Machjo Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 And that's a tragedy, in its own way. I sense a growing antipathy for natives where I am. I've see nothing in the media to support that, but then, the media doesn't like to dwell on things like that. But almost everyone I know has a sneer whenever the topic of natives comes up, and most of the people I know aren't very conservative. Even people I barely know are bitching about natives, from the Black taxi driver last week, to the Lebanese Canadian contractor I met yesterday. There are two unpopular thoughts about natives. The first, of course, is they're welfare bums and criminals, drunkards, drug abusers and prostitutes. They don't work. They don't want to work. Their reserves are a mess because they can't maintain anything and trash their houses and their leaders are self-serving crooks. That's been a longstanding but growing belief. Lately, as the economy has soured I've been hearing another much angrier complaint. Wherever there's economic development proposed for outside a city, whether it's forestry, a new mine, oil drilling or exploration, a pipeline, a ski resort, anything at all, there you'll find natives howling and protesting and suing to try and slow it down or stop it. That's got a lot more anger than the first complaint. The problem is both complaints have a lot of truth to them. The miserable plight of natives is due to the application of centuries old agreements which make no sense any longer. They're a drag on Canada's economy, and they're most definitely not in the interest of Canada or natives - except of course, the chiefs. The Indian Act needs to be torn up. Economically unsustainable reserves need to be closed down. Natives need to become better integrated with Canada. This country is almost 150 years old. It's not going away. It's time for natives to realize they can't live anything approaching a modern life with any sort of satisfaction and purpose while squatting out in the bush waiting for their monthly cheques. I'm all for giving them lots of help. education and job training, as well as buying them houses to live in, but this grinding, neverending mess has to stop, because ordinary Canadians (not the political or media classes of course) are becoming more and more fed up with the status quo and want things fixed. Their anger is growing, and its misdirected towards natives as a whole, when it should be directed against the elites, both ours and theirs, who keep tinkering and kicking the can down the road. Then again, a 20 something where I used to work just a few years ago and who was educated in Canada had never even heard of the Canadian Indian Residential School System, and she'd gone to school in a town bordering a reserve and had indigenous classmates! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 They wouldn't. They would have to work, or starve. Or throw themselves on the mercy of gullible relatives. The children, if any, could be taken in by social services. Unfortunately a person has a third choice besides work or starve - it is to steal. How much crime do you believed is caused by people who cannot or will not work and have no intentions of starving or having their children starve? It costs up about $100,000 a year to keep somebody in jail and that does not include the cost of putting them in jail. Your $500 BBQ disappears from your back yard and is sold some time later to somebody for $50. People are mugged, shoplifting is rampant, about 500 cars are stolen daily in Canada, many addicts sell illegal drugs to feed their own habit and it goes on and on and on. If they have no or little income, people do not just disappear or find a corner and go starve to death - they will take it from us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 Libertarians? Most of them!?! How do you know this? Matt Zwolinski is a self-described libertarian, Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of San Diego, and founder of the website Bleeding Heart Libertarians: Free Markets and Social Justice He says the basic income concept conforms to the libertarian ideal of economic freedom. Instead of targeted subsidies or other social assistance programs, basic income stops the government from making decisions about what lower income people need, and lets lower income people do that themselves. http://www.cbc.ca/radio/the180/a-sovereigntist-defends-english-a-case-for-guaranteed-minimum-income-and-more-alberta-road-trip-1.3496597/a-libertarian-case-for-a-guaranteed-minimum-income-1.3496657 As for left and right views, "Proponents on the left argue it represents an opportunity for greater redistribution of wealth, while those on the right see it as a chance to cut back on bureaucracy and return control to people’s lives." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/20000-per-person-activists-push-for-guaranteed-minimum-income-for-canadians/article19387375/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunnyWays Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) There's another angle to the Education funding shortfall.......if someone on a remote reserve is fully educated, do you really think they will return to the reserve? They'll go where the jobs are. That's as good a reason as any for First Nations (as opposed to the government) to start phasing out those remote reserves. What's missing is the collaboration and will of First Nations to develop an all-emcompassing vision for Aboriginal people - beyond the status-quo. There is so much untapped potential in a cohesive First Nations society - but the Band/Chief system will never allow that potential to be fulfilled. Edited March 31, 2016 by SunnyWays Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 Unfortunately a person has a third choice besides work or starve - it is to steal. How much crime do you believed is caused by people who cannot or will not work and have no intentions of starving or having their children starve? It costs up about $100,000 a year to keep somebody in jail and that does not include the cost of putting them in jail. Your $500 BBQ disappears from your back yard and is sold some time later to somebody for $50. People are mugged, shoplifting is rampant, about 500 cars are stolen daily in Canada, many addicts sell illegal drugs to feed their own habit and it goes on and on and on. If they have no or little income, people do not just disappear or find a corner and go starve to death - they will take it from us. How come you keep saying can not? I thought we'd established we were only talking about can,but won't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 31, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) One answer to the aboriginal needs arguments for more funding may be a guaranteed minimum income for all Canadians. I believe that it would eliminate the special funding and force aboriginals to decide if they want to live where it is very, very expensive to live or move South where a guaranteed income of about $20,000 is enough to be comfortable. There is already a topic on this and it has already been pointed out that this is economically unsustainable. This whole subject is off topic and should be discussed in the appropriate discussion group. Edited March 31, 2016 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 How come you keep saying can not? I thought we'd established we were only talking about can,but won't. Sorry, I do not understand your comment. Please expand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) Sorry, I do not understand your comment. Please expand. It might be deleted for too little original content, but I though the best way to explain my position was to restate it. It depends. How would you deal with someone who just decided not to work? Welfare and disabled are two different things. So long as we reserve the right to not give anything to someone who can work but won't, I'm all for it. Nothing whatsoever. Anyone who can't work, we should help. Anyone who can but won't, we should do nothing for, except offer them jobs. Edited March 31, 2016 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 OK - We are talking about someone who can work but will not. If I read it correctly, you suggest to give him the choice to starve or to work. There is a third choice - steal from somebody who has We catch him, put him in jail (costing us $100,000) and now he has a criminal record further restricts what kind of job he can get - notwithstanding that he has now graduated from the best school of peer taught criminality - and the circle continues. Only this time with more expertise, more good citizens being ripped off and now escalated. If that is what you support, then good for you. I do not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) OK - We are talking about someone who can work but will not. If I read it correctly, you suggest to give him the choice to starve or to work. There is a third choice - steal from somebody who has We catch him, put him in jail (costing us $100,000) and now he has a criminal record further restricts what kind of job he can get - notwithstanding that he has now graduated from the best school of peer taught criminality - and the circle continues. Only this time with more expertise, more good citizens being ripped off and now escalated. If that is what you support, then good for you. I do not. That choice exists now. People can choose to steal if they want, and then go to jail if they are caught. At what point, between us discussing it on a forum and the government deciding it's not going to go with it, do you expect this crime wave to begin? Edited March 31, 2016 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunnyWays Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 OK - We are talking about someone who can work but will not. If I read it correctly, you suggest to give him the choice to starve or to work. There is a third choice - steal from somebody who has We catch him, put him in jail (costing us $100,000) and now he has a criminal record further restricts what kind of job he can get - notwithstanding that he has now graduated from the best school of peer taught criminality - and the circle continues. Only this time with more expertise, more good citizens being ripped off and now escalated. If that is what you support, then good for you. I do not. There's a number of other choices - keep living in the basement and sponge off parents. Find a girlfriend or boyfriend who will support you. But really, don't put a system in place that will encourage and enable doing absolutely nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 That choice exists now. People can choose to steal if they want, and then go to jail if they are caught. At what point, between us discussing it on a forum and the government deciding it's not going to go with it, do you expect this crime wave to begin? When a person has no income and then steals it is not because they want to but because they are hungry. You appear to be pleased with the status quo. Good for you! When I see what I consider to be an serious discussion going to flippancy than I am not going to waste any more of my time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 When a person has no income and then steals it is not because they want to but because they are hungry. You appear to be pleased with the status quo. Good for you! When I see what I consider to be an serious discussion going to flippancy than I am not going to waste any more of my time. As you wish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 There's a number of other choices - keep living in the basement and sponge off parents. Find a girlfriend or boyfriend who will support you. But really, don't put a system in place that will encourage and enable doing absolutely nothing. I believe that if you do some research on guaranteed minimum incomes that you may find professionals who disagree with you. We already have a form of GAI in our native communities and our current welfare system. I have nothing more to say. Thank you for your interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderfish Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 When a person has no income and then steals it is not because they want to but because they are hungry. If a person has no income because they decide they don't want to work even if they are fully able, would this not equate to a choice to go hungry? If they choose crime over earning a living, how is this the fault of anyone but the person making the choice? And why on earth would we choose enable this destructive behavior? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 No matter how many times someone shows you the complete story, you just end up saying "We'll let the courts decide". That is until the courts actually don't go your way then its a travesty. The courts haven't gone any way on this yet. But the courts have ruled in favour of most claims lately. The claim for trust fund accounting addresses many claims at once. If payment wasn't made, there was no deal. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunnyWays Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 If a person has no income because they decide they don't want to work even if they are fully able, would this not equate to a choice to go hungry? If they choose crime over earning a living, how is this the fault of anyone but the person making the choice? And why on earth would we choose enable this destructive behavior? Pretty straight forward.....hard to understand why someone would NOT agree to take this into consideration when discussing "guaranteed incomes". It's Pandora's Box. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 Some are obligations due to the treaties that were signed. Others are handouts due to the bleeding heart courts that go far beyond what the treaties say or ever intended. Now you're just making it up. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) If a person has no income because they decide they don't want to work even if they are fully able, would this not equate to a choice to go hungry? If they choose crime over earning a living, how is this the fault of anyone but the person making the choice? And why on earth would we choose enable this destructive behavior? I am not talking fault or principle, I am talking pragmatism and finances. Food, water and shelter are the basic physiological needs ( Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs). They supersede morality et al. The person chooses not to "work" or cannot find "work" to survive. They choose to perform criminal acts to survive. Give everyone $20,000 a year to survive. That is the equivalent cost to us of 3 months in jail and probably hundreds of $thousands of dollars in damage caused to gain that $20,000 a year illegally. Edited March 31, 2016 by Big Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 Give everyone $20,000 a year to survive. That is the equivalent cost to us of 3 months in jail and probably hundreds of $thousands of dollars in damage caused to gain that $20,000 a year illegally.It has already been pointed out that 20K a year is simply too much to fund given the current level of taxes. We would have to double or triple the taxes we pay to cover that sum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 It has already been pointed out that 20K a year is simply too much to fund given the current level of taxes. We would have to double or triple the taxes we pay to cover that sum. OK Make that $10,000 a year. BTW Then there would be no need for EI payments or an EI system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 It has already been pointed out that 20K a year is simply too much to fund given the current level of taxes. We would have to double or triple the taxes we pay to cover that sum. Then there's all the money we would spend on jails for those who turn to a life of crime because $20000 isn't enough! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 As for left and right views, "Proponents on the left argue it represents an opportunity for greater redistribution of wealth, while those on the right see it as a chance to cut back on bureaucracy and return control to people’s lives." Huh, interesting! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 If a person has no income because they decide they don't want to work even if they are fully able, would this not equate to a choice to go hungry? If they choose crime over earning a living, how is this the fault of anyone but the person making the choice? And why on earth would we choose enable this destructive behavior? Surely the number of people who would go this route are so small as to be insignificant. Enabling destructive behaviour? No, amongst other things, the idea is that it will prevent the costs destructive behaviour will cause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 One answer to the aboriginal needs arguments for more funding may be a guaranteed minimum income for all Canadians. I believe that it would eliminate the special funding and force aboriginals to decide if they want to live where it is very, very expensive to live or move South where a guaranteed income of about $20,000 is enough to be comfortable. They will be entitled to GAI wherever they live. Witholding money to try to force them to move is ... probably not legal, certainly barbaric. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.