In Toronto, people go hungry all the time

[Argus]

No, I'll just assume that a few examples (of immigrants, why should I be surprised that an immigrant-basher like you would only use those) does not disprove the reality that humger is a reality in our society. And guess what, I'll be right.

That would be a first for you. Then again, no matter what brainless twaddle you post you thump your chest and bray about how moral and righteous you are.

[Argus]

If you were smart enough, you would realize that generalization in this case would be to assume that anyone who think that a job for those who can work it is better than handouts is in the wrong. Or generalization could be to assume that anyone who think some people need a good kick in the rear-end is a jerk. Obviously, if I held such opinions, you would know it by now.

Or generalization would be something like constantly putting immigrants, French-speaking Canadians, Muslims, the poor in the same bag. You know, like what you do.

I don't. I just put stupid people in the same bag.

[Argus]

The argument has been made that everyone should be guaranteed an above the poverty income! .

That isn't physically possible because the way poverty is measured is that, the lowest X% of the population are defined as being poor.

In other words, if average income was $10,000,000 per year in Canada, those who only took in $1,000,000 per year would be considered to be living below the poverty line.

[Argus]

Oleg, sometimes I think your one of the brightest posters

Like... when for example?

[Argus]

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

Well, if they're cute, and can mow a lawn, some of us might be interested in buying them.

[M.Dancer]

I am far from rich (meaning we earn less than 100K per year) yet we also live well. The main reason is, it's not what you make, it's what you don't spend...someone who makes 250K a year and spends 200K a year may be in worse finacial shape than us....sure they may go to (and I have someone in mind..) Aspen, Maine, France and LA every year, they may have a Range Rover and a Jag...and they may have a very large house in Forest Hill that would be fine for a family 3 times their size....but the walk the knifes edge...

I know another fellow who is also rich....he owns outright two income properties, one in Forest Hill and the other in the Yonge Eglinton area and his own 3 bedroom condo downtown....he drove a K car for 15 years....does all the maintenence on his properties himself....shops at Walmart. He told me last year his personal living espenses were under $500 a month...thenhe told me about Voyo (his friend) The fellow has a few hundred thousand in the bank....took the TTC, shopped at Goodwill....he said Voyo's living expenses were $100.00 a month....No TV (didn't speak english so good), No phone...no nothing aside from a very nice house in the west end which he rented out and lived in the bachelor basement apartment....

A long time ago, there was a man I knew, back then he was a VP and director of McLeod Young Weir then Scotia McLeod....he said to me how old money became old money....

Old money wears a timex, new money wears a rolex...both tell time but one tells time far more frugally....

[Oleg Bach]

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

If you have not noticed the industrial revolution is over - as is the tech bubble - People become disheartened once they become aware of the bull shit - that a world of consumerism - that in effect consumes the consumer is not a world worth living in - so they retreat and wait for a better day - a better mentality - a better spirit - a better life ...what do you expect human beings to do? Stay slavishly stupid for enternity - the world has grown up and usery just does not fly any more...sorry - we want a real life..we want to be free from slavery - and an economy based on deception...is that to much to ask for?

[CANADIEN]

That would be a first for you.

It will be 1-0 for me then.

Then again, no matter what brainless twaddle you post you thump your chest and bray about how moral and righteous you are.

Not to worry, I do not consider myself that moral or righteous. As far as brainless twaddle goes... do not worry, I still have to catch up to you.

To come back to the topic at end here. There are people who go to bed hungry at night, and in most cases it is not due to bad decisions or character flaws. That should be cause for concrete action to ensure that does not happen - including, indeed - a few kicks in the butt where they're needed. Not scapegoating, blaming and demeaning.

Edited April 23, 2009 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

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.

What poverty IS in Canada is people with jobs lining at the food bank because minimum wage is too low. It's children coming to school starved. Iit's cockroach infested appartments, that still take 2/3 of a family revenue.

No one here would argue that frugality is poverty. Nice try.

[tango]

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.

Poverty is what he had before he got a government job!

[tango]

Well, if they're cute, and can mow a lawn, some of us might be interested in buying them.

Are you a pedophile Argus?

[tango]

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.

Source?

[tango]

That isn't physically possible because the way poverty is measured is that, the lowest X% of the population are defined as being poor.

In other words, if average income was $10,000,000 per year in Canada, those who only took in $1,000,000 per year would be considered to be living below the poverty line.

Source?

[tango]

CANADIEN

No one here would argue that frugality is poverty. Nice try.

WELL SAID.

Nice to have the privilege of being able to own property and rent some out and be frugal, and it's laudable too. I know. But I'm retired and I don't even have to wear a Timex.

But that's not poverty.

What poverty IS in Canada is people with jobs lining at the food bank because minimum wage is too low. It's children coming to school starved. Iit's cockroach infested appartments, that still take 2/3 of a family revenue.

Absolutely.

The amount people on assistance and at minimum wage receive, is poverty. That's the only point here: It's been corroded, and children are suffering from the ill will directed at their parents. Yes some parents are alcoholics, and they drank the kids dinner.

So what now?

The assistance levels need a serious one time adjustment.

And we need hot food in all schools x3.

And 24/7 care for kids in crisis.

This is how we stop the cycle, and save $7 for every dollar invested.

Then we talk about funding a universal guaranteed annual income.

Children should not go hungry.

It takes a whole village ... Kanata ... the village.

imo

[Muddy]

If you have not noticed the industrial revolution is over - as is the tech bubble - People become disheartened once they become aware of the bull shit - that a world of consumerism - that in effect consumes the consumer is not a world worth living in - so they retreat and wait for a better day - a better mentality - a better spirit - a better life ...what do you expect human beings to do? Stay slavishly stupid for enternity - the world has grown up and usery just does not fly any more...sorry - we want a real life..we want to be free from slavery - and an economy based on deception...is that to much to ask for?

[/quote

You speak like a Liberal MP. We want our intitlements. Whats wrong with expecting people to diligently seek work? Whats wrong with starting at the bottom rung and working your way up like my generation did. Or were just suckers? Hmmm! If we were suckers why do the bums of today envy us and want what we have. It never came easy you know. It was hard work.

Meanwhile there still has not been anyone from the massive amount of the unemployed knocking on my door looking for work.

[Wild Bill]

Source?

http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/nov97/gilbreat.pdf

"Statistics Canada has been publishing a series of

“Low Income Cut-Offs” (LICOs) for almost 30 years, as

well as statistics on individuals and families whose

incomes are below the LICOs. Statistics Canada repeatedly

insists that the LICOs are not poverty lines, but they

are commonly treated as Canada’s official poverty lines.

As the name implies, however, LICOs measure “low

income,” not poverty."

http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/onbalance/1993/6-10/

"Reporters claim children live below poverty line, but fail to question definition

All reporters covering the child poverty story mentioned the statement that Canadian children were poor or were living under the poverty line. Adrienne Tanner of the Edmonton Journal, Alison Bray of the Winnipeg Free Press, the Canadian Press report in the Regina Leader-Post, Rosemary Spiers of the Toronto Star and Carol Goar of the St. John's Telegram all provided the definition of the poverty line as being Statistics Canada's Low Income Cutoff (LICO). However, none of the reporters indicated that Statistics Canada does not endorse this as a measurement of poverty: "although LICO are commonly referred to as official poverty lines, they have no officially recognized status nor does Statistics Canada promote their use as poverty lines." [statistics Canada Low Income Cut-offs, 1986, Technical Paper, 1987, p.1.]"

There's lots more. To sum up, most of the links are based on an NDP definition of poverty they released some years ago where they defined poverty as those in the bottom 20% of the income levels. Their critics had a field day with the mathematical ineptness of such a definition, since theoretically we could add $1 million dollars/yr to everyone's income and we of course would still have a bottom 20% who would be receiving $1 million dollars more than they are now yet be defined as poor!

This just illustrates how the NDP tend to be "heart" people rather than "head" people. Their goals may often be noble but their ideas on implementation tend to be impractical or flawed.

This all lead to highlighting the confusion between true poverty and StatsCan's "Low Income CutOff" figures. Finally we are seeing more discussion based on real factors, like food, shelter and clothing.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Wild Bill

[Argus]

Are you a pedophile Argus?

I would ask you if you were a brainless moron but anyone who's read any of your postings already knows the answer.

[CANADIEN]

I would ask you if you were a brainless moron but anyone who's read any of your postings already knows the answer.

Not to say that Tango's pedophile comment was particularly intelligent (sorry Tango), but when someone is stupid enough to talk about getting a child as a slave, he's begging for that type of comment.

Edited April 23, 2009 by CANADIEN

[tango]

Not to say that Tango's pedophile comment was particularly intelligent (sorry Tango), but when someone is stupid enoguh to muse about getting child as a slave, he's begging for that type of comment.

Absolutely. Decent people do not even think about offering to "buy" the "cute" children of the poor, so yes it does beg the question about pedophilia. One just never knows who one is dealing with in an anonymous forum, and I am knowledgeable enough to know that there are predatory pedophiles among us all the time.

At the very least, the comment displays an unattractive and heartless contempt for children, for humanity, and thus for oneself as well.

[tango]

http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/nov97/gilbreat.pdf

Statistics Canada repeatedly

insists that the LICOs are not poverty lines, but they

are commonly treated as Canada’s official poverty lines.

As the name implies, however, LICOs measure “low

income,” not poverty."[/i][/b]

http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/onbalance/1993/6-10/

There's lots more. To sum up, most of the links are based on an NDP definition of poverty they released some years ago where they defined poverty as those in the bottom 20% of the income levels. Their critics had a field day with the mathematical ineptness of such a definition, since theoretically we could add $1 million dollars/yr to everyone's income and we of course would still have a bottom 20% who would be receiving $1 million dollars more than they are now yet be defined as poor!

No it isn't based on lowest 20%. That was proposed but was never accepted by the feds. In fact, in typical head-in-the-sand fashion, the feds have refused to endorse any method of calculating 'poverty' because then they could be held accountable for it - eg by Canadians and by the UN.

StatsCan went ahead and established the LICO's based on size of family and the estimated cost of food, shelter, clothing, etc. in various sized communities for reporting purposes. The but the feds still won't acknowledge it, for purely political reasons:

Families are considered to be in "straitened circumstances" if they spend 54.3% or more of their income on these three items.

Other interesting information:

The income of the richest 10% grew while the income of the poorest and second poorest 10% fell. [...]

The Report Card says governments should increase minimum wage to almost $11 an hour, end the $6 an hour training wage, raise welfare to about $1300 a month for a single person, [double the current rate] restore welfare earnings exemptions and stop clawing back child support payments, among other things.

The UN report says that the CEDAW committee is concerned that there is no federal accountability to ensure that there are minimum standards for social assistance funding. It calls on the Canadian government to establish those standards.[...]

http://intraspec.ca/povertyCanada.php

Conclusions:

As a result of cuts to benefits, welfare incomes are grossly inadequate and now stand at their lowest level since the mid-1980s. None of the provinces have welfare incomes that come anywhere close to Canada’s to the Statistic Canada’s Low Income Cut-offs (LICOs).

* Measured as a percentage of Statistics Canada’s LICOs, in 2005, more than one-half of all households receiving welfare had incomes that were 50% of the poverty line or less.

* In 2006, welfare incomes of single women averaged 40% of the poverty line, 61% for single women with a disability.

* In 2006, welfare incomes of families with children averaged 70% of the poverty line. In Manitoba, the welfare income of a lone mother with one child was 67% of the poverty line. In BC, the welfare income of a couple with two children is 58% of the poverty line.

* International comparison of the post tax, post transfer poverty rate for lone mothers with young children places Canada (49.8%) behind both the US (42%) and the UK (40%).

Peak year...........2005.......% Change

NL 1999 $16 894 $16 181 -4.2%

PEI 1992 $16 064 $13 707 -14.7%

NS 1991 $15 458 $12 917 -16.4%

NB 1999 $14 191 $13 656 -3.8%

QC 1994 $16 345 $15 395 -5.8%

ON 1992 $21 039 $14 451 -31.3%

MB 1992 $15 630 $13 282 -15.0%

SK 1986 $15 980 $13 235 -17.2%

AB 1986 $16 071 $12 326 -23.3%

BC 1994 $17 050 $13 948 -18.2%

YK 2001 $21 562 $19 830 -8.0%

NWT 1993 $26 127 $22 648 -13.3%

NV 1999 $32 421 $22 154 -31.7%

From these data, it is clear that the underpayment of welfare benefits has become quite severe in some provinces the last decade, reflecting the right-wing backlash following the recession of the early '90's, epitomized by Mike Harris' immediate 20% reduction in 1995-96 in Ontario.

It never ceases to amaze me how even in Canada, relatively wealthy people with political pull like to take out their competitive angst and vent their ill will on the children of the poor.

Edited April 24, 2009 by tango

[Renegade]

As a result of cuts to benefits, welfare incomes are grossly inadequate and now stand at their lowest level since the mid-1980s. None of the provinces have welfare incomes that come anywhere close to Canada’s to the Statistic Canada’s Low Income Cut-offs (LICOs).

* Measured as a percentage of Statistics Canada’s LICOs, in 2005, more than one-half of all households receiving welfare had incomes that were 50% of the poverty line or less.

* In 2006, welfare incomes of single women averaged 40% of the poverty line, 61% for single women with a disability.

* In 2006, welfare incomes of families with children averaged 70% of the poverty line. In Manitoba, the welfare income of a lone mother with one child was 67% of the poverty line. In BC, the welfare income of a couple with two children is 58% of the poverty line.

* International comparison of the post tax, post transfer poverty rate for lone mothers with young children places Canada (49.8%) behind both the US (42%) and the UK (40%).

Your "conclusions" are based upon your personal presumptions and biases not based upon facts. For example you seem to assume that welfare benefits should bring up people up to the poverty line. Why? Welfare can just as easily be considered to provide suplemmental assistance to low-income individuals. IMO, welfare is nothig more than a payment to the low-income masses to keep them from resorting to violence which might result in more costly expenentures. If the the goal of welfare is to keep people from starving rather than from being poor, perhaps only funding it to 40% or 50% is fine.

Many of the statistics you quote refer to the plight of families or mothers with children. Nowhere in your posts do you talk about what the responsibilities of the low-income households are in making responsible choices and what enforcement should be in place to ensure that they do. For example is it not a poor choice for a woman or family on welfare to have a child. Should that be enforced?

From these data, it is clear that the underpayment of welfare benefits has become quite severe in some provinces the last decade, reflecting the right-wing backlash following the recession of the early '90's, epitomized by Mike Harris' immediate 20% reduction in 1995-96 in Ontario.

Hmm, if I remember correctly the number of people on welfare dropped significantly once welfare rates were slashed. Could it be that these people had more incentive to get a job?

It never ceases to amaze me how even in Canada, relatively wealthy people with political pull like to take out their competitive angst and vent their ill will on the children of the poor.

It never ceases to amaze me how even in Canada, a land of almost unlimited opportunity, many poor, despite being the beneficiaries of huge amount of income redistribution, still make poor choices and demand to have those choices funded by additional wealth redistribution.

[g_bambino]

It never ceases to amaze me how even in Canada, a land of almost unlimited opportunity, many poor, despite being the beneficiaries of huge amount of income redistribution, still make poor choices and demand to have those choices funded by additional wealth redistribution.

Exactly. And the question is: once you start the process, where's the incentive to stop?

[CANADIEN]

Many of the statistics you quote refer to the plight of families or mothers with children. Nowhere in your posts do you talk about what the responsibilities of the low-income households are in making responsible choices and what enforcement should be in place to ensure that they do. For example is it not a poor choice for a woman or family on welfare to have a child. Should that be enforced?

That was a few years back, but I have a vague recollection of a US state that decided to cut payments to women who had children while on welfare, then found out that they still kept having children anyway.

Hmm, if I remember correctly the number of people on welfare dropped significantly once welfare rates were slashed. Could it be that these people had more incentive to get a job?

Rules regarding welfare eligibility were tightened by the harris government at the same time as rhwy slashed the rates. I would suspect that was the main factor in the drop. Interestingly enough, while the government was publishing the numbers of people who went off welfare, they were never saying how much of them had gotten a job. Coud it be that the numbers would not have looked so rosy?

[Renegade]

That was a few years back, but I have a vague recollection of a US state that decided to cut payments to women who had children while on welfare, then found out that they still kept having children anyway.

So if there is evidence that certain individuals continue to make poor choices what should our response be? One option would be to continue to enable them to make those poor choices by rewarding them through additional funding. The other choice can be to enforce good choices. Yet a third option is to let them make the choices and live with the consequences.

Rules regarding welfare eligibility were tightened by the harris government at the same time as rhwy slashed the rates. I would suspect that was the main factor in the drop. Interestingly enough, while the government was publishing the numbers of people who went off welfare, they were never saying how much of them had gotten a job. Coud it be that the numbers would not have looked so rosy?

I do recall that workfare was also introduced as a prerequiste to obtaining welfare. I guess welfare payments doesn't look so great if you actually have to work for it. We are only left to speculate as to some of the reasons for the decline. Regardless, IMO, the slashing of the welfare payments and tightened eligibility was a success. It saved the taxpayers money without an undue cost to order in society.

[Argus]

Absolutely. Decent people do not even think about offering to "buy" the "cute" children of the poor

Are you this totally clueless about everything? We've been buying children from the third world for decades. Rich and upper middle class families in the west even have catalougs to consult to see where the best babies can be found and purchased. China used to be in vogue, but I understand eastern Europe is now a rich source of babies for sale. We don't call it that, of course. We call it adoption, but it amounts to the same thing.

At the very least, the comment displays an unattractive and heartless contempt for children, for humanity, and thus for oneself as well.

Or simple practicality and realism - neither of which, from your comments, you have much familiarity with.

Oh yes, it would be so cruel to take some poor child - currently working 12 hours a day making rugs and chained to the wall in India, or starving and rooting through garbage dumps in Nigeria, or scrambling through the slums of Rio, chased by police who want to put a bullet in his or her head, or sold to the legions of bordellos in Thailand - to uproot the poor thing and bring him or her to the West to live here. Oh yes, what a horrific fate! To be torn from his cultural roots and subjected to the excesess of western television and fast food!