In Toronto, people go hungry all the time

[Oleg Bach]

Corporatism and mindless greed have ruined the nation and have too much influence over government. Seems that corporations exault the mediocre....I have seen with my own eyes and heard with my own ears - the lowest of the low - who are fully aware of how our system works - domestically and internationally - these people are now the poorest of the poor - and smiling dellusional idiots now rule - and look at the results of this type of crazed Darwinism? They have gotten it back wards - the weak have been pushed to the top and the agenda of the inferiour corporate collective conspire to destroy what is left of the intelligent - It's very soviet in scope..If the most stupified want to become the smartest on the block - they destroy the intelligensia..corporate communism - and you don't see it!

[Muddy]

As for panhandling - you all are panhandlers...those that except bailouts and corporate welfare subsidies are bums -

[/quote

Apparently Oleg you jump to conclusions. Although I have had the opportunity to aquire loans and grants to inhance my business from government largess,I have resisted. I am fiercely independent and have always rejected corporate welfare. All I have ever asked of government is to assure I can compete with my wits and when younger my physical attributes on a level playing field.

You also did not answer in your distaste for my views about the poor,where this funding of all people above the poverty line was going to come from? Will it be an even amount of money for non drug attics or less? You know ,all according to their needs?

[Oleg Bach]

We were originally a Kingdom - based on the original kingship - Christianity....a type of socialism..."sell your property and put the money in a common purse (the common wealth) - let those come and take as NEEDED...well with religion as well as political structures - they took the common wealth and no one was allowed to with draw from this account - much like the federal reserve or the UIC fund..governments and the Vatican breach the contract - they take but do not distribute....to expect a man to live on a welfare payment of 570 dollars..when some pay a rent of 500 - creates a state of affairs where your daily routine is to scavenge for food - or cigarettes if you are addicted.....this creates a very hungry and neurotic group of people - who eventually break down and become sick ----THEN the paraistes who make millions selling big pharma product - enter the equation and medicate those who's only illness is poverty and hunger - the "client" generates wealth for the rich and dies prematurely..wonderful system....and the tax payer pays for the dope - but does not recieve any benefits in regards to his contribution...all should eat well - and those that look at booze and dope as the evil grip on the poor - well................it's the curse of all - rich and poor.

[Muddy]

Oleg, sometimes I think your one of the brightest posters ,then you go off on a rant that makes no sense. Why not just answer questions to support your arguement and when casting aspertions on individuals like me,find you have been mistaken, why don`t you acknowledge your mistake.

Now once again ,where do you think the money will come from to insure all have an above the poverty line guaranteed income?

[Muddy]

Another day and still no poor souls looking for work. Where are all these unemployed? I will keep you folks up to date on those seeking work.

[tango]

Oleg, sometimes I think your one of the brightest posters ,then you go off on a rant that makes no sense. Why not just answer questions to support your arguement and when casting aspertions on individuals like me,find you have been mistaken, why don`t you acknowledge your mistake.

Now once again ,where do you think the money will come from to insure all have an above the poverty line guaranteed income?

- From the savings when thousands of bureaucrats are no longer needed to to 'means-testing'.

- From redistributed from the top 10% of income earners, because the gap is far too big and getting bigger all the time. The current trajectory is not sustainable and needs a large correction.

[tango]

I have no problem subsidizing the lives of those incapable of work...but anyone capable of going to a food bank is capable of going to work.

So you consider only the physically disabled to be 'deserving'?

Well our disability support, meagre as it is, does not agree with you.

What about learning disabilities?

What about mental illness?

What about developmental handicaps?

What about addictions?

What about combination of all of these?

Who determines who is employable?

Are you hiring?

You are very naive about human afflictions, Dancer.

[tango]

Another day and still no poor souls looking for work. Where are all these unemployed? I will keep you folks up to date on those seeking work.

I'm not sure what you are referring to. Are you looking for employees?

According to others, you should try the food bank.

However, some clients there are already employed full time, but minimum wage is well below the poverty line for raising a family.

[M.Dancer]

However, some clients there are already employed full time, but minimum wage is well below the poverty line for raising a family.

I agree, only a fool would start a family if they earned minimum wage.

[tango]

I agree, only a fool would start a family if they earned minimum wage.

So now you are going to make rules about who can have children?

Hitler tried to control that. How'd it work out for him?

Canada has a history of sterilizing the "feeble-minded", and traditional Indigenous leaders were selectively included in that category. So were epileptics, the mentally ill, and anyone outside the 'norm'. Forced sterilization is illegal now. Got any other 'bright' ideas?

The minimum wage category consists largely of women without mates, and likely without child support either.

You provide no useful solutions for our reality, just ill will toward those you do not understand.

Consider this: Perhaps your arrogance toward the poor is born of failing to respect and appreciate your own good fortune, imo. Not everyone is as able as you.

Edited April 21, 2009 by tango

[M.Dancer]

So now you are going to make rules about who can have children?

Hitler tried to control that. How'd it work out for him?

Canada has a history of sterilizing the "feeble-minded", and traditional Indigenous leaders were selectively included in that category. So were epileptics, the mentally ill, and anyone outside the 'norm'. Forced sterilization is illegal now. Got any other 'bright' ideas?

The minimum wage category consists largely of women without mates, and likely without child support either.

You provide no useful solutions for our reality, just ill will toward those you do not understand.

Consider this: Perhaps your arrogance toward the poor is born of failing to respect and appreciate your own good fortune, imo. Not everyone is as able as you.

That has to be the stupidest response to a comment I've read in a long time. Hitler made specious responces too....how will that work for you?

No really...show m,e if you can with your best try where I said anyone should be sterlized or there should be laws about who can procreate....are all your aruments strawmen?

nevetr the less, it is the hieght of stupidity to raise a family when you don't have the means to take cazre of them yourself.

I think people who have children when they can't takcan show they should be put into foster homes until the parents can show they are fit and able to afford and raise children.

[tango]

That has to be the stupidest response to a comment I've read in a long time. Hitler made specious responces too....how will that work for you?

No really...show m,e if you can with your best try where I said anyone should be sterlized or there should be laws about who can procreate....are all your aruments strawmen?

nevetr the less, it is the hieght of stupidity to raise a family when you don't have the means to take cazre of them yourself.

I think people who have children when they can't takcan show they should be put into foster homes until the parents can show they are fit and able to afford and raise children.

I can't find the exact reference, but I understand that according to Canada's endorsement of the UN Convention on Rights of the Child, children cannot be taken from their parents for the sole reason of poverty. Rather, it behooves us as a society to ensure that they are provided with sufficient means of subsistence. (But we don't.)

Children can legally be taken from the home only in cases of abuse or severe neglect.

Foster placements are not easy to find, and are in demand to serve this current clientele.

Any other ideas?

How about we pay the parents above poverty level? HMMM???

[M.Dancer]

How about we pay the parents above poverty level? HMMM???

For what?

If they are able bodied enough to have sex and poorly raise children, let them do what my parents did when times were hard, work and then work harder....

[M.Dancer]

I can't find the exact reference, but I understand that according to Canada's endorsement of the UN Convention on Rights of the Child, children cannot be taken from their parents for the sole reason of poverty.

I'm pretty sure the rights of \children include protecting them from parents who are too lazy or stupid to raise the children.

[tango]

I'm pretty sure the rights of \children include protecting them from parents who are too lazy or stupid to raise the children.

So because of the ill will of some Canadians toward the poor and less able, we continue to punish the children (with malnourishment) because of the misfortunes of the parents?

http://www.campaign2000.ca/rc/C2000%20Repo...ov%2010th08.pdf

1 in 10 children lives in poverty in Canada, and 1 in 4 Aboriginal children.

Assistance and subsidies to raise all Canadians and their children out of poverty would be a reasonable solution, especially since we can do it by simply rearranging our priorities and our funds to put children first.

[M.Dancer]

So because of the ill will of some Canadians toward the poor and less able, we continue to punish the children (with malnourishment) because of the misfortunes of the parents?.

Leaving children with the bone idle is worse than punishment....it's teaching them that bone idle is okay....lets be honest....there is no dignity for those who refuse to look after themselves.

Better to let the children live with someone who has self esteem and to let the parents starve until they see the redeeming virtue of employment.

[tango]

Leaving children with the bone idle is worse than punishment....it's teaching them that bone idle is okay....lets be honest....there is no dignity for those who refuse to look after themselves.

Better to let the children live with someone who has self esteem and to let the parents starve until they see the redeeming virtue of employment.

And let the children starve too, of course. Ya, that'll help!

1) Go find me some examples of all of these "bone idle" people you seem to know about.

2) You hire them.

[M.Dancer]

And let the children starve too, of course. Ya, that'll help!

They will thrive with a family that has pride in their work////

1) Go find me some examples of all of these "bone idle" people you seem to know about.

Anyone who is able to go to food bank can go to work

2) You hire them.

I don't employ unskilled labour but we have hired from groups who give excperiance to those who have none and from people sent from the united way. Most were okay...a few were a joke...who only wanted us to sign their attendence sheet.

My favourites are those who are on welfare or EI and come by somewhat drunk and or dressed for the park and ask if we are hiring labourers (we are an office in an office building) then ask us to sign saying they were interviewed. I refuse to.

[CANADIEN]

I have no problem subsidizing the lives of those incapable of work...but anyone capable of going to a food bank is capable of going to work.

Excuse me if I find that one laughable. Especially considering the growing number of people who go to work then have to make a detour by the food bank one or twice a month.

[tango]

They will thrive with a family that has pride in their work////

And when will that be?

So ... you would punish the children with hunger for the inability of their parents?

Anyone who is able to go to food bank can go to work

So? If they only make minimum wage their children will still be hungry.

I don't employ unskilled labour but we have hired from groups who give excperiance to those who have none and from people sent from the united way. Most were okay...a few were a joke...who only wanted us to sign their attendence sheet.

My favourites are those who are on welfare or EI and come by somewhat drunk and or dressed for the park and ask if we are hiring labourers (we are an office in an office building) then ask us to sign saying they were interviewed. I refuse to.

Ya ... some are not very employable are they? (That was my point.)

And their kids are hungry anyway.

So ... what now?

[Muddy]

Well here I am at the shop and still no one looking for work! Where are all these unemployed?Not looking for work obviously!

[Argus]

Most poor people just don't have the brains to be poor....

We hired a guy a couple of years back as a CR3, just about the lowest wage in government. Yet it was the most money he'd ever made. He had a wife and three kids. The wife did not work, had never worked. Yet he said they ate well, and the new income gave him the flexibility to, for example, buy a new TV. Previously all their appliances came used - and far cheaper. They shopped carefully, bought cheaper food, little packaged food. They didn't buy paper towels - regular was fine for drying your hands, and rags were fine for other tasks. They didn't buy tinfoil - just scrubbing the pans worked fine. They didn't buy soft drinks and chips and cookies, focusing on potatoes and carrots and other veggies. They had no cell phones and no car. He was content to take the bus. They used rabbit ears - no cable. They wore sweaters instead of turning the heat up, and had no AC. The kids got simple toys, not gameboys or Xboxes.

This is what passes for poverty in Canada.

[Argus]

That's a good argument for getting rid of the bureaucracies caused by 'means-testing', and implementing a simple guaranteed annual income, above poverty level, for all Canadians. And I would include the rich too. (If they don't want it they can donate it to the charity of their choice, but I don't think we should leave them out.)

We could save the money required for a GAI by getting rid of the 'means-testing' bureaucracies.

imo

If there's no means testing then you have things like food banks, where a lot of people use it whether they need it or not. Worse, really, because there's no shame today in government money.

When Harris took over 10% of Ontarions were on welfare.

If people can get money for free, or by lying a little, a sizeable percentage will do so.

[Argus]

You are intentionally ignoring the fact that you may have the ability to do so, but others may not, due to a variety of factors.

That's disingenuous. A fallacy that you are promoting, that all Canadians have the ability you have. Simply not true.

This society is built upon the premise - to borrow from Lincoln - that all men (and women) are created equal, thus all have the same rights, and responsibilities. No one man's vote is worth more than any other man's (or woman's) vote.

Are you suggesting some people are genetically inferior and ought to not be held to the same standards as others?

[Argus]

I also refuse to accept that people purposely choose to avoid employment in order to subsist on such a paltry income.[/i]

I've met plenty; people with no real drive or ambition, who were quite happy to do the absolute minimum needed to draw their minimal neccesities of life, ie, tv, beer, and a place to lay their head at night.

Plus, a non-means-tested guaranteed income means they get free money, and if they want something more, like a new TV, can do a little work on the side here and there. Again, know them too.