In Toronto, people go hungry all the time

[CANADIEN]

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.

WorkOntario "jobs" in many cases imparted little skills that could be used to gain meaningful employment... Support tools (such as daycare services) were not there. In some areas, the number of OntarioWork "opportunities" did not match the number of people required to take them.

As a way to save money, the Harris measures were a great success. As a way to reduce poverty, it was a failure. But then, it was never the intention.

[CANADIEN]

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

And then insult everybody else.

[CANADIEN]

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

Typical Argus. Write something particularly abhorent even by your own standards (and that's saying a lot), then arguing you meant something else. What you spoke about was slavery, not adoption, but nice try.

[Argus]

Typical Argus. Write something particularly abhorent even by your own standards (and that's saying a lot), then arguing you meant something else. What you spoke about was slavery, not adoption, but nice try.

You don't even know what you're talking about half the time. Don't pretend to understand what I'm talking about.

[CANADIEN]

You don't even know what you're talking about half the time. Don't pretend to understand what I'm talking about.

Thank you for proving I am right about you.

[August1991]

People in Toronto go hungry?

Tango, I don't think you really understand life. It is not something you can make or mould. Hope comes from within, in its own way.

Edited April 26, 2009 by August1991

[Renegade]

WorkOntario "jobs" in many cases imparted little skills that could be used to gain meaningful employment... Support tools (such as daycare services) were not there. In some areas, the number of OntarioWork "opportunities" did not match the number of people required to take them.

If Ontario Works did not provide skills to participants then it failed in one of its objectives, however it succeded in it its other, imo more important objective: To restrain wefare services by making it a less attractive option for potential recepients.

As a way to save money, the Harris measures were a great success. As a way to reduce poverty, it was a failure. But then, it was never the intention.

Agreed, and imo Harris had the objective right.

[CANADIEN]

If Ontario Works did not provide skills to participants then it failed in one of its objectives, however it succeded in it its other, imo more important objective: To restrain wefare services by making it a less attractive option for potential recepients.

Agreed, and imo Harris had the objective right.

In other words, it does not matter if there is poverty in society, as long as it does not cost too much money.

BTW, a former professor of mmine used to say "before Harris, people were on welfare an average of 3 years; under Harris, the average became 36 months".

Edited April 26, 2009 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

People in Toronto go hungry?

Tango, I don't think you really understand life. It is not something you can make or mould. Hope comes from within, in its own way.

Hope, or the lack thereof, also comes from the way others treat you.

[Renegade]

In other words, it does not matter if there is poverty in society, as long as it does not cost too much money.

It matters to some more than others. It likely matters to those who are poor. And for those who aren't poor and for whom it matters, they have ample opportutnity for wealth redistribution through charities.

It should only matter to government if it is a symptom of a problem. The existiance of poverty in and of itself doesn't necessarily indicate a problem.

BTW, a former professor of mmine used to say "before Harris, people were on welfare an average of 3 years; under Harris, the average became 36 months".

So I guess your professor is acknowledging that despite all the criticisism Harris didn't actually increase the average time on welfare.

[Oleg Bach]

Harris was a damned golfer who now sits on the board of directors of Magna - and Frank his boss things he's god damned god..with a questionable past regarding burning Cadillacs and feuds over fancey horses - I can't take these paraiste Nazis seriously..Yes there are people going hungry in Toronto..thousands of them - they are given just enough money to stick them in a dump some where so they don't embarrass the politicians ---IF it was not for the meger rent subisdy called "Ontario Works" - which employs burecrats...THERE would be a few hundred thousand homless littering up the street - the shame is hidden in Toronto - and they are f**king slowly starving and will cost a fortune in heath care costs once they finish their last days in the hospital...Harris is an idiot - and so are the rich men that back him - holligans and unconvicted crimminals - at least the poor are intelligent and attempt to maintain old Christian values ---- THIS IS A SLOW GENOCIDE OF WHAT IS LEFT OF THE DECENDANTS OF THE CHRISTIANS - THEY ARE GETTING RID OF THEM --WELFARE IS SLOW MURDER.

[CANADIEN]

It matters to some more than others. It likely matters to those who are poor. And for those who aren't poor and for whom it matters, they have ample opportutnity for wealth redistribution through charities.

It should only matter to government if it is a symptom of a problem. The existiance of poverty in and of itself doesn't necessarily indicate a problem.

Poverty IS the problem

So I guess your professor is acknowledging that despite all the criticisism Harris didn't actually increase the average time on welfare.

Actually, his point was that Harris didn't reduce it.

[Renegade]

Poverty IS the problem

Why is it THE problem? Or is it simply your opinion that it is THE problem?

Actually, his point was that Harris didn't reduce it.

So what. He was elected on a platform of tax reduction not poverty reduction.

[CANADIEN]

Why is it THE problem? Or is it simply your opinion that it is THE problem?

So what. He was elected on a platform of tax reduction not poverty reduction.

Let's capitalise what was capitalisez, shall we? Poverty is not the symtom of a problem, it IS the problem itself.

One doesn't need explanations to see that there is something wrong when childrengo to bed hungry at night and people live in rat infested apartments.

[g_bambino]

One doesn't need explanations to see that there is something wrong when childrengo to bed hungry at night and people live in rat infested apartments.

Once again, though, the distinction must be made between those who go hungry in rat infested apartments because of their choices, and those who do so because there is absolutely no other option. How many people in Toronto, really, are in the latter category? A handfull, maybe. But some in this thread (not you, though, Canadien) make it sound as though its an epidemic.

Aid needs to be given to those who actually need it, not to those who just say they do.

[CANADIEN]

delete

Edited April 28, 2009 by CANADIEN

[Renegade]

Let's capitalise what was capitalisez, shall we? Poverty is not the symtom of a problem, it IS the problem itself.

You saying so twice, doesn't make it so. You offer no proof or evidence.

One doesn't need explanations to see that there is something wrong when childrengo to bed hungry at night and people live in rat infested apartments.

Of course something is wrong, but perhaps what is wrong is the decision of the parents to bring children into those circumstances. Poverty is the symptom of that poor decision.

[CANADIEN]

You saying so twice, doesn't make it so. You offer no proof or evidence.

Of course something is wrong, but perhaps what is wrong is the decision of the parents to bring children into those circumstances. Poverty is the symptom of that poor decision.

In other words, there's poverty in our cities, but hey everything is fine, because hey, poverty is the result of bad choices.

[g_bambino]

In other words, there's poverty in our cities, but hey everything is fine, because hey, poverty is the result of bad choices.

Much of it may be, yes. Making bad choices, however, is not fine. Thus, the answer to "poverty" in our cities (I put the term in quotations as it is itself rather subjective) may not be to enable people to chronically make bad choices, but, instead, to give them the ability to make good choices. I know the practicalities are vastly more complex than I'm making it sound, but, in my mind, that's the jist of it.

[Renegade]

In other words, there's poverty in our cities, but hey everything is fine, because hey, poverty is the result of bad choices.

You seem to be freely making up your own content. It is called a straw man argument. It usually starts when a poster tries to paraphrase another's poster's words using the lead-in "in other words..." and makes up his own content.

I don't think I "poverty is the result of bad choices" because it is only SOMETIMES true. Poverty is sometimes the result of bad luck. Poverty is sometimes the result of a lifestyle choice. The are many reasons for poverty and I have not generalized it down to one cause, so perhaps in future, if you want to rephrase my words you can do so accurately.

You however, seem to believe the only problem is poverty without understanding why that poverty exists.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Renegade

[CANADIEN]

You seem to be freely making up your own content. It is called a straw man argument. It usually starts when a poster tries to paraphrase another's poster's words using the lead-in "in other words..." and makes up his own content.

I don't think I "poverty is the result of bad choices" because it is only SOMETIMES true. Poverty is sometimes the result of bad luck. Poverty is sometimes the result of a lifestyle choice. The are many reasons for poverty and I have not generalized it down to one cause, so perhaps in future, if you want to rephrase my words you can do so accurately.

You mean, like when you write this?

You however, seem to believe the only problem is poverty without understanding why that poverty exists.

Looks like I am not the only one "making my own argument". But do not worry, I understand the the main contributer to poverty in our society over the past 20 years have been the destruction of the safety net by governments at all levels. Doesn't change the fact the poverty is the problem.

[charter.rights]

I find that the people who believe that poverty IS the problem and not just a symptom of a much bigger problem are often those who also benefit from some way in the poverty industry.

Poverty is just another symptom of the loss of community. In smaller communities while there may be some families living with little money, it would be difficult to call them impoverished because the community is there to make sure that the children are fed and clothed and oversee their upbringing. Viable communities rarely let members that are part of their community suffer,

The loss of community is also the cause of mass unemployment, homelessness and other social illnesses that see people abandoned and shunned. The real solution isn't to throw money at any of the sub-industries that have developed around loss of community but to find ways at including people whose position is unlilke, ours into thriving communities where someone can care about them. On the other side it is difficult to break the pattern of poverty, homelessness and unemployment because often people finding themselves in these groups often find themselves in a community in itself, supported and perpetuated by those who continue to blindly throw just enough money at them to keep them not wanting out.

[Renegade]

You mean, like when you write this?

If I have somehow misphrased what you have said, feel free to point out specfics. It is nice how you deflect.

Looks like I am not the only one "making my own argument". But do not worry, I understand the the main contributer to poverty in our society over the past 20 years have been the destruction of the safety net by governments at all levels. Doesn't change the fact the poverty is the problem.

Saying it for the third time doesn't make it so, especially since you provide no evidence.

[benny]

Governments of rich countries are caught in a nasty and enduring commercial war over agricultural export subsidies so much so that they have come to compromise by paying farmers for not producing (crops).

[Muddy]

Meanwhile ,I still wait for the unemployed ,poverty stricken ,hungry soul to walk into my office looking for work. My shop is on the main drag of town. Where are all these massive amount of the disenfranchised people? Hmm! Maybe I should be advertising for workers at the beer store? Maybe I have it all wrong thinking they should be coming to me! Hmmm