Cull racoons and use meat to feed welfare people and homeless.

Harper Rules · June 17, 2011

What do you think cost more the welfare or MP and MPP's pensions? What the chance you could end up on welfare some day in the future due to cut backs?

Jack Weber · June 17, 2011

Apparently not good to eat in the least, at least the ones that dine in the and around the city. Think of what they eat , lawns and pesticide.

Then can we just simply shoot the things?

August1991 · June 17, 2011

A brilliant proposal!
Although I object to the use of the term "the homeless"-- I prefer to think of them as "urban campers". I don't see why these rugged adventurers should not be able to use their hunting and foraging skills to act as wise custodians of our urban wilderness.

I look forward to the day when our cities will be filled with the merry sight of happy back-alley hunters gathering to share song and stories while roasting their fresh-caught raccoons or stray pets over a crackling fire of burning tires, litter, and yard-waste. I worry a little bit that pets might vanish...

Urban campers? I view them as consumer waste recyclers. They are relentless in going through garbage cans looking for bottles/cans with deposits. In fact, I suggest that more items be sold with a deposit (wine/liquor bottles) and the deposit be raised to at least 25 cents. This would have for effect to keep the streets cleaner and would also transfer money directly to homeless people. We could even offer them 50 cents for every dead raccoon they bring in.

The problem with the OP's suggestion is that the homeless only get cooked raccoon. If the intention is to provide assistance, it's generally better to give people money and let them decide what to do with it.

Cull extreme right-wingers and feed them to the homeless. Like racooons, they are rabid pests. Unlike racoons, they cause real damage.

That BD poster, what a card. (You're not serious, are you BD? With you, I'm not always sure.)

Bonam · June 18, 2011

If the intention is to provide assistance, it's generally better to give people money and let them decide what to do with it.

Er, since when? Giving people who have demonstrated a remarkable tendency towards making very poor choices (thus ending up homeless) money and letting them do whatever they want with it is about a big a waste as you can get. Who knows what the heck they will spend it on? If the goal is to feed homeless people, you give them food, not money. Otherwise a large portion of that money will go nowhere else besides drug dealers, as a great number of the homeless are addicts.

August1991 · June 18, 2011

Er, since when? Giving people who have demonstrated a remarkable tendency towards making very poor choices (thus ending up homeless) money and letting them do whatever they want with it is about a big a waste as you can get.

Er, but it is even a greater waste to give the the money to other people who supposedly help "people who have demonstrated a remarkable tendency towards making very poor choices".

Bonam, you raise a good question. How to help poor people?

---

In the grand scheme of things, Canadians are rich. How should we help the several billion poor people in this world?

Edited June 18, 2011 by August1991

Harper Rules · June 18, 2011

I am a single unemployed ( by choice ) mother with three children and a deadbeat ex-husband. We do not collect social assistance, I do however receive a child tax credit which is what we survive off of. I would hate to think that if I ever did need help from the government that my family would only be good enough for road kill. Not all people choose to be in such terrible situations. If I decided to go back to work at this time with the ages of my children I would require government assistace to pay for child care. That being said, I think people like my ex should be fed road kill!

Michael Hardner · June 18, 2011

I am a single unemployed ( by choice ) mother with three children and a deadbeat ex-husband. We do not collect social assistance, I do however receive a child tax credit which is what we survive off of. I would hate to think that if I ever did need help from the government that my family would only be good enough for road kill. Not all people choose to be in such terrible situations. If I decided to go back to work at this time with the ages of my children I would require government assistace to pay for child care. That being said, I think people like my ex should be fed road kill!

Question: How do you survive off a tax credit ? If you're unemployed, you're not paying taxes are you ?

Shady · June 18, 2011

if I ever did need help from the government

You're already getting help from the government. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing. But if you're receiving other people's money simply because you've decided to have children, then that's getting help from the government.

Harper Rules · June 19, 2011

Question: How do you survive off a tax credit ? If you're unemployed, you're not paying taxes are you ?

Every family in Canada below a certain income is entitled to a child tax credit(family allowance). My point is I have not applied to a social program to help my family financially. I guess what I'm trying to say is why are the less fortunate being picked on by Mr. Canada ( Layton ), they are only good enough for rodants. It's a pretty strong statement.

Shady · June 19, 2011

Every family in Canada below a certain income is entitled to a child tax credit(family allowance). My point is I have not applied to a social program to help my family financially.

Sorry, but the family allowance is a social program. You're getting money that you haven't earned. And sorry, but you're not entitled to other people's money. It's a privilege.

Harper Rules · June 19, 2011

You're already getting help from the government. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing. But if you're receiving other people's money simply because you've decided to have children, then that's getting help from the government.

It absolutely is not getting help from the government, the child tax credit is ions old. When a child is born you fill out a form send it off and the government decided if you qualify based on your income or lack there of. I received the CCTB when I was married and working, we must have been considered the working poor. What I'm saying here is I have never applied for a social assistance program, medical assistance, or any other programs for myself or my children. If I and many others out there like me received the money we are entitled to like child support and spousal support then these benefits would decrease per household. So again I'm on board with people like my ex being fed road kill.

Harper Rules · June 19, 2011

Sorry, but the family allowance is a social program. You're getting money that you haven't earned. And sorry, but you're not entitled to other people's money. It's a privilege.

Why do you say it's other peoples money? I worked for 13 years and never collected an unemloyment cheque, I have worked for years and "supported" other people in my situation, the amount of money I receive is well below what someone on assistance would receive. Like I said I received the CCTB when I came from a double income family, beit small, but it was something. This money is something you can't refuse. Look into it.

Oleg Bach · June 19, 2011

I didn't hear Mr. Hudak say the words "chain gangs" But I have heard the media say it over and over

To make convicts get off their asses and move them away from their televisions games and such and to do some work around communities is a perfectly good solution. They have taken from society and now have to put something back.

NO, they won't be breaking stone with sledgehammers

Just poor people are in jail...why not have all the poor people go to work for nothing and keep the privledged living in luxury?

kimmy · June 19, 2011

Urban campers? I view them as consumer waste recyclers. They are relentless in going through garbage cans looking for bottles/cans with deposits. In fact, I suggest that more items be sold with a deposit (wine/liquor bottles) and the deposit be raised to at least 25 cents. This would have for effect to keep the streets cleaner and would also transfer money directly to homeless people. We could even offer them 50 cents for every dead raccoon they bring in.

The problem with the OP's suggestion is that the homeless only get cooked raccoon. If the intention is to provide assistance, it's generally better to give people money and let them decide what to do with it.

Why pay 50 cents for dead raccoons when enterprising Urban Campers could use the pelts to make stylish fur hats worth a hundred times that much!

-k

Bonam · June 19, 2011

Bonam, you raise a good question. How to help poor people?

---

In the grand scheme of things, Canadians are rich. How should we help the several billion poor people in this world?

You know my answer:

By engaging in mutually beneficial economic interactions with them. Nothing creates wealth and raises people out of poverty like the market, economic growth, and (of course) technological progress. The few people we've helped with aid programs around the world are far outnumbered by those who have gained employment and a better quality of life because of our economic interactions with developing nations. The beauty of it is, it's not altruism that raised those hundreds of millions out of poverty, it's not the do-gooders that guilt tripped us into helping anyone. Rather, it's all pure economics.

Edited June 19, 2011 by Bonam

June 19, 2011

Every family in Canada below a certain income is entitled to a child tax credit(family allowance). My point is I have not applied to a social program to help my family financially. I guess what I'm trying to say is why are the less fortunate being picked on by Mr. Canada ( Layton ), they are only good enough for rodants. It's a pretty strong statement.

Everyone who is receiving government assistance is not "less fortunate" than those who are not. Some simple choose not to work even though they are able to work as others in their same situation are working. Others choose to work as little as possible, as others in their same situation are putting in a full work week and others still have second jobs to make ends meet. Some choose to have large families while others limit the number of children to what they can afford/support.

I worked in a position where I could see abuse of the system in the U.S. - people bragging 'one more child and the government will owe me money instead of my having to pay rent' for example. As others limited their family size to what they could afford.

You say everyone who qualifies for this benefit is due the benefit - but of course it's based on family income; since you choose not to work, of course your benefit is (much?) higher than if you were working. "Other people" are supporting you. You aren't supporting your yourself or your kids. Other people are. That's a fact.

You say you worked and paid into the system - I doubt, from what you've said, that you paid anything close to what you are getting/going to be getting over the years. It is other people's money. You cannot refute that fact.

People generally have enough of a financial burden raising their own families and don't desire to support others' on top of it - especially as they work and limit their family size. That they are taking that responsibility as others aren't can be, and often is, a sore spot.

As for "Mr. Canada's statement," most of his statements are "pretty strong." But I will say this - I believe a lot of programs that are meant to help people while they try to improve their lot in life are being used as a life time benefit rather than the intermittent help such programs were meant to provide. I also believe it's because of such programs, especially in light of the all too prevalent abuse of such programs, that a lot of people ultimately vote Republican/Conservative.

Harper Rules · June 19, 2011

I have decided not to work at this time due to the young ages of my children, the cost of childcare is astromomical and I'm not interested in someone else raising my kids. I'm not abusing the system in any way. Myself and my children are owed thousands of dollars from my ex. I played a traditional role as wife and mother, that was something my ex and I chose. My annual income would be around 16,000 per year, not so bad as a second income, but being single and receiving no support from where it is supposed to come from I can't afford a childcare pricetag of 25,000 per year. So lets get some stonger legislation on deadbeat parents.

I didn't choose to be in this situation, after a few years of trying to conceive our second child we were finally sucsessful, much to my surprise my husband decided to walk out the door shortly after the precnancy test was positive. A few short weeks after that I found out I was having twins, I'm not all about poppin' out babies for a bigger cheque. I'm hoping to raise my kids to be fair and have an open view of how the world works.

Remember this credit was paid to all Canadian families until 1992, so I'm sure it has made a contribution to you life in some way or another.

Don't clump all people who are less fortuneate into one heap, everyone has different circumstances, some unavoidable. In my case who wants to hire a women pregnant with twins and has a three and half year old, not many. I will re-enter the work force once my chilren are all in school and I finish my degree.

June 19, 2011

Don't clump all people who are less fortuneate into one heap, everyone has different circumstances, some unavoidable. In my case who wants to hire a women pregnant with twins and has a three and half year old, not many. I will re-enter the work force once my chilren are all in school and I finish my degree.

I didn't clump them all in one heap. It seemed to me you were, by giving the impression that everyone who is "less fortunate" cannot help being in the situation they are - so I pointed out that "some" who are "less fortunate" aren't in reality truly less fortunate, but are simply making different life decisions than others are; so please explain how pointing out that fact regarding "some" is "clump[ing] all people who are less fortunate into one heap."

For the record, I know plenty of pregnant women who work and I know plenty of women with young children who work. In the U.S. it's illegal when hiring to be biased against women who have children - and I would assume it's the same in Canada. You've chosen to do otherwise - so others are supporting you. That's a fact. I don't understand how you can try to claim otherwise. I'm not judging, just responding to your belief that "others" aren't supporting you and your children.

If you do go back to work as you now indicate - I didn't see that in your previous posts - it doesn't alter the fact that in the here and now, "other people" are supporting you and your family. Again, that's not a statement of judgement - it's a statement of fact, so I was/am just pointing out the facts as they were presented - and you said you were "single mother unemployed by choice." There was nothing said to indicate that it was temporary, so I was responding accordingly. Furthermore, my response clearly wasn't all about you by any means.

But since you are unemployed and getting a degree (and I do wish you well in that endeavour), I have to assume that your university education is also on the public's dime - and will allow you to receive the child tax credit you are now receiving for the years that you attend university when your children are in school full time - as you still don't enter the work force for that time period. Once again, I'm not judging, I'm simply responding to the idea you seem to have that you're not doing what you are doing 'on other people's money.' You are - so I'm responding strictly to the idea that you aren't, along with the idea that everyone who is receiving help from the government is actually "less fortunate." Some are where they are at as a result of deliberate life choices; and this angers some people, and rightfully so. A lot of people pay taxes without ever receiving a dime of such assistance from the government, and they are not pleased with the idea that other people, by virtue of their choices, do. That would include some people who would rather be home raising their children but are at work, because they feel responsible for supporting their family themselves.

None of this is to excuse your ex-husband for not supporting his children (that's another topic). I find it odd - and inexcusable - that you aren't receiving any child support, especially since he apparently had a job during the time you were married.

As a side note regarding the cost of child care, I'm sure you would receive assistance in that area if you were to work, so presenting that as a 'reason' for not working doesn't wash. And again, your ex most definitely should be helping support his children, but if he isn't working, he should at least be providing care for the children if you were to work/while you attend university, so you wouldn't be faced with a huge child care bill.

From what I've heard from others regarding child support laws in Canada, I have a hard time understanding how your ex could be getting away with not paying. But again, that's another topic. And again, my response wasn't all in reference to you.

Edited June 19, 2011 by American Woman

Harper Rules · June 19, 2011

I thank you so much for your kind words and your well wishes, I too am against any abuse of government funding to the less fortunate.(in some cases,yes, lazy)

And yes it is quite obviously illegal to be biased when hiring women who are pregnant or who have children, my point is I was already out of the work force and then all of a sudden expecting twins,(13 weeks when I found out) no one would hire me. Illegal or not, employers can give different reasons for not hiring a person.

Albeit my original point was I haven't applied for welfare or any other social programs, as I stated earlier on the CCTB was a credit paid to ALL Canadian families until 1992, I didn't think that it should be viewed as taking other peoples money. I do understand however that now it is paid to lower income families, not just the unemployed.

As far as my education goes ot is not government funded, in my province the government will only fund for a 2 year certificate program, so my parents are graciously helping with those costs. Again thank you so much for being kind and not judgemental.

Shwa · June 19, 2011

Why pay 50 cents for dead raccoons when enterprising Urban Campers could use the pelts to make stylish fur hats worth a hundred times that much! -k

A Davy Crockett revival!

RIP Fess Parker...

kimmy · June 19, 2011

Urban campers? I view them as consumer waste recyclers. They are relentless in going through garbage cans looking for bottles/cans with deposits. In fact, I suggest that more items be sold with a deposit (wine/liquor bottles) and the deposit be raised to at least 25 cents. This would have for effect to keep the streets cleaner and would also transfer money directly to homeless people. We could even offer them 50 cents for every dead raccoon they bring in.

In all seriousness, I think there's something to this. Perhaps not a bounty on raccoons specifically, but to the idea that there's a pool of unskilled laborers out there who could earn some money doing things that would be useful to cities.

In my neighborhood, there are very efficient bottle-pickers. I leave empties out by the alley and they're gone by the next morning. I met one of them a few weeks ago when I was out behind the garage doing a bit of painting. He rolled up on his bicycle, which was heavily loaded with empties already, and asked if I had any, mentioning that empties are often left here. I did, as it turns out, and I brought them. He thanked me, I thanked him, we did a "fist-bump", and he was on his way.

So... this was a mutually beneficial exchange. I could take the empties to the bottle depot myself, but compared to the annoyance of finding time to do it and waiting in long lines in a smelly, noisy bottle depot where your shoes stick to the floor, the financial incentive isn't really that compelling. For him, he earns some money doing this, and he feels like he's doing something useful. He's not sitting on a sidewalk begging for money, he's earning it, and I think that mattered to him. He seemed to have a much more upbeat attitude than the panhandlers I encounter.

Bottle-recycling does seem to work pretty well. How could the same principle be applied to other things?

-scrap metal is a big one. Scrap metal recycling is becoming such a big business that some people aren't even waiting for the metal to be scrap before they recycle it. There have been lots of stories of buildings being stripped of electrical wiring overnight by people who just wanted to steal the copper. For urban campers, however, scrap metal would be too heavy to recycle without a vehicle.

-paper cups. I can't walk down the street without seeing Tim Hortons cups lying around. Maybe there should be a 5-cent deposit on paper or plastic cups. People might grumble about their coffee costing 5 more cents, but they've brought it on themselves with rampant littering.

What else? I dunno. The idea of providing some small financial incentive to perform some small task that would make your city a little bit nicer would be great. It would be great if somebody could earn $5 by going out and cleaning up all the litter on some stretch of road, or something like that, but how could you actually do it? A bounty on bottles, or paper cups, or raccoons, is easy to figure out because it's a single identifiable object. Other sorts of labor couldn't be as easily verified.

-k

Wild Bill · June 19, 2011

In all seriousness, I think there's something to this. Perhaps not a bounty on raccoons specifically, but to the idea that there's a pool of unskilled laborers out there who could earn some money doing things that would be useful to cities.

-k

Kimmy, here in Hamilton we instituted a recycling scheme with our garbage pickup some years ago. Many American cities did the same. The differences between their approaches relates to your idea.

In Hamilton, it was decided to do "separation at source". This means all of us Hamiltonians are supposed to separate our recyclables. Initially the parameters made sense. We bagged the stuff according to glass, metal, paper and plastic. That evolved the past few years. Metal, glass and paper no longer matter. It's containers of all material, plastics and paper. So tin cans go in with plastic pop bottles.

The idea was that the program would involve us all, giving us each a warm and fuzzy feeling for saving the planet. Of course, if we made a mistake in how we separated our recyclables they would refuse to pick them up, leaving them at the end of your driveway with a note explaining your error.

If you persisted you could be fined! I kid you not!

The program was supposed to not only pay for itself but make the city a pile of money. Of course, the way the city went about it ensured that could never happen! Consider all the scrap paper and newsprint. The city collected it all up and then phoned up the big customers for the stuff and said "Come and buy it!"

The customers weren't stupid. They said "How much?" The City replied "Oh, $70/ton, that's the going rate, we understand. (The figure isn't at all accurate. I pulled it out of my butt just for an example.)

The customers all said "Too much! Thanks anyway!".

Suddenly, the City had a problem. They only had a finite amount of storage space for all that paper. After a couple of weeks they were drowning in the stuff! They HAD to get rid of it!

So they called up those customers again and said "At what price would you buy it?" The customers said "Oh, how about $20/ton?" The City was over a barrel so they had to take it.

So they successfully drove the prices down and all hope of a profitable operation was gone.

Meanwhile, in America cities in many states used a different approach. They let private companies handle the recycling, separating the products at "destination", meaning an actual recycling plant. They took all the garbage with no sorting at all into their plant, where machines separated most metals and some other materials and there were conveyor belts manned with human workers who separated the rest.

The private recycling companies made so much money that they ended up bidding against each other for the garbage! They provided jobs for workers - low end jobs to be sure but you didn't need a degree to get the job!

Even better, they handle ALL of a city's garbage stream! Here in Hamilton we only recycle residential products. Businesses, restaurants and such are not included, due to the complexities of getting them to also separate reliably at their source. They just now are starting to include apartment buildings. Their own estimates say that they are only recycling a third of our garbage. When they try to achieve higher percentages so far they haven't gone after the excluded areas at all. They just lower the garbage bag limit on homeowners to force them to fill more recycling bags.

It's been said many times that if you want something done in the most inefficient and screwed up way let government and the public sector handle it. I would think that the way Hamilton has gone about its recycling programs is a good example of this concept.

June 19, 2011

I thank you so much for your kind words and your well wishes, I too am against any abuse of government funding to the less fortunate.(in some cases,yes, lazy)

Sounds as if we're on the same page.

And yes it is quite obviously illegal to be biased when hiring women who are pregnant or who have children, my point is I was already out of the work force and then all of a sudden expecting twins,(13 weeks when I found out) no one would hire me. Illegal or not, employers can give different reasons for not hiring a person.

I would think it would be illegal for them to ask if you are pregnant as I think it's illegal to ask about whether one has kids or not. Maybe I'm wrong?

As far as my education goes ot is not government funded, in my province the government will only fund for a 2 year certificate program, so my parents are graciously helping with those costs. Again thank you so much for being kind and not judgemental.

You're most welcome; I do wish you the best - it sounds as if you're trying to make the best of a bad situation. Good luck.

dre · June 20, 2011

And yes it is quite obviously illegal to be biased when hiring women who are pregnant or who have children, my point is I was already out of the work force and then all of a sudden expecting twins,(13 weeks when I found out) no one would hire me. Illegal or not, employers can give different reasons for not hiring a person.

FYI... You are under no obligation at all to tell employers ANYTHING about your family, age, or marital status or whether or not you have kids. In fact... its illegal for them to even ask in many cases.

But I hire a lot of people, and I can tell you that Im thrilled to hire people with kids. In my experience theyre more motivated and more dependable.

I have fraternal twins myself btw. Youre in for some fun times

Edited June 20, 2011 by dre

Harper Rules · June 20, 2011

FYI... You are under no obligation at all to tell employers ANYTHING about your family, age, or marital status or whether or not you have kids. In fact... its illegal for them to even ask in many cases.

But I hire a lot of people, and I can tell you that Im thrilled to hire people with kids. In my experience theyre more motivated and more dependable.

I have fraternal twins myself btw. Youre in for some fun times

Thank you so much for your insight, if only things worked out as we expect them to.

My twins are fraternal as well, we are approaching a second birthday and they certainly have kept me on my toes. Pure enjoyment and entertainment as well!!!