The problem with progressives

[WestCoastRunner]

I am grateful that we live in a country that provides a social net for individuals requiring assistance for a length of time due to economic and health circumstances that interrupt one's ability to earn a living.

[WestCoastRunner]

This point is incorrect and doesn't speak to the complexity of family relationships. Without getting into a detailed and lengthy discussion with references, suffice it to say that family instability is far worse than single parenthood. That could be anything from serial dating, on again off again marriages, or just couples constantly fighting. A stable single-parent household can be a much better environment than some two-parent households.

This OP is a veiled insult to 'single women' having babies as if these children came about from immaculate conception. Why wasn't a label provided to address 'deadbeat dads' if it's going to single out 'unwed mothers'.

[WestCoastRunner]

That is the story of the progressive. In their zeal to help people, they narrow focus and never consider the impact of their policies. You can look to immigration, to law, to societal attitudes towards drugs and sex and welfare and see how negatively progressive policies have impacted Canada everywhere.

Can you provide cites to support these statements? Do you seriously think this OP will be taken seriously without supporting links?

What do you mean by 'societal attitudes' to drugs and sex? I have no idea what you are referring to with this statement.

[Argus]

I am grateful that we live in a country that provides a social net for individuals requiring assistance for a length of time due to economic and health circumstances that interrupt one's ability to earn a living.

So am I. What has that got to do with the topic at hand?

[Argus]

This OP is a veiled insult to 'single women' having babies as if these children came about from immaculate conception. Why wasn't a label provided to address 'deadbeat dads' if it's going to single out 'unwed mothers'.

It's hard to have unwed mothers without deadbeat dads. The label encompasses the phenomena.

[WestCoastRunner]

It's hard to have unwed mothers without deadbeat dads. The label encompasses the phenomena.

So why not just say 'deadbeat dads' instead of 'unwed mothers'. After all, children living in poverty usually have 'deadbeat dads'.

[WestCoastRunner]

So am I. What has that got to do with the topic at hand?

You are attacking policies that provide a social net to people in need. It is difficult to debate your OP when your 'topic at hand' is all over the map, it's vague, it's generalized and you have no links to back up anything you say.

[bush_cheney2004]

You are attacking policies that provide a social net to people in need. It is difficult to debate your OP when your 'topic at hand' is all over the map, it's vague, it's generalized and you have no links to back up anything you say.

Not difficult at all, as the OP clearly associates progressives with the creation and growth of the social welfare state, presumably in Canada. It is a rich topic with a very long, well documented history involving economics, government, political power, labour, families, etc. So called "progressives" are really only a part of the mix, as various groups jockeyed for power and government policies. Canada actually had to make BNA/constitutional changes to implement some of the "progressive" tax and wealth distribution schemes.

This link objectively documents the creation and growth of the Canadian welfare state, including the role of "progressives":

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/welfare-state/

[Argus]

You are attacking policies that provide a social net to people in need. It is difficult to debate your OP when your 'topic at hand' is all over the map, it's vague, it's generalized and you have no links to back up anything you say.

I'm attacking the broadness of policies which are designed to help, but don't, which, in the case you are discussing, provide income without work, that subsidize laziness and not bothering to invest in skills or education. I'm saying that we ought to make such training available, but we should definitely not be subsidizing those who choose to not work, or choose to stay in the same seasonal job year after year in the same high unemployment location. I'm attacking the feel-good policies of the left which are not designed with human nature in mind, and which cause more problems than they solve. I have nothing against a social safety neck as long as it isn't used as a hammock.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Argus

[WestCoastRunner]

I'm attacking the broadness of policies which are designed to help, but don't, which, in the case you are discussing, provide income without work, that subsidize laziness and not bothering to invest in skills or education. I'm saying that we ought to make such training available, but we should definitely not be subsidizing those who choose to not work, or choose to stay in the same seasonal job year after year in the same high unemployment location. I'm attacking the feel-good policies of the left which are not designed with human nature in mind, and which cause more problems than they solve. I have nothing against a social safety neck as long as it isn't used as a hammock.

You haven't provided any information to indicate these programs aren't helping.

From a University of Calgary study (the School of Public Policy looked at social assistance data for people under the age of 65 from all of the provinces between 1969 and 2012) as quoted in the National Post

A University of Calgary study has found that the percentage of people using social assistance is lower than it was four decades ago in every province, except Ontario.

“The reliance on social assistance in Ontario is now higher than in any other province, except Newfoundland and Labrador. In every Maritime province, it’s lower than it is in Ontario,” said Kneebone.

Newfoundland and Labrador’s social assistance rate was nine per cent in 2012, but half what it was in 1969 at 18 per cent.

Even Quebec, a province with a similar size and economic force as Ontario, has also seen its rate fall to seven per cent two years ago from just under 10 per cent in 1969.

Alberta had the lowest welfare rate in 2012 at just 3.2 per cent, down from five per cent in 1969.

Again, can you provide anything to indicate these policies aren't working: "You can look to immigration, to law, to societal attitudes towards drugs and sex and welfare and see how negatively progressive policies have impacted Canada everywhere."

[Hal 9000]

You haven't provided any information to indicate these programs aren't helping.

From a University of Calgary study (the School of Public Policy looked at social assistance data for people under the age of 65 from all of the provinces between 1969 and 2012) as quoted in the National Post

Again, can you provide anything to indicate these policies aren't working: "You can look to immigration, to law, to societal attitudes towards drugs and sex and welfare and see how negatively progressive policies have impacted Canada everywhere."

Back in the NDP days of BC, I had a sister get shifted from social assistance to a permanent disability (Bipolar), around the same time my other sister who is social worker, had many of her clients get switched over also. Underage people also get shifted into another category now.

The moral of the story - and I know you won't believe me because it's anecdotal, is; there are more people than ever on the system, just because they've taken perpetual welfare cases and decided to just give up on asking them to work, doesn't mean there are less welfare cases, it only means that they're getting paid out of a different pocket.

It's both a political ploy because the NDP about 6 months later started campaigning that they got the welfare cases down, and also a decision to just reduce the caseloads of social workers and just accept that a certain amount of the population is hopelessly unemployable.

[cybercoma]

She provided scholarly research covering 43 years and you think a personal anecdote is enough to come to a completely different conclusion. Haha. This forum, man.

[eyeball]

So why not just say 'deadbeat dads' instead of 'unwed mothers'. After all, children living in poverty usually have 'deadbeat dads'.

Because so-called 'deadbeat dads' are all too often fathers without rights - usually stripped from them by PC activist judicial feminists.

[Hal 9000]

She provided scholarly research covering 43 years and you think a personal anecdote is enough to come to a completely different conclusion. Haha. This forum, man.

I just think she wants to be intellectually honest - and should be. She didn't know how those stats magically came to be, I told her.

Sure, one can google a stat and point out that welfare has gone down all over Canada (except Ontario), but the reason is just a re structure of people and sub contracting of some other people, such as those that are now under the watch of CLBC and Comunitas etc.

Instead of looking at how welfare recipients are reduced, why not look at the increase of PWD's.

[The_Squid]

Where is the cite that people with disabilities have increased? Because you know someone who went from welfare to disability, therefor there are more people on disability? Weak sauce...

[Hal 9000]

Where is the cite that people with disabilities have increased? Because you know someone who went from welfare to disability, therefor there are more people on disability? Weak sauce...

Huh! She's comparing stats from 45 years ago. Do you honestly not know the entire structure of how we view and record welfare has changed since then? Really? I'd like to think people here are smarter - i guess not!

Back in 1969, even up to the 80's and 90's, most everybody who collected was pretty much considered to be on welfare (social assistance) - and that was that. For reasons that I already mentioned along with avoiding the stigma of being on welfare, many people were placed on disability. Anyone from down syndrome people to those who get depressed over a bad haircut were placed on disability or placed in other outsourced organizations. Even parents who couldn't work due their child's disability was placed in another category (forget the name), but not welfare.

Do you really not know any of this? Ha!

[The_Squid]

let's see your cite.... show us the disability stats.

[Hal 9000]

Dude, if you don't know about the welfare reform of the mid 90's, i don't know what to say.

They split agencies - The Ministry of Social Services created two new agencies - MHR and MCFD, so kids were moved to another agency, Pwd's were transferred (maybe not by agency, but by classification). Some were considered "Human Resources" while other cases were transferred to "MCFD". There were huge changes to "welfare mother fraud" and wait lists for out of province recipients.

It was quite a big deal, I'm surprised that you (and WCR) don't remember any of it.

Bottom line, welfare cases being lower has nothing to do with good social programs and everything to do with a re shuffling (and catching welfare moms in fraudulent claims). of agencies and classifications.

And no, I'm not going to look-up 20 year old articles for you.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Hal 9000

[The_Squid]

So you have no stats to back up your assertions.... thanks for trying...

[Hal 9000]

So you have no stats to back up your assertions.... thanks for trying...

You really need proof of welfare reform in BC? WoW, talk about lazy!

[Hal 9000]

Squid, I'm telling you what happened in the 90's that changed the way we view and even record welfare, either you can look into it and learn something or you can be an antagonistic smart ass - I couldn't care less...but I know which road you'll take.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Hal 9000

[cybercoma]

Where is the cite that people with disabilities have increased? Because you know someone who went from welfare to disability, therefor there are more people on disability? Weak sauce...

You really need proof of welfare reform in BC? WoW, talk about lazy!

[The_Squid]

That was my reaction Cybercoma....

What a bizarre response!

I guess I should have retorted with "My friend was on disability and got well enough to go back to work, therefor there are way less people on disability now"!

Someone doesn't know how to back up their claims.

Edited April 18, 2016 by The_Squid

[Michael Hardner]

Squid, I'm telling you what happened in the 90's that changed the way we view and even record welfare, either you can look into it and learn something or you can be an antagonistic smart ass - I couldn't care less...but I know which road you'll take.

From the Rules & Guidelines:

Research Your Post

If you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with some official sources (websites, links etc).

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

[Hal 9000]

^^^WTF - Well go ahead then and don't believe it! As I said, I couldn't give crap if you're aware of Welfare reform and the changes that were made because of it. Our entire system has was overhauled from special needs to fostering to child care and protection to immigration to fraud to social services. There are like 14 different agencies (or so) where before there was just a couple. Point is; using stats from 40 years ago is inaccurate.

You guys clearly don't know this! Fair enough! I'm not responsible for how little you know. Believe it - or don't, simple as that!

Yes, I sometimes use anecdotes to try and share some real world experiences, unlike some of you shut-ins who rely solely on google for your worldly information.

Go ahead and suspend me for whatever you think I did wrong