Socialism is evil.

Bryan · February 19, 2011

First Nations do not receive provincial social assistance. They are covered directly by the federal government.

Someone should let the Province of Manitoba know this, it's going to save them a lot of money.

bloodyminded · February 19, 2011

The US of A prior to 1910. It's the only example.

An opulent minority and a materially suffering majority. Things are better in most ways now--including in matters of personal, individual freedoms.

Society was already moving towards equality for all persons. Stodgy laws on the books that should never have been made retarded societal efforts at evolving toward equality

How do you know this? Why do you think so?

Edited February 19, 2011 by bloodyminded

Pliny · February 19, 2011

An opulent minority and a materially suffering majority. Things are better in most ways now--including in matters of personal, individual freedoms.

There will always be an opulent minority. When has there never been? Even the USSR, Cuba, North Korea, Sweden, China...everywhere you look there is an opulent minority. In those States of total government the opulent were all members of government. In the "mixed economy" of today successful businessmen share the opulence with politicians.

So your idea is to get rid of the opulence altogether and have everyone poor. All the wealth the opulent have if redistributed would not bring up the standard of living of the majority a wit.

The idea is to not oppress the majority and hinder their efforts to try and improve their standard of living. Agreeably Government regulations, do tend to help some but generally at the expense of someone else. If they just ruled on fairness and equality under the law that is all that would be necessary....but nooooo.... they have to cement decisions in law. As thosugh all times and all conditions remain constant.

Pliny: Society was already moving towards equality for all persons. Stodgy laws on the books that should never have been made retarded societal efforts at evolving toward equality.

How do you know this? Why do you think so?

There were property laws, there were segregation laws. This is essentially the institutionalized cementing of societal structure making it difficult to bring societal change or change people's attitudes regarding gender and race. They have the backing of law to continue discriminatory property and racist attitudes. Attitudes can change with time as society is an ever evolving organism laws engineering society in such manner do not contribute to but instead stagnate the evolutionary process of society. There does have to be laws of course, but they must be applied equally and they must be very general for the greater majority to agree to them, and the most important factor is they must benefit all without being at the expense of others. So, in other words, government social programs should not exist.

Let me qualify the above so that there is no misunderstanding of how society moved through time.

In history there have been prejudices, discrimination, biases, etc, towards races, cultures, genders, religions, classes, nationalities, and there was basically a struggle for domination and supremacy.

The laws were formulated by a few men and contained all of these prejudices, discrimination and biases towards others claiming their inferiority in relation to them. If they had not been made and all races, religions, races, cultures, genders were considered formthe start no laws would have been made but unfortunately, we as a species had a lot to learn and we gradually accept that all people are persons and deserve the same respect and equal treatment under law - criminals being the exception. Now if we had the right of freedom of association some of us may not like to associate with others because of disagreemants with each other. We would not have different religions, political parties, cultures, styles, etc., if we were forced to have no disagreements or preferences. We can have them and we should be allowed them without making laws regarding them. Economically, it is beneficial to all to act together co-operatively and so it is essentially economic co-operation that will prevent wars not laws of segregation or forced association. Tariffs, taxes, economic regulations and social entitlements paid out of a public purse at the expense of some and the benfit of others are economically unfair, and unequal representation under the law.

We have to allow assimilation and integration to occur as a process of societal evolution and not as an engineered enfocement of law. That is what we did in the past enforced by law supremacy, segregation, gender inequality, racism, slavery and many social ills. It is governemnt then that is forced to change it's laws inorder toeffect change in societal attitiudes. As we do progress towards a more equal understanding of ourselves we see that we must not be forced in our associations and our preferences but be allowed to co-exist with the respect of those who may differ in their associations and preferences.

As an example it is my opinion that Islam in general needs to learn a little respect for the infidel. I am certain that some may already realize this as do some athiests respect the right of Christians to hold their beliefs, aAs wrong as they may feel those beliefs are. We can thus debate and argue the points and reach resolutions or create divisions, whatever the case, without the force of law to determine favour for one group over another. But that mutual respect must exist within all individuals before we can have peaceful association or preferred segregation.

Socialism attempts to eliminate by law all differences of groups and individuals in society by force of law. When we are all equal it will be happy and we will be living in the total state. It has in other words mistakenly assumed that it is it's job to create equality instead of delivering equal treatment under the law. Today's graduated income tax structure is an example of unequal treatment under the law and is basically a socialist/Marxist concept of from each according to their ability and to each according to their need. It is a concept now ensconced in law and thus very difficult to change.

Some consider it fair and just and I can see that point but it violates the governments mandate to treat all eqaully under the law. The concept of justice then deteriorates to one of punishing those demonstraing a responsibility toward society, mostly fiscally and rewarding those deemed incapable of responsibility toward society fiscally and socially as it attempts to understand how it can make them fiscally and socially responsible citizens. The bureaucracy created to do so will not be conducive to resolutions of societal problems lest it be rendered unnecessary and lose it's position and of importance and more importanyly it's means of an income.

Have a glorious day!

bloodyminded · February 19, 2011

There will always be an opulent minority. When has there never been? Even the USSR, Cuba, North Korea, Sweden, China...everywhere you look there is an opulent minority.

In pre-1910 America (per your example, but the same applies to the other wealthy democracies) the poor majority was relatively larger than it is now.

In those States of total government the opulent were all members of government. In the "mixed economy" of today successful businessmen share the opulence with politicians.

The successful businessmen and the politicians cannot be so easily separated.

So your idea is to get rid of the opulence altogether and have everyone poor.

The only problem I can see with this assertion is that it is flatly untrue and based on nothing I have ever said about anything.

All the wealth the opulent have if redistributed would not bring up the standard of living of the majority a wit.

It already has. It is the case as we speak.

There were property laws, there were segregation laws. This is essentially the institutionalized cementing of societal structure making it difficult to bring societal change or change people's attitudes regarding gender and race. They have the backing of law to continue discriminatory property and racist attitudes. Attitudes can change with time as society is an ever evolving organism laws engineering society in such manner do not contribute to but instead stagnate the evolutionary process of society. There does have to be laws of course, but they must be applied equally and they must be very general for the greater majority to agree to them, and the most important factor is they must benefit all without being at the expense of others. So, in other words, government social programs should not exist.

You have not explained why you think such matters as equality would not only naturally occur, but are in fact hampered by legislation. For example, since in Canada (and Spain, South Africa, a few others) same sex marriage is now legal, your contention is that 1) it would have been "acceptable," and thus made legal by some...I don't know, "organic" means...long ago. And that 2) the the relatively new legislation legalizing same sex marriage has somehow retarded the rights to same sex marriage!

That makes zero sense.

But more to the philosophical point generally:

You seem to have a very manichean, black and white view of an overarching government, utterly separated from the people, in which the agency and needs and desires of the people simply do not exist. It's as if people only "go along" with what government dictates.

The fact is that legislation is often passed at the will of the public.

And the fact that (at least according to a MacLean's poll) 70% of Canadians support same sex marriage suggests that the legislation occurred in a timely fashion, commensurate with what the general public was ready for and in fact wants.

And how, under your scenario, would any legislation about equal rights ever get passed? It would "just happen," free of government? Laws passed without government? Clearly you don't mean this, but you're not being clear, or I'm misreading you.

The bureaucracy created to do so will not be conducive to resolutions of societal problems lest it be rendered unnecessary and lose it's position and of importance and more importanyly it's means of an income.

I'm sure that virtually everyone agrees with you about problems inherent to bureacracy, but all large organizations demand one. Bureacracies, in fact, grow organically, not at the whim of someone looking for a means of income.

Find the most hardcore libertarian, I-hate-government CEO of a large private entity, a corporation, and gaze with amazement at the sheer size and scope of the bureacratic devices that have been created to sustain it.

Further, as for government, if we had, say, eleven political intellectuals running everything (which they simply could not do in any case), free of bureacracy, you'd have a tyranny.

I think a lot of your ideas depend very much on tyranny, in fact, which is pretty ironic. To think that tyranny is acceptable so long as the government doesn't get involved, and that it will magically "work itself out" through some organic progression of society is not based on any real world examples whatsoever.

Edited February 19, 2011 by bloodyminded

WIP · February 19, 2011

Welfare requires a highly invasive needs test, which requires you to declare all assets and liquidate nearly everything (the regulations change from province to province) before being able to go on social assistance. Those that are able to work are also required to take any available job or training to stay on welfare. Moreover, the amount of money one can collect hardly makes it worthwhile. Although you don't come right out and say it, you make it sound like anyone can just go on welfare and make a living. It doesn't quite work that way. Those who are able to claim social assistance have proven that they do not have the means to survive without it, they've exhausted all other options, and they are required to take any job or training that comes their way to get them off of assistance ASAP.

Relating to your point about what you claim you see:

The Mike Harris government setup a number for people to call to rat on others they felt were cheating the system. The number was mostly unsuccesful because many, if not the majority, of complaints were against people NOT on welfare. The complainants assumptions about who was collecting social assistance was false. What this system told us is that it's not easy to tell who is and is not on welfare.

I just want to extend a word of thanks for this and other posts that give a little information about how the welfare system actually works. I've never been in the system, and I've never discussed the details of welfare and disability programs with my sister-in-law or others that I know who are either on public assistance, or have been in the past. It just doesn't seem to be the topic of polite conversation. But, I do know that middle class people who want to bitch and carp about people "living off them" are usually talking out of their asses. Most people are small game hunters by nature it seems; they'd rather attack someone who's under them on the economic ladder than go after the big game at the top of the heap!

bloodyminded · February 19, 2011

I just want to extend a word of thanks for this and other posts that give a little information about how the welfare system actually works. I've never been in the system, and I've never discussed the details of welfare and disability programs with my sister-in-law or others that I know who are either on public assistance, or have been in the past. It just doesn't seem to be the topic of polite conversation. But, I do know that middle class people who want to bitch and carp about people "living off them" are usually talking out of their asses. Most people are small game hunters by nature it seems; they'd rather attack someone who's under them on the economic ladder than go after the big game at the top of the heap!

Aalmost every time. Set your watch to it.

Jack Weber · February 20, 2011

I just want to extend a word of thanks for this and other posts that give a little information about how the welfare system actually works. I've never been in the system, and I've never discussed the details of welfare and disability programs with my sister-in-law or others that I know who are either on public assistance, or have been in the past. It just doesn't seem to be the topic of polite conversation. But, I do know that middle class people who want to bitch and carp about people "living off them" are usually talking out of their asses. Most people are small game hunters by nature it seems; they'd rather attack someone who's under them on the economic ladder than go after the big game at the top of the heap!

Spot on...

If people would aim thier anger at those who really deserve it,things might actually change for the better...

Mr.Canada · February 21, 2011

I just want to extend a word of thanks for this and other posts that give a little information about how the welfare system actually works. I've never been in the system, and I've never discussed the details of welfare and disability programs with my sister-in-law or others that I know who are either on public assistance, or have been in the past. It just doesn't seem to be the topic of polite conversation. But, I do know that middle class people who want to bitch and carp about people "living off them" are usually talking out of their asses. Most people are small game hunters by nature it seems; they'd rather attack someone who's under them on the economic ladder than go after the big game at the top of the heap!

I've been on welfare and I've lived on the street. Let's say I've spent extended periods of time with OCAP people and others on welfare. Some people are indeed happy to live on welfare pretty much unmotivated to look for a job. Some people collect welfare and work at the same time. There's a place called Labour Ready, they pay min wage but pay cash each day many people on welfare work at Labour Ready at the same time. Other's are on welfare and pan handle everyday as well. Plus many who are welfare but refuse to look for work at all. They pay their rent then spend the rest on drugs/alcohol then eat everyday for free at various places downtown for the homeless. Of coarse not all welfare recipients do this but some do.

GostHacked · February 21, 2011

"Our" jobs? Gee, did you feel this way when American jobs were exported to Canada? Nope.

Did you?

Jack Weber · February 21, 2011

Did you?

That's a toss up for Miss Saskatchewan,I think..

On one hand,it fits his free market ethos...

On the other hand,it helped us...The object of his constant derision and annoyance..

GWiz · February 21, 2011

For some people, you have to put them to work. If there's no work where they live, then they need to be sent other places (they can still return home, and they can have the transport and expenses paid for when they need help). There also needs to be development money spent to create opportunities in areas that rely too heavily on social assistance. There is no easy solution, but that isn't to say that a problem doesn't exist, and that isn't to say that the status quo is okay.

It seems you don't even know that there was an actual and extensive study done in Manitoba on "welfare fraud and abuse of the welfare system" where going into the the study it had been assumed that abuse of the various welfare systems may be as high as a whooping 3% of recipients... only to find that only 1.2% of people on welfare "abused" the systems... They also found that much of that remaining 1.2% was due to clerical or other error within the systems or HONEST misunderstanding of the system by the so called "abuser" OR a welfare worker...

That wouldn't seem to leave many people to substantiate your claims now does it?

You may also want to "tell us" which welfare, Federal, Provincial, City, Native, Disability, etc., "these people" you reference are supposedly on...

I've never been on welfare but I'm somewhat familiar with it through owning rental properties and knowing people who've been FORCED onto welfare through no fault of their own... In every case I know of they got off welfare as quickly as they could and NONE of them wanted to be on welfare as a way of life as you seem to think...

Is there welfare abuse, sure, but the way you describe it is an absolute disproven myth...

Pliny · February 21, 2011

Well, I'm glad you guys are all here extolling the virtues of our wondrous welfare system. It seems to me though that you all suffer from a lack of vision.

It's very difficult to condemn the current welfare system. After all most of us don't see those that benefit from it, if we call it a "benefit". Most of us don't see the pain and suffering that is experienced not just from those that the benefit is directly for but those who are relieved by economic support and human resources from their excessive burden of having to attempt to individually try and prop someone else up. It takes a very capable individual to do that. In our history there was no provision for the disadvantaged except for charity or even some exploitive abusive temporary employer. The only place I have heard of the State helping the poor is in Ancient Rome where grain prices were kept low so the poor could afford it. We know what happened there. No one wanted to produce grain at a loss and the poor starved anyway because of scarcity. Money for the poor always seem so inadequate. Is our current system adequate? Even if it is a fight to maintain it and it's importance in society must be constantly and vigilantly brought to the attention of the people.

If only society could maintain an expanding economy. How do you suppose we could do that? Why is an expanding economy necessary? But can we do it? I suppose we wouldn't need an expanding economy if the population were shrinking, would we? Unless we were just trying to raise the level of the standard of living of the existing population. Then we would need to continue to expand the economy until there were no poor? Who would expand the economy and how? It would take a lot of work to keep up the pace of expansion. Would it be government that did this? Would we have to have a system where some worked and provided for others that, for whatever reason, couldn't provide for themselves? Some might look at that as akin to slavery. In order to avoid that perception a portion of what was produced must be considered as belonging to the one that worked to produce it. You can't just take everything and have the worker starve or become a part of the very faction of society it is supposed to be providing succor to, and it would be rather unfair if they had more than those that actually were on the producing side of the equation.

Introducing or initiating a system like this would be good as there would not be many that would qualify for assistance, since most people must be subsisting somehow already there would only be those that are really destitute. All would appear rosy but the economy would have to be expanding because there would not be a tendency for the destitute to disappear and taxes would have to increase accordingly. Not only to handle the increase but to pay government workers to manage the system.

Let's get back to how we are going to keep the economy expanding as more and more things add up to being paid for out of the collective public purse. We have health care and education. Of course the children aren't paying for the education or the health care and people with poor health are probably too sick to work but someone is paying and also supplying wealth to the increased size of bureaucracy now necessary.

Now let's say the economy for whatever reason starts shrinking. We have to get expanding to supply revenues to government for those receiving the benefits of a wealthy society plus the ever increasing numbers of people necessary to employ to provide them. On the one hand it seems we have to keep people productive but on the other it seems we are producing junk. As one poster says, who needs another bigger TV? Or a fancier car. Isn't this just a total waste of resources?

If I could make one economic point clear it is that government and it's services come out of the wealth of the nation and it is paid for by those that create wealth. The way that the system is set up is a great ponzi scheme. The collective socialist programs look so very good as long as the economy is expanding and there is, at least, a perception of wealth or future wealth. When the economy is not doing well there must be a means that government can sustain itself and all the services that it provides. This is called a deficit. The accumulation of deficits is the debt.

Well, our experience tells us that ponzi schemes eventually collapse. The truth of our welfare system is that it is a great ponzi scheme. The receivers of benefit now, plus the great amount of people employed in the public sector to provide them, teachers, civil servants, doctors, nurses, are all paid for by future generations and if they do not produce at an ever-expanding rate as demand for government services increases, and we know it will because higher levels of taxation will force the marginal producer into the ranks of the poor. We also know that inflation is necessary to keep an economy expanding. Those on fixed incomes, and once again the marginal producer will again add the numbers necessary for support.

Where does the wealth come from? Well, whatever wealth is determined to be in the eyes of government it is measured in it's currency. We can have great philosophical discussions about what wealth really is, but to the State whatever "money" can be extracted from is where wealth exists. It must consider that because happiness cannot be taxed nor is there any measurement of gain or wealth produced in a barter system although trade will not occur unless there is a benefit to both parties involved in a trade. So they are both happier but are they both wealthier. One may have a fridge and one may have a stove where before they didn't. They are indeed better off but by how much. The estimate in "dollars, money, currency" or whatever must be made for tax purposes.

So people working at corporations, people bringing raw materials together and getting paid for their labour, and the increased value of those materials that make them into consumer and capital goods are where the wealth is created. That wealth benefits society. In order for it to pay for government and it's services it must create a surplus because the services government provide do not produce wealth.

Their services basically will either facilitate or repress the production of wealth but their is no real wealth created. Even roads, which do facilitate trade and the creation of wealth, do not in themselves produce any means to support itself and it must be factored in as a cost to government in the future. The idea is that better and improved systems of roads and highways will increase the ability to trade and the resultant increased economic activity will result in increased revenues from the economy. But this is just one big ponzi scheme as well. We find today that governments, always on the lookout for revenue sources wish to put tolls on all our bridges and tunnels and soon they will want to put tolls on all roads. Initially, our taxes were enough to pay for them, now they are insufficient and tolls are necessary. Are we finding the same thing in health care and education? Are we looking at how to increase revenues to these systems beyond our taxes, which were previously, and not so long ago, sufficient to support them? Ways and means are necessary to be found to sustain them. In health care we are starting to look at "lifestyles" and applying extra taxes on those that live risky lifestyles. Education is not too bad right now since school populations seem to be decreasing at least in some areas. We only have to increase their budgets to cover inflation's loss of purchasing power and their "customary" budget increases. As well as inflation's cost of living increases.

Anyway the point is that an economy must expand for these ponzi like schemes to occur. Eventually, the bank will break. Are we getting close to that point? We have to keep making bigger TVs, newer stuff and we have to have people demanding them, otherwise the economy shrinks and there is no excess "wealth" (measured in currency amounts)to support government, it's bureaucracy and it's services.

Meanwhile, the proponents of the system that provides the surplus to be able to provide for "big" government wishes to cripple the corporations and those contributing to the expansion of the economy further than they already are. They believe they are being criminal for "keeping" their profits. Well, they appear to have profits because they can re-invest in capital goods and improvements. The truth is the inflationary aspect of government's monetary policies must be accounted for just as it is in paying it's civil servants and government's costs. A 2-3% loss to inflation every year must be calculated in, in order for there to be profits. In order for there to be a profit of 10% there must now be a profit of 12-13%. Sometimes the inflation rate is higher but for there to be at least an apparency of economic growth it must exceed the level of inflation. A 2% growth in GDP is a shrinking economy. Over the last century we have lost 98% of the purchasing power of our dollar, we can subtract that from the growth of our economy. Our economy may have tripled or quadrupled or quintupled but we lost a lot of that growth to inflation. We don't notice it because we are doing all right but the economy has a growing burden of government debt and deficits which, as anyone familiar with Ponzi schemes will tell you, is unsustainable. In a shrinking economy the surplus is not there.

What happens in times of scarcity is people pull together and do their best to get on. We need a time of scarcity. But you know what that means to people who live on the surplus of the economy? The teachers, the civil servants, the nurses and doctors, the military, the public employees of federal, provincial and municipal governments? The great bureaucracies that have been built on the fat of the land will futilely attempt to draw blood from a stone blaming the shortfall on all sorts of economic failures and inequities. They may get their way and further suck the life out of the economy continuing and insisting upon extorting more from the "greedy" hoarders of wealth but even those will eventually disappear and the inexorable collapse will occur - taking the poor, the needy and the infirm along with them.

Yes. It is a good system for a time. Only a few today will face the truth of what tomorrow brings and fewer still must live it. That is what makes socialism evil.

Have a glorious day!

Edited February 21, 2011 by Pliny

pinko · February 21, 2011

Is that the Sunday sermon?

ToadBrother · February 21, 2011

Socialists are trying to turn us all into slaves for another person. That is one of the end goals of socialism. Socialists wish to take money from my pocket in order to give it to someone else who has none and has done nothing to earn it. In turn socialists wish to force me to work for the common good of society, as they see it, for free or face jail time or some other sort of punishment.

With ever rising taxes it appears they are winning in this country.

A brief review of the early history of the Industrial Revolution rather suggests that Capitalists would do the same thing too, if they were unrestrained.

Frankly, I think both political ideologies, if not tempered by an admixture of the other, would lead to tyranny of one form or another.

Michael Hardner · February 21, 2011

A standard of living is not an entitlement that can be guaranteed by governments because governments are too flighty and whimsical

Yes, and no. Standards of living increase over time - they always have. Government needs to recognize that in order to keep a stable democracy, the power that naturally tends to accumulate at the top needs to be balanced out.

That is barely happening today.

Not a non-government state. A state that recognizes we can hold basic human understandings. But if one culture decides it wishes to treat women as chattel and another decides women should have equal rights as all individuals then are we to force one to change? Does might make right?

Our state doesn't do that ? Once again - I'm ultimately looking for you to give me an example of a good government, i.e. one that follows your individualistic ideals to a "T" and is successful.

Change by example must be the means. If it proves that treating women as chattel is more beneficial to society then maybe we should re-adopt that concept. But it isn't in keeping with our current understanding and definition of a "person" and that a person of any gender, race or religion should be treated equally under the law. There are cultures that do hold women to be second class citizens or their religion should be preferential.

I guess you're saying that values can change... ok...

A tiny effort? We have a whole government department with portfolio dedicated to this tiny effort.

One government department doesn't have much sway over our culture - something that each of us individually re-defines every single day, 30 million times over.

And I'm saying the progressive growth of the socialistic elements in government are increasingly detrimental to the prosperity and well-being of future generations. It is economically unviable.

I know you're saying that, but you've provided no substantial proof. You're giving us well phrased and long winded general ideas here but nothing I can hang my hat on.

There is no society that mirrors what you're trying to achieve, apparently. I have asked you to cite one and it isn't coming. Instead, you have given rather poetic descriptions of what is wrong with our society, without much proof.

The US of A prior to 1910. It's the only example. Some Presidents such as Lincoln violated basic principles of the Constitution but big government that intervened in every aspect of people's lives did not exist. Women's equality and civil rights were not possible under the laws and the granting of personhood had to be made for them to win those rights. Society was already moving towards equality for all persons. Stodgy laws on the books that should never have been made retarded societal efforts at evolving toward equality just as religious law retards the evolution of women's rights in some theocratic states.

Ah, here we are finally...

I will take a look at the US of this period later on to see what was so great about it. I have to run now...

cybercoma · February 21, 2011

Well, I'm glad you guys are all here extolling the virtues of our wondrous welfare system.

I don't seem to recall "extolling the virtues of our wondrous welfare system" becaus it's not wondrous at all. There are a number of problems with it. The barriers to re-entering the workplace are numerous and those are not addressed by the system. Maybe it wasn't this thread where I mentioned a number of these barriers, but don't make the mistake of thinking I believe our welfare system is a thing of perfection, far from it.

maple_leafs182 · February 21, 2011

Pliny is right.

The US has guaranteed so much money that it simply cannot afford to pay for those liabilities. America will have to either cut benefits or borrow or print more money in order to pay for those liabilities. This is one of the factors that will lead to America's fall.

Sometime and I hope soon, people will wake up and realize that this current market-money system is extremely flawed and we must produce a new more sustainable system that works in favour for all people.

cybercoma · February 21, 2011

Do the Math Survey: http://dothemath.thestop.org/surveystart.php

For those thinking that people are "screwing the system" on social assistance and living off other people's hardwork, take the survey. You get to punch in the expenses that you believe are absolutely necessary and see how much money someone on social assistance has left over to pay for food.

Smallc · February 22, 2011

Do the Math Survey: http://dothemath.thestop.org/surveystart.php

For those thinking that people are "screwing the system" on social assistance and living off other people's hardwork, take the survey. You get to punch in the expenses that you believe are absolutely necessary and see how much money someone on social assistance has left over to pay for food.

People on welfare either do not pay for housing or pay very subsidized rates, so I stopped right there. I'm not talking about a single person on welfare, I'm talking about the several families I know that have 8 - 10 kids, and live off of the Child Tax Credit, welfare, and $100 a month thing for children under 6. I don't really care about a single person on welfare. I'm saying that the above is a way of life for some people, and I see it all of the time.

Edited February 22, 2011 by Smallc

cybercoma · February 22, 2011

People on welfare either do not pay for housing or pay very subsidized rates

Did you even bother clicking on any of the little (?)s to get more information? This very thing is addressed.

You should also read a little more into the child tax benefits and how they relate to welfare recipients:

"If you are on social assistance, the NCBS may affect the amount of your social assistance payments. Many provinces and territories will consider the NCBS you get as income and will adjust your basic social assistance by this amount. Others may adjust their basic social assistance rates by using the maximum NCBS amount."

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/t4114/t4114-e.html

Smallc · February 22, 2011

That's nice and all, but I see these people's cheques, every month.

cybercoma · February 22, 2011

I'm sure it doesn't really cost all that much to raise 8-10 kids either. :rolleyes:

Smallc · February 22, 2011

I'm sure it doesn't really cost all that much to raise 8-10 kids either.

It doesn't when your housing, medical trips, and shopping trips are paid for and you live in a rural area. I don't think the same kind of problems exist in cities as those that are in rural reas.

cybercoma · February 22, 2011

It doesn't when your housing, medical trips, and shopping trips are paid for and you live in a rural area. I don't think the same kind of problems exist in cities as those that are in rural reas.

All those people in rural areas should just hop on a bus and... oh wait.

pinko · February 22, 2011

All those people in rural areas should just hop on a bus and... oh wait.

It would appear to me you are having a discussion with a person who has a closed mind on the topic. Apparently his anecdotal experiences extend to all in his mind.

Edited February 22, 2011 by pinko