'easy street'? Edited September 23, 2008 by tango Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 There are many many people who had minimal education/skills for employment to begin with, and simply have no skills that are marketable by mid-life. They may have intellectual limitations, learning disabilities, lack of education (illiteracy), some health issues (eg diabetes, bad back, mental health issues, etc) that limit them further, but do not qualify them for disability. Social workers are supposed to be versed in the various adult education and upgrading programs available from the government. They should counsel trainable able bodied welfare recipients and funnel them into the right education programs. A low level of education or lack thereof is no excuse not to improve marketable skills. Unless of course one prefers to live life in front of a TV set and accept handouts. I must comment about the bad back you mention. Problems with the back are one of the most difficult for doctors to diagnose and treat. This excuse has been overused by malingerers and is looked on suspiciously when it is raised as a reason to avoid work. That's why workers' compensation authorities make surprise visits to claimants; they've caught a lot of cheaters that way. Again, I must say that those who complain about 'people on welfare' don't seem to know much about them at all. I know plenty of people on welfare and on provincial disability, some in my family, going almost as far back as when welfare was first introduced in the late fifties. I think I am informed enough to give an opinion. Let me put it this way: If you are an employer, would you hire the street people of Toronto? (ie, the chronically unemployed) A lot of those street people are on the street because they want to be there. That's a whole other topic. Most of the people I have met who are chronically on/off welfare are simply not employable on the sustained, full time basis required to earn a decent living. And many of them also have to engage in petty crime to make ends meet. (Just like Oliver Twist). Many of the people I know that are on welfare or disability work under the table and as a result they make more money than a lot of others who respect the rules and are not connivers or frauds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoliticalCitizen Posted September 23, 2008 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 I'm going to ask the question everyone is afraid to, why? and for this new pay raise what is the nation getting in return....the whole concept was welfare was to assist, not be the entire support system.... Because what they get paid today is half of what they need. If someone needs $500 to pay for a room (not an apartment) and you give him $250 - does that really help? If you mean to assist - do it in a way that's meaningful, not a half-ass way... The life of crime is a chioce. The less assistance you get the more inviting that choice becomes... But it doesn't stop with the welfare recipients. Once we give them more we should also raise the minimum wage to make it worthwile for them to even look for a job. And then, of course, increase all the other wages... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 The 'business class' began attacking the poor when their fortunes fell in the 90's (due to their own shortsightedness, I will add). The attacks on the poor have not stopped since, and have resulted in benefits that are not sufficient to support people. That's nonsense. Canada in general began attacking the poor when all of our governments, both federally and provincially, could not sustain the previous welfare programs because of giant deficits without raising taxes substantially. You cannot work, or learn in school, with only kraft dinner for fuel. True, but I was able to save a ton of money eating 89 cent meals from No Frills while I was at university. Brocoli, Cheese and Chicken. Mmm...not. -edit to add-Just found this estimate: Penalties for welfare fraud have always existed and could be prosecuted as an offence under criminal law. There is no evidence to suggest that workfare programs deter fraud or abuse. Furthermore, it is estimated that welfare fraud is about 2 to 3% of the caseload. Not the 20% bandied about here, which includes case worker errors (apparently 17-18%) Where is that from? If it's the Halton Hills community website that you linked, try and find a more reputable source. Current welfare/workfare rates do not provide adequate care for kids. If you grow up angry at the system for shortchanging you on food, poorly developed due to malnourishment, poorly educated due to hunger interfering with learning ... crime may follow. That's only looking at it from one side. The other side is that a lot of these children are growing up with dead beat parents who don't care about them and more welfare isn't going to turn that around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 A lot of those street people are on the street because they want to be there. That's a whole other topic. This is such a grievously ignorant and insensitive statement, I can't believe that people can still think in such terms. This is also why the Conservatives habitually have the problems that they do with their candidates, because many also possess this kind of mindset now that the "progressive" aspect of the ideology has been conveniently discarded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 Social workers are supposed to be versed in the various adult education and upgrading programs available from the government. They should counsel trainable able bodied welfare recipients and funnel them into the right education programs. A low level of education or lack thereof is no excuse not to improve marketable skills. Unless of course one prefers to live life in front of a TV set and accept handouts. Those are short term courses, not long term literacy training need by those whose literacy skills are not up to today's standards. The training component is entirely inadequate. I think you need to add 'able-minded' too. 'Able bodied' is not enough to sustain a job these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 This is such a grievously ignorant and insensitive statement, I can't believe that people can still think in such terms. This is also why the Conservatives habitually have the problems that they do with their candidates, because many also possess this kind of mindset now that the "progressive" aspect of the ideology has been conveniently discarded. When asked if they enjoyed panhandling, 23 participants (43%) replied "yes," commonly because of the opportunity to "meet people," 26 (48%) answered "no," often describing panhandling as "degrading," and 5 (9%) were undecided. Overall, 38 (70%) stated that they would prefer a minimum-wage job, typically citing a desire for a "steady income" or "getting off the street." However, many felt they could not handle conventional jobs because of mental illness, physical disability or lack of skills. http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/167/5/477 A sizable amount apparently want to be on the street. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 (edited) This is such a grievously ignorant and insensitive statement, I can't believe that people can still think in such terms. This is also why the Conservatives habitually have the problems that they do with their candidates, because many also possess this kind of mindset now that the "progressive" aspect of the ideology has been conveniently discarded. I agree. It is well known, for example, that at least 80% of the youth on the streets are escaping abuse in the home. Edited September 23, 2008 by tango Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 Two adults and 3 children living in a one bedroom apt?Not exactly living 'high off the hog' is it? Don't foprget the leather furniture and big screen TV../. Do you want her life? Do you think it's 'easy street'? No I don't want her life, I don't want to be a con artist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 (edited) Or we could just stop importing Jamaican men with criminal records into Canada - specifically Toronto. Our government cracks me up. We'll do anything possible - no matter how expensive, to avoid solving the real root of a problem if it means being politically correct. Edited September 23, 2008 by JerrySeinfeld Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 Because what they get paid today is half of what they need. If someone needs $500 to pay for a room (not an apartment) and you give him $250 - does that really help? If you mean to assist - do it in a way that's meaningful, not a half-ass way... Ok lets go over this again, it's assistance, meaning to help a person thru tougher times, it does not mean, sitting at home , or not working at all , it means doing everything you can to make ends meet, that may getting 2 jobs, or moving, retraining, more education, etc etc.... The less assistance you get the more inviting that choice becomes... So your saying that all persons on welfare are not condemned to a life of crime....and you are agreeing that the life of crime is a choice, much as it is to say work, i mean if you can live the life of crime you should be able to work...i think that was already establish a while back....which brings us back to why are they not working in the first place.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 That's nonsense. Canada in general began attacking the poor when all of our governments, both federally and provincially, could not sustain the previous welfare programs because of giant deficits without raising taxes substantially. True, but I was able to save a ton of money eating 89 cent meals from No Frills while I was at university. Brocoli, Cheese and Chicken. Mmm...not. Where is that from? If it's the Halton Hills community website that you linked, try and find a more reputable source. That's only looking at it from one side. The other side is that a lot of these children are growing up with dead beat parents who don't care about them and more welfare isn't going to turn that around. It would help. However, I also believe that 24hr care and 3 meals a day should be provided in our schools, to moderate the effects of poverty, abuse, malnutrition, bad parenting, etc. That is, if we are really sincere about reducing dependence on the system, reducing crime, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 As someone who has friends who are on ODSP, I can tell you this amount is disgustingly small and is not enough to live on in a city like Toronto. The province needs to start varying the amount they give out depending on where a person lives. $1000 goes a lot further in Thunder Bay than it does here. I highly doubt after rent, groceries and transit anyone would have more than $50 to their name, and that's after some serious penny-pinching already. It does seem there is a case for paying regional rates to welfare and disability benefit recipients, especially for those who are not in subsidized housing and/or are on a list for housing. Supposing the government went ahead and brought in different scales of benefits depending on your address. Why would other groups not ask for the same deal? For example, would provincial workers working in urban centres want higher wages than their counterparts in rural and smaller cities and towns? What about teachers? You can bet if one group under provincial authority receives additional compensation because they live in a larger city, other groups would demand it also. Unions would have a field day with that one. There's also the issue of ODSP having access to your bank account, so say my friend (who's an artist with severe social anxiety disorder) manages to sell a painting for $300 - the government can see that and may subtract it from his payments, may suspend his payment, or if it happens enough, cut off his ODSP - basically punishing disabled people for managing for working when they can (which isn't most of the time). I did not know the province had that authority. It does appear to be a very intrusive process. I would think what they're looking for are those cases where recipients have steady work while drawing benefits. Although I would say fraudsters already know how to avoid this scrutiny so why hold on to a process that results in minimal benefit for the authorities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoliticalCitizen Posted September 23, 2008 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 Ok lets go over this again, it's assistance, meaning to help a person thru tougher times, it does not mean, sitting at home , or not working at all , it means doing everything you can to make ends meet, that may getting 2 jobs, or moving, retraining, more education, etc etc.... The ends won't meet if you can't pay your rent and buy food. With half the money you need you're more screwed than assisted. So your saying that all persons on welfare are not condemned to a life of crime....and you are agreeing that the life of crime is a choice, much as it is to say work, i mean if you can live the life of crime you should be able to work...i think that was already establish a while back....which brings us back to why are they not working in the first place.... Everything in life is a choice, at least to the point when the society or fate takes away your privilege to choose... There's a variety of reasons why people are on welfare. In some cities work is really hard to find (not Toronto). Some are refugees that do not speak English or French. Some are cronically drunk or stoned and will never be hired by anyone... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 This is such a grievously ignorant and insensitive statement, ...and it happens to be true! If homelessness and beggars were an economic phenomenon, then Alberta, complete with it's labour shortage and zero percent effective unemployment rate would have no homeless. Lot's of these people are irresponsible substance abusers with a slew of issues. An adult in society asking for us to take resposibility for their lack of judgement, short sighted thinking, desire to spend their last dollar on booze / drugs or just plain stupidity isn't in any way deserving of compassion. In fact, I would argue that in many cases they are out there because of people like you - they know they can always rely on some dufas to actually dole out money for them no matter how stupid their decision-making is. As for violence, mark steyn nails it here: And, when you've run the numbers for that project, maybe it's worth asking the Mayor of Toronto and the Attorney-General of Ontario why they cannot do the citizens of a mature democracy the courtesy of addressing the question honestly. There is no "Canadian" murder epidemic or "Ontario" murder epidemic. There is a problem within one very narrow stratum of Toronto society (as no RCMP assistant commissioner is ever likely to say). Innocent Madowo, "a former Zimbabwean journalist living in Toronto", wrote a column the other day headlined "Our Community's Scourge" - "our" meaning "black". But he does his community an injustice. It would be truer to say violent crime is the West Indian community's scourge, and truer still to say it's the Jamaican community's. In contrast to gun-infested Switzerland and Norway, Jamaica has one of the highest murder rates on the planet, and it exports its pathologies to wherever the Jamaican diaspora settles. In Britain, as in Toronto, gun crime is largely a Jamaican gang problem--"Yardies", as they call them. The only difference is that the United Kingdom has implemented to the nth degree all the policies Michael Bryant wants enacted here, and with the predictable result that the coppers would rather hassle the cranky farmer with the unlicensed shotgun than take on the rather more demanding task of going after Yardies with Uzis. In The Toronto Sun the other day, Michael Coren mentioned some of the particular characteristics of Jamaican society: "The levels of fatherless families in the country's urban centres are staggering. This culture has been transferred to Canada," he wrote, noting that, in return for pointing out the obvious, he would be damned as "racist". In fact, there is nothing about being born with a particular skin colour that mandates a dysfunctional culture in which male role models are either absent, criminal or more benignly feckless. Race is immutable, but culture isn't. Not long before my first child was born, I asked a young Jamaican lady who worked for me in London whether her father had been present at her birth. She gave a huge laugh. "Are you joking?" she said. "He wasn't present ten minutes after conception." At a London club last month, a former British heavyweight boxing champion politely asked three young men if they would respect the no-smoking ban. They shot him in the face at point-blank range. He had "disrespected" them. As in Toronto, the perpetrators were black and so were the victims. It's easy for Canadian media sob-sisters to indulge, as Michael Coren says, in sentimentalized blather about the four-year olds caught in the crossfire. But what are you going to do about it? In practical terms, the guilt-ridden white liberal would rather go on blaming rural white gun-owners and implicitly accept random intra-Jamaican gun-death as just another feature of the heartwarming multicultural mosaic, in the same way that we accept gas-sniffing as a time-honoured native tradition practiced on the tundra ever since the first Innu popped the tank of the first Honda Civic back in 1478. In neither case does liberal "compassion" or multicultural squeamishness seem to be doing anything for the designated victim class. ...As for those on the hard-hearted right, no-one is proposing to limit or constrain immigration from Jamaica. Even typing that sentence feels vaguely ridiculous in an advanced western democracy. But let's suppose the Mayor and everyone else is right and all the guns used in Jamaican gun crime are smuggled in from the United States. What's easier to quarantine? A vast neighbour with whom we share a land border running across a continental land mass? Or a tiny island surrounded by water? In neither Canada nor Britain nor anywhere else is it politically feasible to propose that perhaps Jamaicans should be subjected to special immigration scrutiny. Forty years ago, it was accepted in Canada, the United States and Australia that sovereign nations had the right to operate discretionary immigration policies - that's to say, being under no obligation to admit anyone, they could pick and choose whom they did. Today, it's equally widely accepted that discretionary immigration policies are discriminatory and indefensible: if you're going to let people in, then all 200 or so nations on the face of the earth are equally valid--Slovenes and Saudis, Japanese and Jamaicans. To orient immigration policy to favour certain sources would be racist. I wonder how long these pieties can endure. A recent study of terrorist suspects arrested in Britain between 2001 and 2005 revealed that one in four of them was admitted to the country as an asylum seeker. They included, for example, Muktar Said Ibrahim, one of the four men who attempted unsuccessfully to self-detonate on the London Tube two weeks after the July 7th slaughter. In other words, young men taken in and given sanctuary by Britain thank their hosts by trying to kill them. Will any changes be made to immigration procedures? Or will the British simply accept that a one-in-four terrorist/refugee ratio is simply part of the privilege of being a progressive social-democratic society? Just as we accept that allowing parts of Toronto to, in effect, assimilate with Kingston, Jamaica is the price we pay for being able to congratulate ourselves on our boundless, boundless tolerance.[/quote] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 Everything in life is a choice, at least to the point when the society or fate takes away your privilege to choose... I can understand fate, but when has Canadian society taken away your chioces... There's a variety of reasons why people are on welfare. In some cities work is really hard to find (not Toronto). Some are refugees that do not speak English or French. Some are cronically drunk or stoned and will never be hired by anyone... Hey i understand that there is a need for this program, but i think we are lossing sight of it's intentions, which are to assist, not to solely provide for...or to train someone to speak english or french, but thier has to be a line in which we say hey not not entitled, those that are cronnically drunk or stoned, or abuse the system do not qualify, is that cold hearted, perhaps but it was thier choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 (edited) Those are short term courses, not long term literacy training need by those whose literacy skills are not up to today's standards. The training component is entirely inadequate. These observations leave me the impression you are quite knowledgeable about the internal workings of system. How else could you categorically state that the training component is entirely inadequate. Have you personally taken training and found it inadequate? Have you conducted your own an evaluation? Just curious. Edited September 23, 2008 by capricorn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/167/5/477A sizable amount apparently want to be on the street. 70% want jobs to get off the street. The rest don't think they can get a job. However, many felt they could not handle conventional jobs because of mental illness, physical disability or lack of skills. Doesn't sound to me like they are saying they "want to" stay on the street. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 (edited) These observations leave me the impression you are quite knowledgeable about the internal workings of system. How else could you categorically state that the training component is entirely inadequate. Have you personally taken training and found it inadequate? Have you conducted your own an evaluation? Just curious. I don't answer personal questions on here, and you are out of line in asking. I know enough to know that the 'training' provided by OW (ON) does not help the chronically unemployable with mental health, addiction or other health issues that don't qualify for disability. Neither is it sufficient for teaching English. It's mickey mouse stuff - do a resume, be on time, etc - no real job training or literacy education. Edited September 23, 2008 by tango Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.