Welfare should be elmiinated

[lictor616]

So even though she has kids to raise and a home to keep up, she does "nothing" all day;" NOTHING: she sits on her ass all day and watches TV. So if there's nothing to do at home, nothing to do with raising kids, what is Argus complaining about? How can it be "a big struggle to look after the kids and get things done at home with the long hours [he]/they work" when there's obviously NOTHING to do at home. They should be able to come home and just sit on their ass and watch TV, right?

making 3 meals, cleaning up a house and minding kids is not equivalent to a real serious fulltime job... i<m sorry it just isn<t.... I know parents like to complain alot about their crushing workload brought upon them by their kids (which they chose to engender) but really... not worth 1450 a month in welfare... sorry.

[Guest TrueMetis]

that<s a well known fact.. i<m amazed that you<re actually disputing that...

http://lsminsurance.ca/calculators/canada/income-tax

On 60000 taxable income the highest amount of taxes you pay is $16145 in quebec. That's a tax rate of 26.91% meaning you pay 27 cents on the dollar. Apparently that well known fact is wrong.

[lictor616]

On 60000 taxable income the highest amount of taxes you pay is $16145 in quebec. That's a tax rate of 26.91% meaning you pay 27 cents on the dollar. Apparently that well known fact is wrong.

sales tax ... another 15%... puts it up to 41%... ahem

Edited October 31, 2009 by lictor616

[Guest TrueMetis]

sales tax ... another 15%... puts it up to 41%... ahem

Which is still less than Mr. Canada's claim.

[lictor616]

Which is still less than Mr. Canada's claim.

oh come on! shhhhh... go away

[Guest American Woman]

making 3 meals, cleaning up a house and minding kids is not equivalent to a real serious fulltime job...

Obviously raising kids and keeping up a household is only a part time job.... kids raise themselves the rest of the time. And it's definitely not serious, either. What's so serious about raising kids? Just throw them in front of the TV or put them out on the street and hope for the best. And when they want your attention, just tell them to shut up and leave you alone. No need for them to be involved in any outside activities, either. And if they don't turn out so great, oh well. It's not as bad as failing at a "real serious fulltime job..."

So I repeat. Since it's so easy, and only part time, Argus has nothing to complain about, right? How hard can it be to juggle a job and raising kids/keeping a household, especially when there's two parents to do it, when there's really not much of anything to do once they get home? Especially since someone else already fed them 2 of those 3 meals .....

Edited November 1, 2009 by American Woman

[daniel]

Obviously raising kids and keeping up a household is only a part time job.... ...

Jeremy Rifkin (author of End of Work) interviewed a bunch of corporate CEOs and they recognized that childcare workers were severely undervalued in our western society. He then posed a hypothetical question to them asking if they were paid the same, would they exchange jobs with childcare workers and all of them refused citing their own CEO work would be a lot easier.

Secondly, $1400/mo doesn't seem out of line. When my kids were young, we were forking out about $1000/mo. Today, there's a much more cost efficient solution. It's call the national childcare program, but guess who's going to whine about that too?

Thirdly, the cost of living had been steadily increasing since women recognized they needed to get external employment. Today they need external work not only to keep up with the cost of living but also to ensure their eligibility to contribute to their own registered retirement plan. As we all know, there won't be enough government money waiting for all of us when we retire - hence the need to get external work and therefore childcare services.

And finally, another JKGalbraith quote (or paraphrase): If the rightwing had their way, there'd be nobody working.

Edited November 1, 2009 by daniel

[Shwa]

"making 3 meals, cleaning up a house and minding kids is not equivalent to a real serious fulltime job"

Not quite true. Because of the double household income requirements, daycare can be anywhere from $200.00 to $800.00 per child for the regular daytime hours. And of course extended hours cost extra as well as any extra services. So for some folks in the daycare industry, "minding the kids" is indeed a "serious fulltime job." And a vital one nowadays to boot.

Interestingly, in some cities, the cost of daycare alone would exceed the $1450.00 welfare payment cited, although if we knew what city, we could make a more careful calculation about "minding the kids." And keep in mind that this daycare cost does not include overnightcare, doctors visits, etc.

[Shwa]

"And if they don't turn out so great, oh well."

No, the only reason they wouldn't turn out right is because of laziness because we are all provided the same opportunities.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Jeremy Rifkin (author of End of Work) interviewed a bunch of corporate CEOs and they recognized that childcare workers were severely undervalued in our western society. He then posed a hypothetical question to them asking if they were paid the same, would they exchange jobs with childcare workers and all of them refused citing their own CEO work would be a lot easier.

So what?

I tell my assistant she's the absolute best and that I couldn't do anything without her.

You'd be surprised what you can get a woman to do by feeding her sense of accomplishment.

Market value isn't determined by whether it's difficult work. It's determined by what the market is willing to pay. And supply/demand determines that. Let's be frank, if you're in a shitty paying job, it's probably because there's another schlepp down the line ready to replace you.

The world is chock full of administrative assistants without whom their boss "couldn't do anything", but therein lies the problem: the world is full of 'em.

Same goes for childcare. Show me a childcare person (ie woman) who think's her work is irreplaceable and I'll show you dozens more that think the same thing. It's not rocket surgery we're talking about here.

Edited November 1, 2009 by JerrySeinfeld

[daniel]

...

You'd be surprised what you can get a woman to do by feeding her sense off accomplishment.

...

So what? You'd be surprised at what we can accomplish if the right would just stop whining and complaining.

[JerrySeinfeld]

So what? You'd be surprised at what we can accomplish if the right would just stop whining and complaining.

What do you mean "we can accomplish" - you mean society?

[lictor616]

Obviously raising kids and keeping up a household is only a part time job.... kids raise themselves the rest of the time. And it's definitely not serious, either. What's so serious about raising kids? Just throw them in front of the TV or put them out on the street and hope for the best. And when they want your attention, just tell them to shut up and leave you alone. No need for them to be involved in any outside activities, either. And if they don't turn out so great, oh well. It's not as bad as failing at a "real serious fulltime job..."

So I repeat. Since it's so easy, and only part time, Argus has nothing to complain about, right? How hard can it be to juggle a job and raising kids/keeping a household, especially when there's two parents to do it, when there's really not much of anything to do once they get home? Especially since someone else already fed them 2 of those 3 meals .....

sooooooo... by your logic.. all mothers should be placed on welfare and not work? got that right?

brilliant....

it<ll be like the 50<s!!! lol

or could an addle patted feminist be wrong?

[Guest American Woman]

sooooooo... by your logic.. all mothers should be placed on welfare and not work? got that right?

Ummmmmmm, no. By my logic, a woman, just because she isn't working outside the home, isn't doing NOTHING: sitting on her ass all day watching tv.

And by my logic, if wages were high enough to make working more profitable than collecting welfare, people would be out working. So rather than whining about welfare, makes more sense to be calling for higher wages. Yet Argus seems to be upset that no one is willing to work for "peanuts." One has to laugh at the absurdity of it all.

brilliant....

My logic usually is.

Edited November 1, 2009 by American Woman

[Topaz]

What about the other END of the of people who do work like CEO's and get overpaid bonuses that comes from the taxpayers of this country? In the following article these guys are way over paid and we are paying out alot more to them, then those guys sittting home on welfare!! http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2009/...586201-sun.html

[Guest TrueMetis]

What about the other END of the of people who do work like CEO's and get overpaid bonuses that comes from the taxpayers of this country? In the following article these guys are way over paid and we are paying out alot more to them, then those guys sittting home on welfare!! http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2009/...586201-sun.html

And most of them are doing an equivalent amount of work.

[Topaz]

Obviously raising kids and keeping up a household is only a part time job.... kids raise themselves the rest of the time. And it's definitely not serious, either. What's so serious about raising kids? Just throw them in front of the TV or put them out on the street and hope for the best. And when they want your attention, just tell them to shut up and leave you alone. No need for them to be involved in any outside activities, either. And if they don't turn out so great, oh well. It's not as bad as failing at a "real serious fulltime job..."

So I repeat. Since it's so easy, and only part time, Argus has nothing to complain about, right? How hard can it be to juggle a job and raising kids/keeping a household, especially when there's two parents to do it, when there's really not much of anything to do once they get home? Especially since someone else already fed them 2 of those 3 meals .....

Lets see Angus with a new born baby and what he does when the baby cries, needs changing, feeding and when its time for teething, crying a lot more and when its sick. Only the stronger sex can deal with that and that's why women have the babies.

[Machjo]

You know, I have a friend (yes, really) who has an important job. She works long hours, and as she's considered management, she gets no overtime pay. Now her boss has been transferred, and it looks like they want to promote her. But she's got two kids at home, and her husband is working long hours with a new store he's opened. It's a big struggle to look after the kids and get things done at home with the long hours they work.

And I was thinking (yes really) that a hundred years ago, middle class folks like this didn't have to worry so much about things like this because they had servants. There was no welfare then, and poor people lived in crummy little houses and were desperate for anything they could get. So if you were middle class you could hire yourself a housekeeper or two for peanuts, and they'd take care of all the chores and help raise the kids if necessary.

But nowadays poor people just sit around the comfortable homes we pay for, eating the food we pay for, doing NO work, playing video games, getting drunk and fornicating. They're useless, a drain on resources. But if we stopped paying for their houses and stopped paying welfare, they'd be available to do work again at wages the middle class could afford. Plus, our taxes would go down considerably, allowing us to be more generous.

It would make life a lot easier on hard working, middle-class folks, and would increase productivity across the board. I could even hire one. Winter is coming up and I hate shovelling my lane. Well, not that I do. I hire some guy for that. But I wouldn't have to pay as much if I had my own servant guy. He could cut the lawn in the summer and do the weeding, too. The welfare types would get experience in working, and would gain more self respect. I think getting rid of welfare would be an all-around winner for everyone.

Had you kept your obvious contempt for the poor out of this post, I could have agreed with it in principle. Yes, I do agree that there are too many laws making it more difficult for the poor to find work. I could agree with removing the minimum wage for example. However, I cannot agree with the contempt you express in this post towards the poor, and that does nothing to promote your argument.

[Machjo]

Sure. Let's really get rid of welfare.

$5 billion to GM,

Subsidies and grants to farmers,

tax breaks to the rich etc

Once that is done, then we can look at those who live at or below the poverty level....

Agreed. There is plenty of highly paid welfare in the public service, military, etc. too.

[bush_cheney2004]

Agreed. There is plenty of highly paid welfare in the public service, military, etc. too.

Do the "poor" reciprocate equally as these with payroll and corporate taxes ?

[dlkenny]

If you knew anything about welfare you would know that welfare pays next to nothing and that people on welfare can't afford even the worst places. You want to bitch, bitch about the people who are on welfare but shouldn't be. DO NOT bitch about people who get much less than you anyway getting what amounts to usually less than a grand a month.

If they worked they wouldn't be getting less than a grand a month.

[dlkenny]

I agree. GM should have been allowed to fail.

But instead President Obama subverted statute bankruptcy law, screwed the bondholders and gave the company to his buddies in the UAW as payback for election support.

Farmers shouldn't get jack shit.

Tax "breaks" for the rich? baaaaaahahahahahahaha.

ahem...sorry.

So if someone pays more than $1 million in taxes, but they get $100k back for allowable deductions, then that's a tax "break"?

Yeah, agreed completely. If left alone, GM would have rebuilt itself from the inside out. The market would have forced it along with many companies from wall street to become more efficient and profitable.

Farmers though, have been getting the raw deal for over 30 years because raw food prices have not changed since the 1960s. Food prices have, but the money isn't going to the producers but to the food companies who control the retail prices. My grandparents were farmers and they struggled many years to make ends meet. I'm not saying that welfare is the solution but they are getting screwed by measures like the Canadian Wheat Board.

Tax breaks for the rich, some are necessary to spur investment and push our society along (it is a capitalist society but government handouts to the rich are wrong. I don't think anyone should be given a handout unless they are legitimately unable to work due to a severe disability. More people would work, our society would be more productive and the government would wind up with more tax dollars through more people paying taxes.

Welfare does nothing but create a sense of entitlement and allows certain people to be lazy and take advantage of other people's hard work. If it's that important, there are many places where these people could be put to work to earn their way and help out society.

[Machjo]

Do the "poor" reciprocate equally as these with payroll and corporate taxes ?

No, but they are much less expensive.

A good example on the news recently was the F22 in the US. The company has branches in almost every state, giving a stake in this to many politicians for job creation even though the Pentagon itself wanted to scrap the project a long time ago saying that plane was designed for cold war era operations and not what they need today. In spite of many years of wastage, it's only recently that they've finally decided to scrap it.

Now you tell me, which is cheaper between giving someone a few hundred dollars a month and giving someone a few thousand dollars a month, provide him with a work place, training, expensive high tech equipment, and security personnel to boot, etc etc etc to produce something the Pentagon itself didn't even want?

We find similar with the auto bail out. Had we planned ahead (we know recessions always come sooner or later), we would have asked the police, paramedics, military, etc. to hold onto their old cars for a little longer, so that when the recession hit, first off the industry would have been smaller owing to fewer government purchases, whether police, military, public service, ambulances, etc. so a smaller industry in need of help, and in addition to that, instead of expensive bailouts to subsidize car buyers, the government could then have made all its car purchases to replace the old police cars, military jeeps, etc. all in desperate need of replacement anyway. As a result, instead of spending all this money in good times, and then even more again to subsidize them, we'd have spent much less in good times, and then the spending in bad times would no longer have been make work schemes, but rather filling legitimate needs to replace old hardware.

I do disagree with welfare except for those who cannot work, as long as we remove barriers to their finding work too. Obviously it wouldn't be fair to cut welfare while still leaving the barriers up.

Overall I agreed with some of the principles of the OP; it's just the contemptuous tone that turned me off.

[Guest TrueMetis]

If they worked they wouldn't be getting less than a grand a month.

If they could work most of them would, being on welfare is one of the most humiliating things a person can do. It's a last resort option.

[Thomas Kwon]

If they could work most of them would, being on welfare is one of the most humiliating things a person can do. It's a last resort option.

Humility is a subjective concept, not an objective one.

For example, some people may believe that it'd be more humiliating to live on the streets vs. homeless shelter, while others may believe that being a dirty bum on the streets is more humiliating than staying in a homeless shelter.