Mike Harris did nothing wrong.

[err]

Some part... what part... the majority...

Ah so what your saying is that if that is what the majority choses to do you don't think their wishes should be followed.

The majority say they want health care... but a large segment of these people want someone else to pay for it... Or have this "pay as you go" attitude.... until they need the system.... It's human greed at play...

If noone chooses to support healthcare then its death is warrented.

but that is not the case, is it...

My sentiments apply to all social programs... People are inherently greedy... you are our poster-boy for this... you don't want to help anyone else do you... or sorry..... you want the choice not to help anyone else...

I am quite used to you resorting to name-calling when you have no argument to make. And yes, I do want the choice to help or not help if I so choose. That is freedom.

Until you need it.... People like you, I might be inclined to say "cut them off health care", but I know that you'd be whining like a baby, louder than anyone, about how foolish you were... and "you'd never do it again", etc... "where's your compassion"... as soon as you needed it... But if we were to support this option, the revenue loss might be great enough that the system could collapse, and then there'd be no life boat waiting for you....

What you instead advocate is dictatorship based upon your own sense of morality. You don't give a damm about what what anyone else thinks they ought to do, you want the govenment to be your own personal thugs to force people in a behaviour which you deem appropriate.

The laws in this country have been made by elected officials over a great period of time... to try to appease everybody. I'm not crazy about every law thats on the books, but I accept that having the book is a lot better than not having it. We're better off for the laws and enforcement thereof.

It would appear to be you who doesn't give a damn about anybody else, or the the laws and systems that keep our country running.

Try living in the USA if you want to be like the 100,000 people a year who die from the lack of health care.... we won't miss you...

I think it is you who want to wreck what all Canadians have right now. It is you who wants to dictate that poorer people cannot have health care... shame on you...

being considered as a unit does not mean making all the same choices does it? Where does it say anywhere being a member of a group precludes individual choices? Maybe you are thinking of a cult.

Then quit the group.. move to the USA... .

  Then you think it's ok for people to murder and rape... steal, malign, extort, and all, because God knows, we'd hate to be called Iranians.....

Perhaps you didn't see my previous reply:

Those acts should be enforced not because they are immoral but because they infringe on others individual or property rights.

So your desire to take health care away from the poorest in our nation is not immoral, it's criminal ??? I think it fits into the immoral category too...

Behavious which are immoral but do not infringe on people individual rights should not be enforced by anyone but only by the moral standards of that individual.

You're drawing blurry lines now. Whose standards of morality, and whose standards of criminality are you using... publicly defined ones, used by our courts.... Iranian ones, or your ones, which are bound to be the best ones....

[Renegade]

The majority say they want health care... but a large segment of these people want someone else to pay for it... Or have this "pay as you go" attitude....  until they need the system.... It's human greed at play...

The actions of people speak more forcefully than words. (Ever hear the expression "Put your money where your mouth is?") If people would not themselves pay for a system, then they have spoken for what they want regardless of what their motivation is behind it.

but that is not the case, is it...

See my reply above. What people want is demonstrated by what they would pay for.

Until you need it.... People like you, I might be inclined to say "cut them off health care", but I know that you'd be whining like a baby, louder than anyone, about how foolish you were... and "you'd never do it again", etc... "where's your compassion"... as soon as you needed it... But if we were to support this option, the revenue loss might be great enough that the system could collapse, and then there'd be no life boat waiting for you....

Frankly you have no idea what "people like me" would do. I'm sure if the attitude you predict above were true, no one would buy house insurance. But they do don't they? Why, because they forsee that they would need the contingency should an unfortunate event arrive. The same is true for health care. Let me speak for "people like me" for healthcare. If the cost I was what I judged reasonable relative to my use or potential use of the service, I would willingly contribute. If it was not, I would not. If enough "people like me" make a determination that the system was not worth contributing to and it collapsed, so be it. I care not if there is no lifeboat waiting. You are free to ignore "people like me" should we come crying for a system which we didn't contribute to, as I know such a situation won't take place.

The laws in this country have been made by elected officials over a great period of time... to try to appease everybody.  I'm not crazy about every law thats on the books, but I accept that having the book is a lot better than not having it.  We're better off for the laws and enforcement thereof. 

It would appear to be you who doesn't give a damn about anybody else, or the the laws and systems that keep our country running.

Try living in the USA if you want to be like the 100,000 people a year who die from the lack of health care.... we won't miss you... 

I think it is you who want to wreck what all Canadians have right now.  It is you who wants to dictate that poorer people cannot have health care... shame on you...

So I've said that there should be no laws? Where? Your imagining words I've never said. I do believe laws enforcing rights should be enforced. What exactly does the enforcement of laws have to do with people in the US who lack healthcare? Your arguments are disintegrating into nonsense at the point.

If by "wreck what all Canadians have" you mean, dismantle some of the bloated and inefficient institutions for which the government forcibly extorts money from us to pay for. I definately agree. Government has for the most part proved itself innefficient at best, and corrupt at worst. Minimizing its involvement in anything would be a big step forward.

Then quit the group.. move to the USA... .

Actually, I'd prefer to save this country by throwing all the lefties out. We won't miss YOU

So your desire to take health care away from the poorest in our nation is not immoral, it's criminal ???  I think it fits into the immoral category too...

What are you talking about? Perhaps you are having more trouble reading than I thought. I said that laws are enforced based upon the protection of rights not based upon their morality. Its beyond nonsense to draw a conclusion that that infers that taking healthcare away is crimminal. Care to elaborate on how you came to that conclusion? Didn't think so.

Prove that "the poorest in our nation" have an absolute right to healthcare that is paid for by others, and I'll agree with you that it is criminal to infringe on that right. But at this point they have no such right.

You're drawing blurry lines now.  Whose standards of morality, and whose standards of criminality are you using... publicly defined ones, used by our courts.... Iranian ones, or your ones, which are bound to be the best ones....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Blurry lines? Not at all. I am saying that NO standard of morality be used. The standard of laws and criminality which is used is based upon the protection of property and individual rights. Most nations have a charter which defines those rights. We have the Charter of Rights, the US has the Bill of Rights and the Amendments.

[mockingbird]

Get it from the rich

It is often said—and all too often believed—that the key to “social welfare”

or “social justice” is the redistribution of income. That is, the

state should take income from those who have more and give it to those

who have less. The extreme form of this prescription is “from each according

to his ability [to pay] and to each according to his need”—the

rule advanced in the Communist Manifesto (Marx and Engels 1848).

The preceding section’s analysis of who pays the income tax reveals

that, as a country, Canada already engages in significant taxation

of those who are relatively well-off. It remains interesting, therefore, to

inquire whether or not we could achieve a more equal distribution of

the benefits of the Canadian good life by taxing more of the income of

the richest Canadians.

It's interesting that in the entire history of those who adhere to marxism, we find the most brutal opression of the poor. Let me explain to you how a part of democratic society works:

a) People work.

Some people cannot work.

c) These people who work pay into a system that allows the minority of people who cannot work a means of rehabilitation or sustinance.

If above = false

a) People work.

Some people cannot work.

c) People who cannot work suffer and die.

So speaking of "progress" do you think sabotaging a system which is meant to push society foward is a "progressive" step?

I didn't think so.

[Renegade]

It's interesting that in the entire history of those who adhere to marxism, we find the most brutal opression of the poor.  Let me explain to you how a part of democratic society works:

a)  People work.

  Some people cannot work.

c)  These people who work pay into a system that allows the minority of people who cannot work a means of rehabilitation or sustinance.

If above = false

a)  People work.

  Some people cannot work.

c)  People who cannot work suffer and die.

So speaking of "progress" do you think sabotaging a system which is meant to push society foward is a "progressive" step?

I didn't think so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You seem to assume that the current system only pays via income redistribution, those who cannot work. This is far from true. The large majority are able-bodied and can work in some capacity. Our income redestribution schemes determine the level of redistribution based upon individual income, not capacity to work.

Do I think we should sabotage a system which takes away an individual's incentive to work? Absolutely. I don't consider it "progress" to have a system which provide disincentives to success and hard work.

[mockingbird]

You seem to assume that the current system only pays via income redistribution, those who cannot work. This is far from true.  The large majority are able-bodied and can work in some capacity. Our income redestribution schemes determine the level of redistribution based upon individual income, not capacity to work.

I never agreed to "income redistribution" the idea in itself is totally communist. Society should pay for certain things however, such as welfare. Your idea that the welfare system is systematically abused is completely wrong. I used to think the same way before I saw otherwise. This is what the government brainwashes you into believing.

The way people are treated you would think the welfare office would send investigators to investigate this "fraud." If there were statistics for actual investigations into welfare fraud, you would see (And I promise you this) a very low number of investigated cases.

These ideas are fed to the public to discourage the spreading of information that such a program exists; and thus ultimately stop people from using the system in time of need, as well as to demean the people who are already on it.

One of the main points of despotism is the withholding of information and the spreading of disinformation. Amongst other things is a big slide in living conditions between the rich and the poor. That would make harris and his cronies a despotic government.

Define able-bodied. Able bodied to do what? Is it reasonable that a person should work at minimum wage at the only job that will hire him instead of receive welfare? Moreso, if this person is already on welfare, is it reasonable he should be asked to work in the starving state that he has to live?

I know a guy who was on welfare and was receiving $525 a month (This is what they pay to a single person.) Now assume his rent is $450 for a room in a shared accommodation. You do the math. That leaves a measly $75 for his food for a whole month, never mind the phone or other luxuries like that. Do the math with that paltry amount and apply it to your life. When you have worked out a budget, let me know. The budget is simple. Either this person is lucky and has a cheap room with some friends - or mosre likely in most cases - the guy has to get a bottom-of-the-barrel slum room.

Do I think we should sabotage a system which takes away an individual's incentive to work? Absolutely. I don't consider it "progress" to have a system which provide disincentives to success and hard work.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Total nonsense and spoken like a true harricite. I'll go through a certain excercise with you. Take yourself, let's say you work. You have a drive to work - you like the money it provides to you. Now take Mr Joe who is on welfare. Try to think of him as someone with a mind like yourself. What's the difference between you and Mr Joe? Simple. Mr Joe has found himself in a difficult situation for some reason and needs a little extra help to come out.

Hello Mr Joe. Meet ontario works. Onario works will not only not help you, they will take away your desire to work by telling you that if you do land a job, you will be kicked off the system. Moreso, if your job doesen't work out, you have to wait a few months to reapply.

Oh and did we tell you about the ow workers? They are nazis in beliefs and behaviors. They will interrogate you. They will demean you.

I have a challenge to anyone here. Call up ow and apply just for the kick of it. When you return after the experience, I will explain to you why you feel like shit.

[Renegade]

I never agreed to "income redistribution" the idea in itself is totally communist.  Society should pay for certain things however, such as welfare.  Your idea that the welfare system is systematically abused is completely wrong.  I used to think the same way before I saw otherwise.  This is what the government brainwashes you into believing.

The way people are treated you would think the welfare office would send investigators to investigate this "fraud."  If there were statistics for actual investigations into welfare fraud, you would see (And I promise you this) a very low number of investigated cases.

I never said that the welfare system is systematically abused. If that's the impression I have conveyed, then I apologize because that's not what I meant. While I believe that there is some abuse, (as you would expect with any program) it is far from systemic and the majority are qualified recepients according to the rules. (As an aside, what do we mean by abuse? If a welfare recepient opts to buy alcohol or drugs with the money, is that abuse?)

I agree that some level of welfare is necessary, for the simple practical reason that by maintaining a minimal level of welfare we reduce the propensity or recepients to revolt or otherwise resort to crime.

One of the main points of despotism is the withholding of information and the spreading of disinformation.  Amongst other things is a big slide in living conditions between the rich and the poor.  That would make harris and his cronies a despotic government.

I assume you mean the gap between the rich and poor. I've never followed this argument and it doesn't make sense to me. If the rich get richer, it doesn't make the poor any poorer except in relative terms when compared to the rich. Why does that even matter?

Define able-bodied.  Able bodied to do what?  Is it reasonable that a person should work at minimum wage at the only job that will hire him instead of receive welfare?  Moreso, if this person is already on welfare, is it reasonable he should be asked to work in the starving state that he has to live?

I define able-bodied as unimpared by a phsysical or mental handicap. The government or others may define it differently. Yes I do think it is reasonable that a person should work at ANY job he/she can do instead of receiveing welfare. And yes, if a person is on welfare, why is not reasonable to ask him to work for the welfare payment?

I know a guy who was on welfare and was receiving $525 a month (This is what they pay to a single person.)  Now assume his rent is $450 for a room in a shared accommodation.  You do the math.  That leaves a measly $75 for his food for a whole month, never mind the phone or other luxuries like that.  Do the math with that paltry amount and apply it to your life.  When you have worked out a budget, let me know.  The budget is simple.  Either this person is lucky and has a cheap room with some friends - or mosre likely in most cases - the guy has to get a bottom-of-the-barrel slum room.

I know students and immigrants who get by on that amount or less. How do they do it? Well they end up pooling their resources by sharing accomodations, food, etc. They end up being very frugal with their expenses. I don't dispute that the $536 minimium welfare payment doesn't buy you much, but the question is it enough to sustain? If you think it is not, point me to the last incidence of someone on welfare dying of malnutrition.

Total nonsense and spoken like a true harricite.  I'll go through a certain excercise with you.  Take yourself, let's say you work.  You have a drive to work - you like the money it provides to you.  Now take Mr Joe who is on welfare.  Try to think of him as someone with a mind like yourself.  What's the difference between you and Mr Joe?  Simple.  Mr Joe has found himself in a difficult situation for some reason and needs a little extra help to come out.

Hello Mr Joe.  Meet ontario works.  Onario works will not only not help you, they will take away your desire to work by telling you that if you do land a job, you will be kicked off the system.  Moreso, if your job doesen't work out, you have to wait a few months to reapply.

I reiterate to you that each person is responsible for his own wellbeing. The state is not a nanny to make sure you provide for your own contingencies. Why exactly is Mr Joe in the circumstances he finds himself in? Is he not employable, has he not planned for potentially being out-of-work, is he a drug addict, or is he disabled and cannot work?

Oh and did we tell you about the ow workers?  They are nazis in beliefs and behaviors.  They will interrogate you.  They will demean you.

I have a challenge to anyone here.  Call up ow and apply just for the kick of it.  When you return after the experience, I will explain to you why you feel like shit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I won't defend the behaviour of social workers. They seem to have forgotten that they are employees of the public they serve. Even without the behavour of the workers, applying for welfare is a humiliating experience, but is this really a surprse? Afterall asking for a handout is not an action I would be proud undertaking.

[mockingbird]

I never said that the welfare system is systematically abused. If that's the impression I have conveyed, then I apologize because that's not what I meant. While I  believe that there is some abuse, (as you would expect with any program) it is far from systemic and the majority are qualified recepients according to the rules. (As an aside, what do we mean by abuse? If a welfare recepient opts to buy alcohol or drugs with the money, is that abuse?)

You almost complete the paragraph with politically correct hibber jabber, then complete the sentence with a trollish question.

If you spend money on pornography, are you a degenerate? What? I shouldn't have asked that question? Well you shouldn't have asked that one.

I agree that some level of welfare is necessary, for the simple practical reason that by maintaining a minimal level of welfare we reduce the propensity or recepients to revolt or otherwise resort to crime.

You are such a narcissistic moron, you can't even see beyond your own amoeba sized comprehension of society. Take an orwellian scenario for a moment. The citizen of this era revolts. Now take what you just said and place it in this context. This makes you an aspiring member of government in an orweillian society. Of course your higher upper buddies will have long ago stabbed you in the back, you'd most likely have ended up with the oppressed citizens.

I assume you mean the gap between the rich and poor. I've never followed this argument and it doesn't make sense to me. If the rich get richer, it doesn't make the poor any poorer except in relative terms when compared to the rich. Why does that even matter?

Well quite simply, as you can see in mike harris economics, he took money away from the poor, and gave it to the rich. Forget the moralistic scenario for a moment and just focus on this this specific action. Here is where you have a government who deprived the poor of their fruits and vegetables, so harris' yemach shemo's friend can build an expensive deck he will use nothing more for than to show it off to his friends.

I define able-bodied as unimpared by a phsysical or mental handicap. The government or others may define it differently.  Yes I do think it is reasonable that a person should work at ANY job he/she can do instead of receiveing welfare. And yes, if a person is on welfare, why is not reasonable to ask him to work for the welfare payment?

It's unreasonable to demand from him certain requirements when the job market provides no opportunities to meet these requirements. Furthermore as I said before it is inconceivably wicked to penalize somebody who IS actively seeking work while under OW. The government also refuses to take into account religious status of some of the recipients.

Furthermore, to engage in your attitude and in the general attitude of the welfare politburo which is "The citizen is always lying", is what creates this "gap between the rich and poor". You also might try replacing "poor" with "good" and "rich"

with "evil".

I know students and immigrants who get by on that amount or less. How do they do it? Well they end up pooling their resources by sharing accomodations, food, etc. They end up being very frugal with their expenses.  I don't dispute that the $536 minimium welfare payment doesn't buy you much, but the question is it enough to sustain? If you think it is not, point me to the last incidence of someone on welfare dying of malnutrition.

No, it is not enough to sustain. And it used to be $525 last year, let's not forget that. It's funny harris spoke the same way as you do. Taking the model of the refugee and applying it to citizens who have lived in the country for a long time. Who else would take a lesson in living from Bangalore and apply it to a supposed first world country with such grandiose claims of a polished human rights record.

Canada is somewhat of a trollish destination for a lot of foreigners, which they learn as they arrive, let's not forget that.

I reiterate to you that each person is responsible for his own wellbeing. The state is not a nanny to make sure you provide for your own contingencies. Why exactly is Mr Joe in the circumstances he finds himself in? Is he not employable, has he not planned for potentially being out-of-work, is he a drug addict, or is he disabled and cannot work?

If the state cannot claim responsibility for the wellbeing of its citizens, then this state is not a democracy. You can't impose a plethora of laws and by-laws, not to mention frivolous taxes on the people and expect that "each person is responsible for his own wellbeing." If you want a Mississippi then it's a Mississippi.

You'll find the more you travel north, the more you'll find this socialist hellhole of an ideology prevalent.

I won't defend the behaviour of social workers. They seem to have forgotten that they are employees of the public they serve.  Even without the behavour of the workers, applying for welfare is a humiliating experience, but is this really a surprse? Afterall asking for a handout is not an action I would be proud undertaking.

You just did defend them by saying you won't defend them.

Oh, by the way, applying for welfare isn't humiliating. Being humiliated is humiliating.

[Renegade]

You almost complete the paragraph with politically correct hibber jabber, then complete the sentence with a trollish question.

If you spend money on pornography, are you a degenerate? What? I shouldn't have asked that question? Well you shouldn't have asked that one.

Why don't YOU address the issue YOU raised? You accuse me of have a position that welfare recepients abuse the system, but don't provide any statements or backup for your statement, then refuse to state what you mean by abuse.

You are such a narcissistic moron, you can't even see beyond your own amoeba sized comprehension of society. Take an orwellian scenario for a moment. The citizen of this era revolts. Now take what you just said and place it in this context. This makes you an aspiring member of government in an orweillian society. Of course your higher upper buddies will have long ago stabbed you in the back, you'd most likely have ended up with the oppressed citizens.

Oooh I'm so intimidated by your personal insults.

Frankly your scenario makes no sense. To revolt a citizen would have to have both the will and the power to do so. Under what scenario does that exist in our soceity.

Well quite simply, as you can see in mike harris economics, he took money away from the poor, and gave it to the rich. Forget the moralistic scenario for a moment and just focus on this this specific action. Here is where you have a government who deprived the poor of their fruits and vegetables, so harris' yemach shemo's friend can build an expensive deck he will use nothing more for than to show it off to his friends.

It is always amusing to me how leftists phrase letting the people who earn money keep it, as "took money away from the poor, and gave it to the rich". It was never the poor's money and it belonged to those who earned it. They can do with it as they like, build a deck or blow it all gambling in Vegas.

It's unreasonable to demand from him certain requirements when the job market provides no opportunities to meet these requirements. Furthermore as I said before it is inconceivably wicked to penalize somebody who IS actively seeking work while under OW. The government also refuses to take into account religious status of some of the recipients.

Furthermore, to engage in your attitude and in the general attitude of the welfare politburo which is "The citizen is always lying", is what creates this "gap between the rich and poor". You also might try replacing "poor" with "good" and "rich"

with "evil".

Its not the job market's responsibility to provide him opportunities, it's his responsibility to adapt to the job market. Care to explain what you mean by taking into account religious status?

It is pure fantasy to equate "poor" to "good" and "rich" to "evil". Do you have any evidence to show that all "poor" are good, or all "rich" are "evil", or is this just one of your opinion with no basis in fact?

No, it is not enough to sustain. And it used to be $525 last year, let's not forget that. It's funny harris spoke the same way as you do. Taking the model of the refugee and applying it to citizens who have lived in the country for a long time. Who else would take a lesson in living from Bangalore and apply it to a supposed first world country with such grandiose claims of a polished human rights record.

Canada is somewhat of a trollish destination for a lot of foreigners, which they learn as they arrive, let's not forget that.

A human being has sustinance requirements which don't differ based upon which country they come from or how long they live in the country. If you asked me many people who have lived in the country and depend upon social assistance to make up for what they did not themselves earn, can take a lesson on how to economize from refugees and immigrants.

If the state cannot claim responsibility for the wellbeing of its citizens, then this state is not a democracy. You can't impose a plethora of laws and by-laws, not to mention frivolous taxes on the people and expect that "each person is responsible for his own wellbeing." If you want a Mississippi then it's a Mississippi.

You'll find the more you travel north, the more you'll find this socialist hellhole of an ideology prevalent.

Where did you draw a conclusion that "democracy"="welfare state". Democracy is simply the system by which the citizens choose who will govern them. They are free to choose the extent of state intervention or not. Do you care to expand upon what " plethora of laws and by-laws, not to mention frivolous taxes on the people " are imposed which preclude anyone taking responsiblity for their welbeing? Are you saying that if those laws and taxes were not in place, you would agree that people should be responsible for their own wellbeing?

I live as far north as I care to, and I'm grateful I haven't been contaminated by the "socialist hellhole of an ideology prevalent."

You just did defend them by saying you won't defend them.

Oh, by the way, applying for welfare isn't humiliating. Being humiliated is humiliating.

If you think I'm defending social workers who behave as you have described, you are clearly misreading my statements.

Applying for welfare isn't humiliating? That's pretty sad that anyone would not have the pride in self-reliance that would make applying for welfare humiliating on its own.

[mockingbird]

Why don't YOU address the issue YOU raised? You accuse me of have a position that welfare recepients abuse the system, but don't provide any statements or backup for your statement, then refuse to state what you mean by abuse.

I didn't raise any issues. YOU are the one who raised the stupidly ridiculous notion that all welfare money is spent on alcohol.

Frankly your scenario makes no sense. To revolt a citizen would have to have both the will and the power to do so. Under what scenario does that exist in our soceity.

LOL. I won't even go anywhere on this one. It's pointless arguing democracy with someone with a 12th century totalitarian brain.

It is always amusing to me how leftists phrase letting the people who earn money keep it, as "took money away from the poor, and gave it to the rich". It was never the poor's money and it belonged to those who earned it. They can do with it as they like, build a deck or blow it all gambling in Vegas.

It is amusing to me how the canadian so called "right wing" equates "leftists" with the general view of what leftist means in the world. This is coming from someone who's ancestors decided that NO - the British were correct in their views of taxation without representation. You will never know the true meaning of what "right wing" or "left wing" is, so so let's make due without the petty histrionics.

It's amusing to ME how people like you honestly think that they can make due without other people in society - notably the poor. Have you ever seen Titanic? Remember the part where the ship is sinking and the rich guy is asking his butler to poor him champagne? Just remember, when the shit hits the fan, we know what happens.

Its not the job market's responsibility to provide him opportunities, it's his responsibility to adapt to the job market. Care to explain what you mean by taking into account religious status?

It's the responsibility of the Canadian government not to flood the country with too many immigrants. These immigrants take away opportunity from the lower sector - the stepping stone - of the job market.

Sure. Would you ask a Jew to work on his Sabbath, or a Christian to work on his holidays? Most workplaces don't take into account religious sensitivity in some situations, especially the part time jobs you deem so readily available. Maybe society is going towards a more secular trend these days, but some religious needs still need be taken into account.

It is pure fantasy to equate "poor" to "good" and "rich" to "evil". Do you have any evidence to show that all "poor" are good, or all "rich" are "evil", or is this just one of your opinion with no basis in fact?

Not at all. In fact most rich people are not evil (Excluding Ontarians. Anyone who has the gall to vote for a government like harris for a second term is evil). It is people with your attitude, that fuel this idea in the first place.

A human being has sustinance requirements which don't differ based upon which country they come from or how long they live in the country. If you asked me many people who have lived in the country and depend upon social assistance to make up for what they did not themselves earn, can take a lesson on how to economize from refugees and immigrants.

I disagree and this argument is invalid. To cut SA in half and then tell people how to ecnomize is just brazen.

Where did you draw a conclusion that "democracy"="welfare state". Democracy is simply the system by which the citizens choose who will govern them. They are free to choose the extent of state intervention or not.

Do I dare say we are entering the classic argument of if hitler was voted in democratically, what does this make the population? If the population democratically elects a totalitarian and communist government, is it a democracy? My answer? No. The process that leads to such elections is despotism. The natural desire of a human being is to be free, I have to assume that most people in their right mind don't want to be governed by opression.

Like I said, calling a social assistance or welfare program "Ontario Works" or a tenant oppression act a "Tenant Protection Act" is despotism on the earliest level. Once you mislead the public, then there is a niche created for these totalitarian governments to flourish.

Do you care to expand upon what " plethora of laws and by-laws, not to mention frivolous taxes on the people " are imposed which preclude anyone taking responsiblity for their welbeing? Are you saying that if those laws and taxes were not in place, you would agree that people should be responsible for their own wellbeing?

Exactly. If I am allowed to walk on the "Queen's Property" near a city, take some logs and build myself a log cabin, and sit on a rocking chair behind my door with a shotgun without being stormed by a team of ontario police then your argument would be valid. And we know what happened to a member of a group of Indians when they attempted something a lot less violent and a lot more legal some time ago.

I live as far north as I care to, and I'm grateful I haven't been contaminated by the "socialist hellhole of an ideology prevalent."

No. You haven't been contaminated by it, you are it. You probably live in some remote town with a large house, like a big fish in a small pond.

Applying for welfare isn't humiliating? That's pretty sad that anyone would not have the pride in self-reliance that would make applying for welfare humiliating on its own.

It shouldn't be humiliating. You'd make a wonderful catchphraser for the national socialist party.

[err]

Applying for welfare isn't humiliating? That's pretty sad that anyone would not have the pride in self-reliance that would make applying for welfare humiliating on its own.

It shouldn't be humiliating. You'd make a wonderful catchphraser for the national socialist party.

Hey Mockingbird... I think you're going to need to explain what the "national socialist party" is to him....

[Argus]

It shouldn't be humiliating.  You'd make a wonderful catchphraser for the national socialist party.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Being nice sometimes doesn't work as public policy.

For example, it used to be a shameful thing to be an unmarried mother. Pregnant girls would leave their communities to "visit aunt alice" or whomever, and go to a home for unwed mothers to bear their child, then give it up and leave.

Do we want to return to those days? No.

But what has been the result of no shame being attached to this? Lots and lots of single mothers, particularly teenage mothers. Most of those punks shooting each other in the streets of Toronto have no fathers. Huge chunks of the people on welfare are single mothers. Many of the problems of unsupervised children getting involved in crime, of the high drop-out rate at high schools, of the breakdown of the traditional family are as a result of the lack of shame of young women in getting pregnant and having and keeping their child.

Making it easy for people to go on welfare is the same. It is bad public policy. During the last recession, and for a while after it, through to Mike Harris' time, one out of every ten people in Ontario was on welfare. This is bad on so many levels, economic being just one of them. People who get desperate enough will take jobs they otherwise would not, will put in tremendous efforts at finding a job - any job. People who can just relax, and very easily, and without shame, get welfare, will be far less likely to be desperate, and far more likely to spend years and years on welfare.

[err]

Lots and lots of single mothers, particularly teenage mothers. Most of those punks shooting each other in the streets of Toronto have no fathers. Huge chunks of the people on welfare are single mothers. Many of the problems of unsupervised children getting involved in crime, of the high drop-out rate at high schools, of the breakdown of the traditional family are as a result of the lack of shame of young women in getting pregnant and having and keeping their child.

Maybe we should make those tarts work for a state owned prostitution network called "Ontario Hooks" or "PimpFare"... Then they could pay their way.. and guys like Argus would be a lot happier (that was sarcam, in case some of you didn't catch it)

Making it easy for people to go on welfare is the same. It is bad public policy. During the last recession, and for a while after it, through to Mike Harris' time, one out of every ten people in Ontario was on welfare. This is bad on so many levels, economic being just one of them. People who get desperate enough will take jobs they otherwise would not, will put in tremendous efforts at finding a job - any job.

Maybe we could make a matching service... to supply all those companies that were just sceaming for employees.

Just a thought, but if the "market rules" gobbledygook you guys always talk about really works, and there were thousands of jobs just sitting there that couldn't be filled by all these lazy Ontarians (who were obviously sitting at home drinking beer), shouldn't these desparate employers have raised the amount of money they were offering to the point that it would have attracted some empoyees ???

People who can just relax, and very easily, and without shame, get welfare, will be far less likely to be desperate, and far more likely to spend years and years on welfare.

Well, at least we won't have an overweight population. With the paltry amount that these 'lazy louts' are supposed to live on, they would all get very thin, wouldn't they....

These people who have "no shame", I suppose they also don't mind having no decent clothes, no toys for their kids, and no lives outside the slum dwellings that they would be forced to move to, based on the pathetically small size of welfare payments (that Mike Harris dropped them to).

And who cares that the desparately needy are made to live in these pathetic situations, as long as it gets a few more of those lazy ones out there making minimum wage.....

[Renegade]

I didn't raise any issues.  YOU are the one who raised the stupidly ridiculous notion that all welfare money is spent on alcohol.

For the last time, I never said that. Show me where I said that. All I did was ask a question on what you meant by abuse.

LOL.  I won't even go anywhere on this one.  It's pointless arguing democracy with someone with a 12th century totalitarian brain.

Pretty much as expected that you resort to insults when you have no argument to make.

It is amusing to me how the canadian so called "right wing" equates "leftists" with the general view of what leftist means in the world.  This is coming from someone who's ancestors decided that NO - the British were correct in their views of taxation without representation.  You will never know the true meaning of what "right wing" or "left wing" is, so so let's make due without the petty histrionics.

How the hell do you know who my ancestors are or what they decided? For al you know my ancestors are the same as your ancestors. I care not if you like my definition of right wing or left wing. I'm equally fine if you want to substitue the word "you" instead of "leftists".

It's amusing to ME how people like you honestly think that they can make due without other people in society - notably the poor.  Have you ever seen Titanic?  Remember the part where the ship is sinking and the rich guy is asking his butler to poor him champagne?  Just remember, when the shit hits the fan, we know what happens.

You're completely incorrect if your assumption is that I think we don't need poor people. There will always be poor in society, and in fact it is the poor who have the greatest incentive to increase their wealth by earning income. For the most part our society gives them ample means to do so, and it is up to them to use those means if they wish to move themselves out of poverty.

It's the responsibility of the Canadian government not to flood the country with too many immigrants.  These immigrants take away opportunity from the lower sector - the stepping stone - of the job market.

immigrants take away opportunity???? Many immigrants are educated and wealthy before they come to Canada. In fact we benefit from their educatoin for which there was no subsidy by the canadian government.

What are you proposing? That we ban poor immigrants? Maybe you can explain why you think the poor in other countries who wish to immigrate to Canada are less deserving of a job than the poor here.

Sure.  Would you ask a Jew to work on his Sabbath, or a Christian to work on his holidays?  Most workplaces don't take into account religious sensitivity in some situations, especially the part time jobs you deem so readily available.  Maybe society is going towards a more secular trend these days, but some religious needs still need be taken into account.

There is always a balance which needs to be met when there are conflicting forces. If a person is self-sufficient, he can make the choice as to what point his religious practices should outweigh his economic self-interest. When he loses his capabality for self-sufficiency he also gives up some ability to choose and must conform to the restrictions.

You cannot have a situation where religious practices always takes precidence. What if I'm a non-practiciting Christian, do I still have to work Sundays and Christian holidays? What if my religion calls me to pray most of the day. Does that mean I never have to work?

Not at all.  In fact most rich people are not evil (Excluding Ontarians.  Anyone who has the gall to vote for a government like harris for a second term is evil).  It is people with your attitude, that fuel this idea in the first place.

Well at least it is a start that you think that most rich people are not evil. How does my attitude fuel this idea?

Do I dare say we are entering the classic argument of if hitler was voted in democratically, what does this make the population?  If the population democratically elects a totalitarian and communist government, is it a democracy?  My answer?  No.  The process that leads to such elections is despotism.  The natural desire of a human being is to be free, I have to assume that most people in their right mind don't want to be governed by opression.

Here's a definition from Wikipedia:

Democracy is a form of government in which policy is decided by the preference of the majority in a decision-making process, usually elections or referendums, open to all or most citizens. It is now commonly used as a synonym for liberal-democratic systems in nation-states. The meaning of the qualifier 'liberal' in this context is subject to some variance, but includes protections for individual liberty and often includes private property rights (see below and the main article Liberal democracy). Definitions of democracy have in any case broadened to include aspects of society and political culture in democratic societies, which are not specifically a 'form of government'. Most liberal-democracies are parliamentary representative democracies, but there are many varieties of democracy, some still hypothetical. The term 'democratic' is also used in a looser sense, to describe participatory decision-making in groups or organisations.

I disagree with you on what a democracy is, and neither our system of government, nor our Charter mandate that social services is a right. Social services is a policy implemented by the governing organization and policies are subject to change as are the governing organization.

[Renegade]

Like I said, calling a social assistance or welfare program "Ontario Works" or a tenant oppression act a "Tenant Protection Act" is despotism on the earliest level.  Once you mislead the public, then there is a niche created for these totalitarian governments to flourish.

Maybe you are not aware but the idea of working for welfare was introduced by Bob Rae and Clinton. Harris just happened to be the one to implement it. The Tenant Protection Act, is better than the previous law but still very much favours the tenant, and it my view did not go far enough to level the playing field which was biased toward the tenant.

Exactly.  If I am allowed to walk on the "Queen's Property" near a city, take some logs and build myself a log cabin, and sit on a rocking chair behind my door with a shotgun without being stormed by a team of ontario police then your argument would be valid.  And we know what happened to a member of a group of Indians when they attempted something a lot less violent and a lot more legal some time ago.

There are more careers today and opportunities to earn a living today then there ever has been before. So what if you can't go off into the wilderness and build your own log cabin? I doubt that the large majority of people would even have the skills to survive without the infrastructure that has been put in place. Depending upon that infrastructure means they are also dependant upon the opportunities that society provides, of which there are plenty.

No.  You haven't been contaminated by it, you are it.  You probably live in some remote town with a large house, like a big fish in a small pond.

You know nothing about me.

It shouldn't be humiliating.  You'd make a wonderful catchphraser for the national socialist party.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There needs to be disincentives to be on welfare. The embarassment of being on welfare is just one of the disincentives. I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly would be embarassed and humiliated to even apply for welfare.

[Renegade]

Hey Mockingbird... I think you're going to need to explain what the "national socialist party" is to him....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure go ahead. Please explain.

[mockingbird]

Hey Mockingbird... I think you're going to need to explain what the "national socialist party" is to him....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure go ahead. Please explain.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The national socialist party would translate in german to "nationaler sozialist"

[Argus]

Lots and lots of single mothers, particularly teenage mothers. Most of those punks shooting each other in the streets of Toronto have no fathers. Huge chunks of the people on welfare are single mothers. Many of the problems of unsupervised children getting involved in crime, of the high drop-out rate at high schools, of the breakdown of the traditional family are as a result of the lack of shame of young women in getting pregnant and having and keeping their child.

Maybe we should make those tarts work for a state owned prostitution network called "Ontario Hooks" or "PimpFare"... Then they could pay their way.. and guys like Argus would be a lot happier (that was sarcam, in case some of you didn't catch it)

Good sarcasm, like good art, doesn't need an explanation. Nothing you've written in any way contradicts my point, it merely points to your emotionalism.

Making it easy for people to go on welfare is the same. It is bad public policy. During the last recession, and for a while after it, through to Mike Harris' time, one out of every ten people in Ontario was on welfare. This is bad on so many levels, economic being just one of them. People who get desperate enough will take jobs they otherwise would not, will put in tremendous efforts at finding a job - any job.

Maybe we could make a matching service... to supply all those companies that were just sceaming for employees.

Just a thought, but if the "market rules" gobbledygook you guys always talk about really works, and there were thousands of jobs just sitting there that couldn't be filled by all these lazy Ontarians (who were obviously sitting at home drinking beer), shouldn't these desparate employers have raised the amount of money they were offering to the point that it would have attracted some empoyees ???

The law of supply and demand says that employers will pay what is necessary to get enough of the supply, in this case, labour. Clearly employers don't find a need to pay more to get employees, probably because of the flood of immigrants willing to take low/no skill jobs for minimum wages. Neverthless, these immigrants come to Canada with no skills and most of them do find jobs, however poorly paying they are. So why can't homegrown people? Why is every taxi driver a foreigner? Because you have to work long, hard hours to make it pay, and Canadians aren't willing to work those hours.

People who can just relax, and very easily, and without shame, get welfare, will be far less likely to be desperate, and far more likely to spend years and years on welfare.

Well, at least we won't have an overweight population. With the paltry amount that these 'lazy louts' are supposed to live on, they would all get very thin, wouldn't they....

And yet, oddly, most of the women I've seen who are long-term welfare types are fat, as are the men.

These people who have "no shame", I suppose they also don't mind having no decent clothes, no toys for their kids, and no lives outside the slum dwellings that they would be forced to move to, based on the pathetically small size of welfare payments (that Mike Harris dropped them to).

Well, if you have no shame then food is cheap at the food bank, and clothes and toys are cheap at the goodwill and sally ann.

But that too does not in any way address anything I've written except on a whiny, emotional basis. It certainly does not contradict or rebut anything I've said.

[Guest eureka]

I would certainly agree with you, Renegade, that we need the poor. After all, every civilization has been built on slavery and every prosperous Capitalist society has been built on an ample supply of the poor.

Would you think we might someday get away from "Man's inhumanity to man" and become civilized? Might we some day recognize the worth of a human life?

Argus, I don't think the law of supply and demand has ever entered into the equation of work and pay. Fair pay has been won in the past only through militancy: through force and violence or the threat of it. Never has there been any suggestion of supply except in some sub sectors of an economy. The idea breaks down due to the need of people to feed themselves.

Most fat welfare people are fat because of their poverty. Malnutrition - the inability to afford to follow "Canada's Food Guide" is more respomsible. That and the enforced sedentary life style.

[err]

Just a thought, but if the "market rules" gobbledygook you guys always talk about really works, and there were thousands of jobs just sitting there that couldn't be filled by all these lazy Ontarians (who were obviously sitting at home drinking beer), shouldn't these desparate employers have raised the amount of money they were offering to the point that it would have attracted some empoyees ???

The law of supply and demand says that employers will pay what is necessary to get enough of the supply, in this case, labour. Clearly employers don't find a need to pay more to get employees, probably because of the flood of immigrants willing to take low/no skill jobs for minimum wages.

So there aren't extra jobs for these "lazy Ontarians" to go out and get, because all the immigrants already got all the jobs ???

Neverthless, these immigrants come to Canada with no skills and most of them do find jobs, however poorly paying they are.

So you think Ontarians should take whatever jobs that are offered, no matter "however poorly paying they are". Should a single mom go off and get a job at the Becker's store for $6/hour and leave her child unattended.... or in a provincially run day-care ???

These people who have "no shame", I suppose they also don't mind having no decent clothes, no toys for their kids, and no lives outside the slum dwellings that they would be forced to move to, based on the pathetically small size of welfare payments (that Mike Harris dropped them to).

Well, if you have no shame then food is cheap at the food bank, and clothes and toys are cheap at the goodwill and sally ann.

What if you have no choice ?? Then shame isn't an issue is it ???

But that too does not in any way address anything I've written except on a whiny, emotional basis. It certainly does not contradict or rebut anything I've said.

I think that you have proven that you are mean-spirited, and have no compassion or empathy for those less fortunate, and rather, you'd derive pleasure from seeing them publicly humiliated.

I can certainly tell you that most Ontarians would share my opinions of your attitutude, and will be extremely reluctant to elect another government as mean-spirited as that of the Harris Tories.

I don't think that I need to "prove" that you are mean-spirited and uncompassionate, as you do an excellent job of demonstrationg that yourself.

[Argus]

Argus, I don't think the law of supply and demand has ever entered into the equation of work and pay. Fair pay has been won in the past only through militancy: through force and violence or the threat of it. Never has there been any suggestion of supply except in some sub sectors of an economy. The idea breaks down due to the need of people to feed themselves.

And employers have a need to hire employees, else they will be unable to operate. Both sides need each other. The question is what value business puts on our labour. And that depends on how many others have the same skill and are willing to do the job. When it comes to very low skilled work you obviously have a lot more competition. So business doesn't have to pay a lot.

Most fat welfare people are fat because of their poverty. Malnutrition - the inability to afford to follow "Canada's Food Guide" is more respomsible. That and the enforced sedentary life style.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, don't buy it. Most of what poor people eat is not only less nutritious but more expensive. They aren't out buying fruit, vegetables and rice and cooking up a solid, nutritional dinner. They're buying TV dinners and frozen pizza - which ultimately costs more. I know people who are cheap freaks and vegetarians, and they make their food from the ground up, and it costs a lot less than buying it ready made.

[Argus]

So there aren't extra jobs for these "lazy Ontarians" to go out and get, because all the immigrants already got all the jobs ???

Didn't say that. I said that the continued influx of low skilled workers keeps the labout cost of low skilled workers down.

Neverthless, these immigrants come to Canada with no skills and most of them do find jobs, however poorly paying they are.

So you think Ontarians should take whatever jobs that are offered, no matter "however poorly paying they are". Should a single mom go off and get a job at the Becker's store for $6/hour and leave her child unattended.... or in a provincially run day-care ???

The problem is that before you get the $20hr job with benefits you need to take the $14hr job with fewer benefits. Before you get that one you need to take the $9hr a job with no benefits. Make welfare too attractive and too many people don't bother taking the crappy, low paying jobs. But if they're going to hold out for a rewarding, well-paying job with good benefits then they'll be on welfare forever. Those jobs don't grow on trees, and they don't go to people without a decent resume and good job skills. This is the trap we let welfare people fall into, where it is more economically rewarding, not to mention easier, to stay home on welfare then to go out to a crappy job making minimum wages.

But that too does not in any way address anything I've written except on a whiny, emotional basis. It certainly does not contradict or rebut anything I've said.

I think that you have proven that you are mean-spirited, and have no compassion or empathy for those less fortunate, and rather, you'd derive pleasure from seeing them publicly humiliated.

This is ignorant, whiny emotionalism. And ignorant, whiny emotionalism rarely passes as a decent argument because it ignores facts. You're full of accusations about moral deficiencies because I make statements which you cannot even make an attempt to descredit. In other words, it isn't that what I'm saying isn't correct, you are simply aghast that I've said it. To which I can only reply - grow up.

I don't think that I need to "prove" that you are mean-spirited and uncompassionate, as you do an excellent job of demonstrationg that yourself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Only to whiny, melodramatic idiots.

[err]

So there aren't extra jobs for these "lazy Ontarians" to go out and get, because all the immigrants already got all the jobs ???

Didn't say that. I said that the continued influx of low skilled workers keeps the labout cost of low skilled workers down.

And how much lower than the cost of living should these "lazy, shameless" people go....

I'll agree that a single adult with no significant disabilities should be out trying to find employment, and generally can. However, a person who has disabilities that prevent them from finding gainful employment shouldn't be put into your "shameful" category.

From your earlier posts, I see that you have an extreme distast for single mothers.... a significant enough distaste that maybe you should seek treament. There are many single mothers, and single preganant girls.... I'll have to ask you if you know how they got pregnant... You'll have to agree that in most, if not all of these cases, a male was involved.... That being the case... where are the delinquint fathers ???

Maybe you should elaborate on which single mothers should be "shamed" ....

How about the ones whose husband died, leaving them with children .. should they be shamed...

How about the ones whose husbands ran off....

How about single the ones whose religion/family/morality wouldn't let them terminate pregnancy? (where the prick ran off... pun intended)

Should all of the above be "shamed" and made to live a subsistance living ? Or do you suggest they sell their babies so that they can meet your definition of a decent minimum-wage earning citizen ???

Neverthless, these immigrants come to Canada with no skills and most of them do find jobs, however poorly paying they are.

So you think Ontarians should take whatever jobs that are offered, no matter "however poorly paying they are". Should a single mom go off and get a job at the Becker's store for $6/hour and leave her child unattended.... or in a provincially run day-care ???

The problem is that before you get the $20hr job with benefits you need to take the $14hr job with fewer benefits. Before you get that one you need to take the $9hr a job with no benefits.

Since minimum wage is nowhere near this figure yet, why don't you talk about the $6.75/hr job.... And while this "shameful" mother is our earning her $225/week take-home pay, who's looking after the child/children.

Perhaps she can pay $75 or $100 per week of this to a neighbour to look after the kid.... Leaving her with a take-home pay of $125 to $150/week. She can then pay rent, of say $400 per month (for a dive) and buy food and clothing for herself and her child with the remaining $25-$50 per week. I'm sure she can afford to do it if she brings the kids to the soup kitchen right after she gets home from work... or maybe boils dandilion leaves for them like your friends do.... Perhaps it would help if she could "borrow" work clothes from other people's clothes lines... using this kind of thrift, maybe she could do it...

Perhaps she could put her child/children into a provincially funded day-care program, and we could pay $17/hour for that so that the "shameful" mother can feel less shameful... and be a real contributor to society with the taxes that come off of her $6.75/hour job... That would be really nice to subsidize the "shameful" mother to the tune of in excess of $10/hour so she could feel less "shameful", and be a real meaningful contributor to our society....

As for your presented model of shooting up the corporate ladder, for an unskilled person to skyrocket from $6.5/hour up to $20/hour (plus benefits).... I must just be way too pessimistic... Maybe you could tell me (and all the shameful ladies) which companies allow this kind of progression through the ranks????

MacDonalds ???

Wall Mart ???

Burger King ???

Staples ???

Make welfare too attractive and too many people don't bother taking the crappy, low paying jobs. But if they're going to hold out for a rewarding, well-paying job with good benefits then they'll be on welfare forever.

I guess that's when they're going to raise minimum wage to a decent standard... not until forever...

Those jobs don't grow on trees, and they don't go to people without a decent resume and good job skills. This is the trap we let welfare people fall into, where it is more economically rewarding, not to mention easier, to stay home on welfare then to go out to a crappy job making minimum wages.

Well, if our government won't put any burdon on business to make them pay a better minimum wage, then it is cheaper to keep all these "shameful ladies" at home looking after their kids with a welfare cheque than it is to pay for provincially funded day care...

[Argus]

Didn't say that. I said that the continued influx of low skilled workers keeps the labout cost of low skilled workers down.

And how much lower than the cost of living should these "lazy, shameless" people go....

The "Cost of living" is not a measure of poverty but of increases over time. I think you're probably attempting to refer to the poverty line.

I'll agree that a single adult with no significant disabilities should be out trying to find employment, and generally can.  However, a person who has disabilities that prevent them from finding gainful employment shouldn't be put into your "shameful" category. 

That's why people with significant disabilities should not be on welfare - and in fact, I believe they're not. Most are on some form of disability payouts.

From your earlier posts, I see that you have an extreme distast for single mothers.... a significant enough distaste that maybe you should seek treament.  There are many single mothers, and single preganant girls.... I'll have to ask you if you know how they got pregnant... You'll have to agree that in most, if not all of these cases, a male was involved....  That being the case... where are the delinquint fathers ???  

Maybe you should elaborate on which single mothers should be "shamed" ....

How about the ones whose husband died, leaving them with children .. should they be shamed...

Again, grow up and try discussing things rationally instead of flouncing around showing us what a hissy fit looks like in type. I personally have nothing against single mothers. I said, however, is that single mothers are not in society's interest. And that the "shame" of becoming a single mother, though often unfair, though often cruel, was, in fact, in society's better interests in persuading girls away from single motherhood. Welfare makes it easy for unwed mothers to keep their babies - something that is neither in society's interest nor that of the babies, nor that of the unwed mother. I have seen interviews with teenage mothers, girls who had no purpose in life, didn't like living at home, and deliberately had "a kid" so that welfare would look after them. Having another kid later was a means for increasing welfare payments. And these emotionally immature young women now had someone they could feel superior to, someone they could be in charge of, and someone who would give them nearly unconditional love. Welfare made that possible.

I am not saying that all single mothers on welfare are in this category, or that all single mothers on welfare are women who had babies when very young and then immediately went on welfare for support, because - it was there. But frankly, too many are. Oh sure, there are single mothers on welfare due to illness, due to being widowed, but I believe they're the minority. And yes, there are single mothers on welfare because of being abandoned by the father - too many of them, too. But the majority of single mothers on welfare have never and will never be married.

So you think Ontarians should take whatever jobs that are offered, no matter "however poorly paying they are".  Should a single mom go off and get a job at the Becker's store for $6/hour and leave her child unattended.... or in a provincially run day-care ???

Should she stay on welfare until the child is 18?

As for your presented model of shooting up the corporate ladder, for an unskilled person to skyrocket from $6.5/hour up to $20/hour (plus benefits).... I must just be way too pessimistic... Maybe you could tell me (and all the shameful ladies) which companies allow this kind of progression through the ranks????

Tha would depend on how much and how fast you learn, how reliable you are, how much you impress your bosses. I knew a girl who started as a cashier at Wal-Mart, a crappy job by any measure. Within a year she was working in the cash office there - only a little more money, but great work experience. She parlayed that job, a year or so later, into a government office job. Several years later she's now a supervisor with 20 people working for her. I know another guy who worked as a security guard, then got a job doing data entry. That experience helped get him a term government job doing data entry for much more money. And THAT experience - including a glowing reference letter from his supervisor - helped get him an office job with the federal government, and then two promotions.

Make welfare too attractive and too many people don't bother taking the crappy, low paying jobs. But if they're going to hold out for a rewarding, well-paying job with good benefits then they'll be on welfare forever.

I guess that's when they're going to raise minimum wage to a decent standard... not until forever...

You know, this may be news to you, but the world does not owe you a living. If you don't have any skills or education - likely due to stupid choices you made for yourself - why should some poor business owner be forced to pay you a high salary for work a monkey could do as well?

Raising minimum wage, btw, hurts the poor in some ways because the more expensive it is to staff a job the fewer such jobs there will be. Example, in Quebec, the minimum wage for security guards is, by government decree, fairly high in comparison to Ontario. The result is there are a lot fewer security guards. Companies and businesses find it cheaper to install expensive alarm systems and card readers than to pay an expensive security guard.

[err]

From your earlier posts, I see that you have an extreme distast for single mothers.... a significant enough distaste that maybe you should seek treament.  There are many single mothers, and single preganant girls.... I'll have to ask you if you know how they got pregnant... You'll have to agree that in most, if not all of these cases, a male was involved....  That being the case... where are the delinquint fathers ???  

Maybe you should elaborate on which single mothers should be "shamed" ....

How about the ones whose husband died, leaving them with children .. should they be shamed...

Again, grow up and try discussing things rationally instead of flouncing around showing us what a hissy fit looks like in type. I personally have nothing against single mothers. I said, however, is that single mothers are not in society's interest.

But what has been the result of no shame being attached to this? Lots and lots of single mothers, particularly teenage mothers. Most of those punks shooting each other in the streets of Toronto have no fathers. Huge chunks of the people on welfare are single mothers. Many of the problems of unsupervised children getting involved in crime, of the high drop-out rate at high schools, of the breakdown of the traditional family are as a result of the lack of shame of young women in getting pregnant and having and keeping their child.

And who exactly is having the "hissy fit" ????

Welfare makes it easy for unwed mothers to keep their babies - something that is neither in society's interest nor that of the babies, nor that of the unwed mother.

And you are in a position to be a judge of this... So should they sell the kids ??? Should they be forcibly ripped from their mother's wombs? Should the mothers be prevented from ever seeing their child for fear they might get attached to it ??? You seem to know all of the answers... Why don't you enlighten us ????

I have seen interviews with teenage mothers, girls who had no purpose in life, didn't like living at home, and deliberately had "a kid" so that welfare would look after them. Having another kid later was a means for increasing welfare payments. And these emotionally immature young women now had someone they could feel superior to, someone they could be in charge of, and someone who would give them nearly unconditional love. Welfare made that possible.

I am not saying that all single mothers on welfare are in this category, or that all single mothers on welfare are women who had babies when very young and then immediately went on welfare for support, because - it was there. But frankly, too many are.

I challenge you to find any legitimate study that shows that more than 1% of single mothers on welfare fall into the category you have described. I would say that in the majority of cases, they did not plan to be single mothers, and often didn't plan the pregnancy at all.... Your painting all single mothers with the same brush (Mike Harris's old one) really paints a bad picture of you.

And yes, there are single mothers on welfare because of being abandoned by the father - too many of them, too. But the majority of single mothers on welfare have never and will never be married.

This is a very sad fact that you bring out. An impoverished single mom with child has a hard time attracting a mate, and ever getting back to a "normal", "Brady Bunch" life. It appears to me that you hold this against the unfortunate citizens instead of empathizing with them.

Drawing a parallel to the situation in New Orleans, there were a lot of poorer black people and elderly who did not have the wherewithall to get out of the city after the tragedy struck. They did not ask to be put in the situation, and cannot get out without assistance. Most of these unfortunate girls who have become impregnated out of wedlock do not have the wherewithall to get out of the situation they are in.

Would you advocate not helping the poor people in New Orleans the same way that you advocate not helping these young girls.???

[err]

So you think Ontarians should take whatever jobs that are offered, no matter "however poorly paying they are".  Should a single mom go off and get a job at the Becker's store for $6/hour and leave her child unattended.... or in a provincially run day-care ???

Should she stay on welfare until the child is 18

How long should they help the unfortunates of New Orleans... a few weeks, or until it's out of the news.... Or how about the novel idea... as long as they need it....

As for your presented model of shooting up the corporate ladder, for an unskilled person to skyrocket from $6.5/hour up to $20/hour (plus benefits).... I must just be way too pessimistic... Maybe you could tell me (and all the shameful ladies) which companies allow this kind of progression through the ranks????

Tha would depend on how much and how fast you learn, how reliable you are, how much you impress your bosses. I knew a girl who started as a cashier at Wal-Mart, a crappy job by any measure. Within a year she was working in the cash office there - only a little more money, but great work experience. She parlayed that job, a year or so later, into a government office job. Several years later she's now a supervisor with 20 people working for her.

and how much above minimum wage does she now earn... a dollar or two... And how many "smart" people who get jobs at Wal Mart manage climb above "floor staff"...

Make welfare too attractive and too many people don't bother taking the crappy, low paying jobs. But if they're going to hold out for a rewarding, well-paying job with good benefits then they'll be on welfare forever.

I guess that's when they're going to raise minimum wage to a decent standard... not until forever...

You know, this may be news to you, but the world does not owe you a living. If you don't have any skills or education - likely due to stupid choices you made for yourself - why should some poor business owner be forced to pay you a high salary for work a monkey could do as well?

Then why doesn't he hire monkeys... Or raise his prices to adjust for the increased labour cost... everyone else will have to if it is a standardized minimum wage ....