Poor-Bashing is Never the Answer

[madmax]

It can be done folks!

But I remember the shame. My god the shame I felt when I had to go to welfare. I curled up in the corner of the worker's office and bawled my eyes out. I, a college grad, would of never thought that I would need welfare. But circumstances (an unexpected pregnancy, a layoff, a father-to-be running off) led me to that office.

While I support welfare and think it is great that we have a "net" for when times are tough -- I do beleive one should get off it and on their own two feet asap.

Good for you. You are not alone, and I commend you for publicly putting it out there. There are MANY MANY MANY people whom will never disclose that they used welfare at one time or another. Some don't even have the courage to stand up for it amongst their peers, even though it helped them get through a tough time.

I know that it can be done, because the people I have met, the people that I know, many are making figures well above yours, and they had to feel the shame that was attached. That shame does not often or easily go away.

You are not the only person to have bawled when applying for welfare. I watched many a grown man breakdown, thinking they were failures and that it came down to this. Even this wasn't enough, as suicide became the easier route then the climb back up.

I don't believe in policy based on stereo types.

I don't mind constructive ideas for a system, that can at times become very strained when the economy takes a tumble.

But clearly, this thread, bashing the poor is never the answer, is often the only aspect that keeps this thread going. Poor people are easy to bash by self righteous types and its fun to, with no threat to oneself.

So what's new, strong attacking the weak. big deal.

[Saturn]

With that super expensive Liberal/NDP proposed national nanny program those issues would be history. Perhaps we should just build the care centres for those on welfare, have their kids raised by government folks there, and put the parents to work.

The costs may be more initially, but then these people get skills and may move into the normal workforce over the longterm.

I just can't stand people getting a living for doing absolutely nothing. It's time they went to work, they are essientially our employees (we give them their cheque) so it's time they do our work.

I noted earlier that Mike Harris (the best of the conservative crowd - not a liberal or NDPer) already tried a work for welfare program and it was a complete failure.

Are you facing a huge problem with welfare in Alberta?

You cannot stand little Johnny getting welfare (nearly half of all welfare recipients are children and most of the remaining are single moms with hardly any marketable skills) but you never complain about a senior couple with over $100K in income and lots of property getting a $11,000/yr tax-free cheque from the government to spend in sunny Florida over the winter (when presumably you and other working Canadians work to pay for the $11K). Come on, you can be a little more consistent in your views.

[margrace]

When my husband died suddenly and left me with four small children my father refused to allow me to go on mother's allowance. My in laws and my parents picked up the slack and I went back to school and unlimately worked for the rest of my life, retiring at 65.

Today young people do not have that choice, their mothers are probably all working. How much childcare can one get for $100 a month not too much.

[Live From China]

Come on, you can be a little more consistent in your views.

Couldn't agree more, Saturn! Many older people are laughing all the way to the bank! And at our expense. We keep forgetting that some of them "got while the getting was good." And they want even more, and we gladly give it to them. Yet we begrudge a child and his mother getting barely enough to live on!

I get a very strong impression that many people believe (1) that those collecting welfare are fraud artists, and (2) once you are on welfare, you must be punished.

Once again, most of the victims of poverty are children. I find it hard to believe that a 10-year old child could put together a scheme to defraud an agency. You never know though; children are pretty clever these days

[Catchme]

I get a very strong impression that many people believe (1) that those collecting welfare are fraud artists, and (2) once you are on welfare, you must be punished.

Once again, most of the victims of poverty are children. I find it hard to believe that a 10-year old child could put together a scheme to defraud an agency.

This "blame the victim" is so morally backward as to be in some cases very unrational. It's like people saying that children are the penance that one pays for having the evil of all evils, sex.

Then for some to say social programs provided by the government are unconstitutional is beyond belief.

We pay, our family pays and in most cases our close and older family/relatives have been paying, to uphold a social safety net so future generations, quite possibly their own, would not have to live in grinding poverty, and enslaved work conditions.

If circumstance changes where one has to draw upon it, one should not feel guilty, nor ashamed.

It is only the Jones, and those who wish to keep up, who poor bash in order to self-determine their pre-eminence.

[Live From China]

Well said, Catchme!

I mean how much courage does it take to beat up on the poor, especially their children? This is the disgusting type of behavior of which smug, self-righteous people should be ashamed.

[myata]

Now, back to the beginning - I do not see much of that "poor bashing - poor beating", at least on this thread. However, there seems to be quite a bit of "poor loving". That generic, free of any responsibility or ideas kind of "love" that is so common among marginal left. Most often it comes down to this trivial recipe: someone else must shell out more to solve my problems. Just like the proposals in the opening piece: hugely expensive programs which may not even be feasible to support, given that most provinces's finances already stressed to the limit supporting health care and education.

Yet the reality is very easy to grasp: a couple with one income earner in an entry position (in Ontario), working near full time hours will earn around 15 K. A couple on welfare will make around 12 K.

Maybe we should turn our attention to realistic and practical ideas and solutions to how the plight of less fortunate can be helped without increasing handout or implementing grandiouse projects.

[geoffrey]

I noted earlier that Mike Harris (the best of the conservative crowd - not a liberal or NDPer) already tried a work for welfare program and it was a complete failure.

Are you facing a huge problem with welfare in Alberta?

You cannot stand little Johnny getting welfare (nearly half of all welfare recipients are children and most of the remaining are single moms with hardly any marketable skills) but you never complain about a senior couple with over $100K in income and lots of property getting a $11,000/yr tax-free cheque from the government to spend in sunny Florida over the winter (when presumably you and other working Canadians work to pay for the $11K). Come on, you can be a little more consistent in your views.

Actually, I've been equally outspoken in the past about senior's benefits. It's not only a ridiculous transfer but age discrimination as well. Most seniors are doing fine today, they've learnt their savings lessons and have an RRSP and CPP stuff. It's the next generation that is going to be the problem.

[Saturn]

Yet the reality is very easy to grasp: a couple with one income earner in an entry position (in Ontario), working near full time hours will earn around 15 K. A couple on welfare will make around 12 K.

A couple of seniors with over $100K in income, and wealth far exceeding that of the average working Canadian, will get $11K of tax-free dollars from our taxes to spend in Florida over the winter.

Welfare costs across the country - $3 B/yr (and falling)

OAS costs - $18 B/yr (and growing at incredible rates)

Now which project is more "grandiose" and why are you poor-bashing?

[newbie]

Really, besides the very few in Canada that are actually disabled (I can think of many jobs for most disabilities)... nearly everyone should be working.

As a former rehabilitation consellor I can assure you that this is not the case. How many employers are willing to undertake a work-for-welfare program, or supported employment, or institute a wage subsidy program? I also know the other side of the coin for I am out of the workforce due to disability (Multiple Sclerosis). Try finding me a job. No employer can accomodate what I require, or the needs for the vast majority of persons with disability.

[geoffrey]

Really, besides the very few in Canada that are actually disabled (I can think of many jobs for most disabilities)... nearly everyone should be working.

As a former rehabilitation consellor I can assure you that this is not the case. How many employers are willing to undertake a work-for-welfare program, or supported employment, or institute a wage subsidy program? I also know the other side of the coin for I am out of the workforce due to disability (Multiple Sclerosis). Try finding me a job. No employer can accomodate what I require, or the needs for the vast majority of persons with disability.

Those that are genuinely disabled don't receieve the support they should because of others that choose not to work. I'd love to see the expansion of benefits to those that have MS and similar conditions that absolutely make it impossible to work for a similar gain that your used to in the past. But it's not possible when a vast majority of people are just lazy. Less than 60% of Newfoundlanders even participate in the job market anymore. This is a huge burden on our system.

And it comes at the cost of the genuinely disadvantaged that we can't afford to help because of it.

[myata]

As I said, short of fresh ideas. Instead, big on "branding" (another leftie thingy, re e.g. Bubble - btw what happened to it of late - my browser returns http error??? ). You must be thinking that all problems have trivial solutions and sticking a label on opponent in a discussion is a winning alternative to rational argument.

P.S Bubble link should work now

[newbie]

Geoffrey, I think the case in Alberta is that they (the Gov't) amalgamated Social Services with Career Development and Employment. When they were separated funding was more specific. And what's happened is that in the rush to clear Alberta's deficit, they actually created more problems for AISH recipients, welfare cases and persons looking for employment. So persons with disability stand basically in the same line as a person applying for UI, etc. And I don't think there is funding available for strictly placement purposes either. Klein's comments about a person not looking "bad enough" to receive AISH didn't help.

[geoffrey]

I agree newbie. They are two different things and should be run seperately... or perhaps one not run at all.

I've read somewhere that AISH is among the more generous programs in Canada, is this true? Or do we have a longer way to go then I realise in ensuring that disabled folks have a dignified life?

[myata]

Yes, I agree too, (at least) trying to differentiate the causes of condition can be a place to start. Disablity as opposed to mental health issues to substance abuse/addiction to lack of education or experience to language / communications skills to family/children situation are all different problems that would probably rquire different kind of help.

[Saturn]

The rules on disability are very stringent in most federal and provincial programs. In their attempts to reduce spending, both the feds and the provinces have excluded many disabled people from qualifying for these programs. The result is that many people who are in fact disabled and not able to keep a job end up on the welfare rolls where they should not be in the first place.

One simple example is the condition that the disability must be of a duration exceeding a year. Many disabling conditions, such as Multiple Sclerosis for example, are characterized by periodic attacks, which in the initial stages may render the sufferer unable to work for weeks or months at at time over many years before the condition progresses to a point where the sufferer is permanently disabled. In those cases, a person with MS will not qualify for disability payments even though his condition causes him to not be able to work for a month, then to be able to work for 2 months, followed by another 2 months of illness, etc. Such people are not able to keep a full time job (employers don't normally allow employees to be absent for months at a time), they do not qualify for disability payments because they are not disabled 100% of the time, so they end up on the welfare rolls instead.

[Catchme]

I mean how much courage does it take to beat up on the poor, especially their children? This is the disgusting type of behavior of which smug, self-righteous people should be ashamed.

No much, nor much to bash those who are on the front lines trying to do something about it. There needs not be "new" "fresh" approaches, there needs to be consistent steady development towards reducing poverty by fixing the causes of it. The problem is lack of consistent funding of approaches that work, and that do bring people out of the hell of poverty.

BTW Geoffry you have some questions left unanswered on page 5, where you make the outrageous claim that government involvement in social programs is unconstitutional etc. I asked for proof of this and other things, that would give future and present credibility to your words.

[geoffrey]

Back from page 5 as requested.

Should have been challenged long ago, it's unconstitutional for the Federal government to interfere in social programs.

Oh, unconstitutional is it? Please post just what consitutions government social programs are breaking?

Constitution Act, 1867...

Section 92

7. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Hospitals, Asylums, Charities, and Eleemosynary Institutions in and for the Province, other than Marine Hospitals.

16. Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province.

I believe that excludes the Federal government from interference, and apparently someone else agrees as most welfare programs are provincially centred. Read my statement more carefully next time, I'm not saying welfare is unconstitutional. Federal involvement is. The exception is employment insurance, which is constitutionally belonging to the Federal government.

Yes let's take a look. That Alberta is doing well economically for the moment, is not because of right wing governing, it is accident of placement and nothing more. If not for the tar snads, just where would AB be, and to get into this further would mean serious topic drift. BC? Oh please I live here, Gordon Campbell has not built the economy. Bernard Lord was Premier of all the Maritimes? How about you have a look and see what constitutes the "Maritimes"?

Don't be silly. Newfoundland could be extracting as much oil and has a closer, bigger market for it. It's not a matter of placement. Do you think the oil ends exactly at the Saskatchewan border?

Gordon Campbell brought your province out of much disarray from NDP politics and returned you to have status, at least for a bit. Bernie Lord was the Premier of the first province in that region to have single digit unemployment and a signficant increase in the participation rate in a couple decades.

Unemployment in provinces with right-wing governments is always significantly lower as cuts in welfare force people to realise that wow, maybe they could get off their butt's a find a job when they really have to.

How about you provide proof of this before I provide proof otherwise? And usually lower cuts in welfare equal higher payouts dealing with crimes of poverty.

Do I have to state the obvious? Alberta sets a high bar for receiving money from the government, and we have over 70% employment. Newfoundland has just a tad over 50% employment. 'nough said.

http://www.ncwcnbes.net/htmdocument/report...m#_Toc500047785 there is some stats from the richer provinces. Alberta pays 1/2 Ontario's amount for welfare for the generally lazy. So we have less generally lazy people. Pretty clear to me.

I just can't stand people getting a living for doing absolutely nothing. It's time they went to work, they are essientially our employees (we give them their cheque) so it's time they do our work.

Are you saying that the government provide jobs for people on welfare that pay minimum wage and 40 hours/week?

Possibly. They get their current welfare cheques, whatever that is, and they clean our streets and what not for an equivlent amount of hours at minimum wage.

[Saturn]

Do I have to state the obvious? Alberta sets a high bar for receiving money from the government, and we have over 70% employment. Newfoundland has just a tad over 50% employment. 'nough said.

http://www.ncwcnbes.net/htmdocument/report...m#_Toc500047785 there is some stats from the richer provinces. Alberta pays 1/2 Ontario's amount for welfare for the generally lazy. So we have less generally lazy people. Pretty clear to me.

Wow, back the truck up. Alberta has a lot of natural resources, resulting in many jobs, resulting in the migration of younger, healthier, working people, resulting in the youngest population of all provinces. People who are unhealthy, older and "lazier" are pushed out of the province. Now that's a really nice place to be in because Alberta is able to get the younger, more capable people from other provinces (who cost Alberta nothing to raise and educate, who work for Alberta and require little services) and send off it's "bad" people (who work less and require more services) to those other provinces in return. Now imagine what will happen if other provinces start acting the same way - stop sending their youth to Alberta and stop accepting it's "bad" people. I'm thinking that you should be thankful that other provinces don't act like Alberta, no?

In addition, picking on NFLD is not quite appropriate given that their natural resources just died-off. If Alberta's oil suddenly disappeared and Albertans had to switch to fishing, I don't imagine that Alberta would fare better than NFLD currently is.

Finally, more recent (2005) stats show that Alberta is the odd one out of the general trend: http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/labor07a.htm

-the provinces with the highest employment rates are: 1)Alberta, 2)Manitoba and 3)Saskatchewan, with 2 and 3 having NDP governments

-followed by Ontario, with a Liberal government

-further down: 1) BC, 2) PEI, 3) Quebec with right-wing governments (the Liberals in 1 and 3 are the right-wing in those provinces

-the bottom: 1) NFLD, 2)NB, 3) NS, with Conservative governments.

Overall, the more Conservative the government, the lower the employment rate with Alberta being the only exception.

[Catchme]

catchme asks: Oh, unconstitutional is it? Please post just what consitutions government social programs are breaking?

Constitution Act, 1867...

Section 92

7. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Hospitals, Asylums, Charities, and Eleemosynary Institutions in and for the Province, other than Marine Hospitals.

16. Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province.

I believe that excludes the Federal government from interference, and apparently someone else agrees as most welfare programs are provincially centred. Read my statement more carefully next time, I'm not saying welfare is unconstitutional. Federal involvement is. The exception is employment insurance, which is constitutionally belonging to the Federal government.

No switching social programs to welfare, I wa s speaking of back to work programs and employment programs, and such like that were cut by the CPC, NOT welfare. And you said good about time etc. followed up with unconstitutional. So now you have back tracked and admited employment issues are Federal responsibility.

Don't be silly. Newfoundland could be extracting as much oil and has a closer, bigger market for it. It's not a matter of placement. Do you think the oil ends exactly at the Saskatchewan border?

Newfoundland Labrador are experiencing issues with the Federal government over this, their oil industry cannot be compared to AB's. So Saskatchewan refuses to destroy its environment for a pittance in royalities and the oil companies can make greater profits off the backs of AB's in the present and future so they chose AB, again as I said, location location location.

[Gordon Campbell brought your province out of much disarray from NDP politics and returned you to have status, at least for a bit.

We were already in recovery mode when Gordo stepped in. His selling off BC Rail made it look oh so good, for a bit. But we are losing large money on that one to CN.

Bernie Lord was the Premier of the first province in that region to have single digit unemployment and a signficant increase in the participation rate in a couple decades.

And Bernard is hardly a Harper/Klien conservative. And 1 province does not make the Maritimes.

Do I have to state the obvious? Alberta sets a high bar for receiving money from the government, and we have over 70% employment. Newfoundland has just a tad over 50% employment. 'nough said.

Uh, that would be a No, not enough said, not hardly even. Nor is your compare solid or obvious. Let's do apples to apples and compare the 3 prairie provinces.

Manitoba 4.3% unemployment Nov 2006 No Oil Gov NDP

Alberta 3.4% unemployment oil Nov 2006 Gov Conservative

Sask 3.5% unemployment some oil. Nov 2006 Gov NDP

All three are lower than the national average.

[Saturn]

Bernie Lord was the Premier of the first province in that region to have single digit unemployment and a signficant increase in the participation rate in a couple decades.

And Bernard is hardly a Harper/Klien conservative. And 1 province does not make the Maritimes.

Ironically enough, Lord was the first one to get tossed out of office.

[geoffrey]

Wow, back the truck up. Alberta has a lot of natural resources, resulting in many jobs, resulting in the migration of younger, healthier, working people, resulting in the youngest population of all provinces. People who are unhealthy, older and "lazier" are pushed out of the province. Now that's a really nice place to be in because Alberta is able to get the younger, more capable people from other provinces (who cost Alberta nothing to raise and educate, who work for Alberta and require little services) and send off it's "bad" people (who work less and require more services) to those other provinces in return. Now imagine what will happen if other provinces start acting the same way - stop sending their youth to Alberta and stop accepting it's "bad" people. I'm thinking that you should be thankful that other provinces don't act like Alberta, no?

Why do we send away our old people? I think they choose to go elsewhere. Alberta isn't a fantastic place to be in terms of fun things to do. BC is much nicer and it's only a short drive away. I'd retire to the interior without much hesitation.

Our sick? I think sick people come here, we've got some pretty impressive niche programs in Health Care.

Sure, Alberta isn't a place for someone that doesn't want to work, and I understand that we are somewhat of a problem in your books because of it. But if all the provinces and regions took that outlook, where are these lazy people going to go? They would be forced to work, because no other country is going to take 'em in.

That's what we are talking about here, the lazy... not the honestly disabled or anything like that... by the way.

We still spend more per capita on social spending than the other provinces so I'm unsure if there is much factual truth in your rhetoric there. We outspend BC in actual real terms on health and welfare... so I'm seriously unsure if that's true. I'm just saying, the qualifying standards are higher for welfare in Alberta, so perhaps less people qualify... and they decide instead to work (instead of starve).

In addition, picking on NFLD is not quite appropriate given that their natural resources just died-off. If Alberta's oil suddenly disappeared and Albertans had to switch to fishing, I don't imagine that Alberta would fare better than NFLD currently is.

I can imagine great success in an Alberta fishery....

Just died off? How long of a recovery are you predicting here? Holy wow.

No switching social programs to welfare, I wa s speaking of back to work programs and employment programs, and such like that were cut by the CPC, NOT welfare. And you said good about time etc. followed up with unconstitutional. So now you have back tracked and admited employment issues are Federal responsibility.

No. Unemployment insurance is a Federal issue. I insist that training programs, stuff like that, are local works and under provincial jurisdiction.

Newfoundland Labrador are experiencing issues with the Federal government over this, their oil industry cannot be compared to AB's. So Saskatchewan refuses to destroy its environment for a pittance in royalities and the oil companies can make greater profits off the backs of AB's in the present and future so they chose AB, again as I said, location location location.

So Alberta's policies gave us the success we have today? Thanks for clarifying what I've been trying to say for so long now.

We were already in recovery mode when Gordo stepped in. His selling off BC Rail made it look oh so good, for a bit. But we are losing large money on that one to CN.

One minor decision doesn't make a term of power unsuccessful. I really would be suprised to find many in BC that are adamently against 'Gordo', no?

Bernie Lord was the Premier of the first province in that region to have single digit unemployment and a signficant increase in the participation rate in a couple decades.

And Bernard is hardly a Harper/Klien conservative. And 1 province does not make the Maritimes.

Uh, that would be a No, not enough said, not hardly even. Nor is your compare solid or obvious. Let's do apples to apples and compare the 3 prairie provinces.

Manitoba 4.3% unemployment Nov 2006 No Oil Gov NDP

Alberta 3.4% unemployment oil Nov 2006 Gov Conservative

Sask 3.5% unemployment some oil. Nov 2006 Gov NDP

All three are lower than the national average.

You need to look beyond the percentage of the population on EI. Total employment paints a more accurate picture. As does migration from Sask and Man to Alberta. Why don't people move from Newfoundland too? The flight isn't much more expensive? Perhaps their benefits are a little to toasty to run away from?

The real evidence of welfare buying people out of the labour market is participation rates. Why do 71% of Albertans actively seek jobs or work and only 59% of Newfoundlanders or 61% of PEI people? This is a country, is it not? Shouldn't we be willing to migrate within a nation to work?

Ironically enough, Lord was the first one to get tossed out of office.

Actually, Lord's popular support increased in New Brunswick last election. An electoral system hickup (or at worst gerrymandering... but I doubt it) redistributed the ridings in a way that elected the Liberals.

[margrace]

Well I just hope that those on here who bash people on welfare and such never get sick. When my husband died I would have had to go on welfare but for the support of my family. If it had been today and I lived in Alberta, while my family was elsewhere then I would have been in trouble. I didn't even have my own home at that time. Oh yes you would send me back to be supported by the province where I came from.

My husband was diagnosed in 1964 with acute Leukemia, he died in a week. His daughter was diagnosed in 2002 with leukemia, not acute, she received a bone marrow from England and is doing great, cost about $250,000 American. Her cousin was diagnosed in 2006 with acute leukemia, she got a bone marrow transplant and was dead in 6 weeks. So I just hope that life does not hand you any roadblocks.

On a show about Newfoundland there was a village decimated by the loss of the Cod fishery, 90% of their young people were away at jobs out of the province. That left the older people without the support of their younger family. One couple, without insurance, lost their home. The community tried to help but it was limited, it showed them picking the dump for recyclables, I thought that only happened in third world countries?

Maybe we should be counting our blessings instead of being Scrooge and advocating work houses.

[myata]

I'd still like to find out what is the exact meaning of this convenient term, preferably with examples from this thread. Or, like many leftie notions, its its so elastic and adaptable to the need that it becomes obvious (ly meaningless)? Would any discussion of shortcomings or issues with welfare system, which does not result in unanimous approval of 100% increase in benefits constitue that famous "bashing", Rabble style?

[madmax]

I thought that the title of this thread was provocative and useless, with regards to the comment right wing nuts. I noticed that some people took the bait.

Fact is, I been reading through the thread again, trying to make sense of just what people are talking about.

Clearly if we have been posting here, we have been had.

This was a dead thread in 2004, why someone decided to bring this thread back to life in December 2006 is beyond reason.

Lionus the Fleabag, was involved in this thread and commenting in Sept of 2004. The thread died out, quickly.

In December Lionus the Fleabag gives this thread life again, by picking up the dead thread, 2 years later.

QUOTE(playfullfellow @ Sep 6 2004, 08:09 AM)

I agree with most of this post, but why does the gov't not look at re-vamping the system? Come to think of it, perhaps I am glad they do not. We'd likely see a 1 billion dollar study done which said that it would cost too much to change things.

I was the first to repond to this thread thinking it was a new thread without looking at the ancient dates, and why the discussion was quoting 2 year old article like it just was new news, with an offensive tagline.

It wasn't, it isn't , I have been had, and apologizing for contributing to this discussion before catching the time frame.