Ok, I get what you are saying. I just needed a bit of clarification as to where you were coming from with that.
Is Welfare The Government’s Fault?
- Thread starter Liberalman
- Start date
That's a tough issue to comment upon. In today's world (Canada at least) there are few youth, if any, that would really need to work during their school years in order to get by. With all manner of social assistance available to families, there is little reason other than an individual's motivation that would prevent them from receiving a basic education.
This brings us to the family dynamic which in itself is very complex... Certainly there no way that a gvt could mandate or legislate a functional family life, so does this fall in the realm of personal responsibility (I shuddered even writing the comment about personal responsibility)
I once heard a proposal that cities/provinces/feds might consider developing residences exclusively for welfare/low income families. In-house cafeteria style food options, day care facilities, access to select support services, professional development opportunities (like resume writing and/or placement) in exchange for a big chunk of the welfare monies.... The suggestion was shot to pieces by multiple 'rights' groups that demanded the recipients would be denigrated and risk the loss of self respect.
Kinda made me wonder if someone that 'lost self respect' being in an environment like that was proud of their welfare status to begin with.
Ultimately, that would happen, but society has to take a tougher stance on the issue.
A social safety net is by-in-large a Western construct (in contemporary practice) and the 'net' gets bigger and bigger as every day passes.... You know that there is something wrong when your better off financially (on an after tax basis) going on welfare rather than seeking employment.
That has been the case since the dawn of time
Actually, what I meant was those with mental health issues that actively seek social assistance at all.
I have real sympathy and support for those that truly need the help, but I would say that the 'worst group' (as you put it) is likely more populous than you or I might imagine.
Example (and I know that the sensational examples get the media attention and do not represent everyone):
When living in VCR, there was a news story of a family living in West Vancouver (really posh neighborhood) had one or two family members receiving welfare cheques from the gvt despite the patron of the family having reams of money... They qualified through some loopholes of sorts, but it sure started the discussion of exactly how needy is the average recipient?
Except maybe on reserves where schooling is grossly underfunded on many reserves. But then that's not a provincial responsibility so I guess it's a moot point if we're talking about provincial polities. Although a person raised and educated on reserve and then moves off the reserve could pose a problem for the provincial government as a person with a low level of education now under provincial responsibility.
They recruit everybody able bodied if there is a fire. It happened to me when travelling through Cranbrook in the mid 80's. RCMP came into the restaurant and said "get on the bus or go to jail until the fire is out".
I didn't mind at all, they paid $20 an hr cash and all I had to do was sit by the river babysitting 4 pumps for 44 hrs straight with another guy. We napped in shifts, they fed us well and there was one helluva kegger when the fire was out.
You can't force people to work and secondly, welfare is about half of minimum wage so you'd have to pay them more doing community servitude
As for women who are baby machines, Child Tax Credit is deducted from their welfare.
There are other issues as well, some healthy people are just simply unemployable. There are people who can f*ck up sweeping even if you spent a week training them, others lack social skills, aren't trust worthy, illiterate, unkempt or have bones in their noses and so many ugly piercings that look like they fell down a flight of stairs with a tackle box, can't handle money, criminal records, transporatation issues or cry when the boss is critical.
Another issue is being cut off too soon after finding work, some employers hold back the first week of pay making them wait 3 weeks to get one week of pay. Working costs money and getting over the hump can be really sh*tty with one weeks pay when rent and bills are due.
Indeed there is a serious problem with arrogant SOBs looking down on people who are hard on their luck. However, maybe the solution here is not to givein to these bigots and insteat teach those who are hard on their luck to be strong and ignore them.
A good idea should not be shot down because of such persons. The idea you propose is a good one and I for one woudl not look down on anyone using such services. Maybe it's the rights groups that look down on them? Why else would they have such a concern?
We shold be careful with this though. We don;'t know the family dinamics. Maybe the rich family member doesn't share and treats the others like crap and they pay him rent from their welfare while living in some room in the basement. We don't know.
My old man made me pay rent the day after I finished high school which was 3 months after turning 17.The other option was $50 and a sleeping bag. I found a job and got myself a place to live really quick.
True. we should also consider the possibility of abuse and mental issues, identified or not, etc. It's not always easy to tell when a person is scamming the system and when the person really does need help. Even mental health is not always obvious. A person could appear normal on the outside yet be really messed up on the inside.
The guvmint charges you a fee to extract these resources, in other words the guvmint taxes you to extract these resources.
Just look at the cars in front of the welfare office on welfare wednesday. Most are better than I can afford.
At one time welfare recipients were given food vouchers instead of cash but some dogooder decided that was demeaning. Also cut into the dealer and bar profits.
At one time welfare recipients were given food vouchers instead of cash but some dogooder decided that was demeaning. Also cut into the dealer and bar profits.
Ew, have to say, so not true. many, many youth work in order to go to school.
Have to disagree here too. I see kids as young as 12 and because of their home environment I can pretty much predict that unless there is an extreme intervention they won't make it past grade 9. And even if there is an extreme intervention things look bleak for that kid.
There are kids living in such extreme poverty and violence likely right in your own community. It is hard to know how to handle them. A child can not come in to class when there was no dinner provided last night, the house is in such disarray that books go missing, such simple things as pens and pens provided by the school are lost, no way to do homework as dad was throwing mum off of the wall. (opportunity is there, the school is there, the teacher is ready to teach) They come in to school full of anxiety, anger, confusion, mistrust. My teacher tells me I must behave in a certain way but my parents say "screw them". Total mixed message.
It does, but whose? Mum likely got pregnant young, she has likely lived with how many boyfriends. Why? Because that is how she was raised, abused physically, mentally, emotionally. She knows only one way of survival. And now she has repeated the cycle. The cycle must be broken. It is complex.
The problem I see with that is ghetto building. Put a whole bunch of people into a middle class setting and they don't have middle class values. I don't think the middle class get that. They don't have middle class values. Put a middle class person into their environment, how long do you think that person would last? Would survive? Not long. It is a different culture with different values.
Somehow, the two have to meet.
Not proud of it, hate it, but defiant, filled with anger. Yes.
Agreed.
They are not better off, trust me. It is a filthy poverty filled, violent environment.
Agreed. So where do we start. We actually start in the school system with people who understand what that kids environment is like. They understand the parents values and they do not challenge the kid to rebel against their parents. The help the child to understand that home rules are fine. They are for home, but school rules are different, a different behaviour is demanded, required, expected.
We need people who "get it" not azz bags who think they know and think they can force the issue. It is a long process but I believe it can be done and we do it...one kid at a time.
Problem is burn out rate is super high.
Got ya.
I know that you do (have sympathy and support, as do I) and I absolutely agree that the numbers of those who abuse the system are likely staggering. But I think we have to be really careful about the optics that come from these types of stories. And part of it is that the bureaucracy of the system itself is so mangled that it causes problems in and of itself.
Two stories from the front line worker I know:
Guy one is a landed immigrant who, when asked as part of the interview process what his retirement plan was, responded with "The government of Canada." He received assistance.
Guy two is also and immigrant and a brick layer who, while he had a job set up to begin within a short number of weeks, was coming off a long patch of no work and required help to pay the mortgage for one maybe two months until he got a paycheque. His wife, who would otherwise be working, had to return to their native country to help their daughter through a fairly serious illness with a pregnancy. He did not receive assistance.
Do you know why the second guy didn't? Because there is an entrenched rule about contributing partners leaving the country and automatic denial of assistance if one does. Which does make sense, it would be very easy for people to work in a foreign country build some wealth and return while their partner/spouse remains behind to hold their place within this nation. But there is no room set up for any kind of leeway in processing an individual situation like that.
And that to me is the crux of the problem, we are trying to apply a single solution to a multitude of problems. So every time I hear things like setting a cut off date, I wonder how that can possibly be the solution because while it will nab those who are abusing the system, it'll also catch those who are genuinely having a hard time too.
You don't get it. They are driving a better car than yours: no way. Maybe their TV is bigger than yours because they live for today. They don't do anything for their future because there is no tomorrow. There is likely no food on the table for their kids. Their kids live in a world of shortage and violence or at the very best, struggle and confusion. Just like when they were growing up.
That "live for today" thing can be a real pain in the butt when, a few months down the road, collections people are calling and the repo guy is hooking up to the car.
It won't be a few months down the road. it will be today it is always about today, it is a different mind set and unless we address the different mind set nothing will change for the majority of people living off the system. the system does NOT provide an adequate living it is subsitent at best and that too contributes to the problem
the school system is the answer but we need teachers capable of dealing with the child coming through the door because they are not coming from a middle class environment where mummy just made them a nice breakfast and they do not have a nice little healthy snack and lunch with them and they likely did not get a nice quiet 10 hours of sleep and they are not returning to a nice comforting loving environment. the best part of their little day is at school.
@ Sal:
You've said a lot, but in the end, it really comes down to a few issue including personal responsibility and expectations that the gvt is all things to all people under all circumstances. We can't legislate responsible parenting, nor would we see social services stepping in and taking kids from every dysfunctional family environment.
I also couldn't help notice the comment about kids having to work to get through school: the family environment being one issue unto itself, I have to ask the question about what are these kids spending the money they have earned on?... Food for home? Basic clothing items?... In the back of my mind, I can't help but notice that there are few kids that aren't walking around with iPods and iPhones.
Same can be said about teenage pregnancy... Sad to understand that it is an issue that has been around for decades, but other than the personal responsibility issue, what do we do?.. I can't imagine that gvt institute a program of chastity belts - so that leaves us with the hormonally charged kids understand the ramifications of their actions.
I know that the above is likely an over generalization, but the question still needs to be asked.
Last point; the comment about ghetto building... I do agree that this potentially exists (likely), but these suggestions are brought forth as functional suggestions targeted at motivating people to get away from that communal environment and take control of their own lives... As it stands, the existing system is clearly of limited effectiveness in that we have an entire demographic that represents generations of welfare recipients...
I can't imagine that anyone would support that ends
Whose fault is that, and more importantly, who can actually change that situation?
You'd think that this reality would be enough to force a change to the delivery of the services in the system
Thanks SLM; I appreciate the starting comment... I've never been accused of being PC nor shying away from asking the hard questions in a blunt manner (although I am improving).
I try to boil things down to the lowest common denominator and in the simplest terms, that said, let me pose my position this way:
IF the welfare system didn't exist and the responsibility was assumed by family members (Mom, Dad, bro or sis)... Would we likely see this same mentality or 'system' in practice?
Direct question to you: If your kids needed this help (in my mythical system of family-based assistance), would you suggest that they move home and work with them to move forward or would you write endless cheques to fund them to spare them the social stigma of living in mom's basement?
In the end, I see a huge difference between a hand-up and a hand-out
That is sooo harsh.
Makes me really angry to be honest.
I can see the problem here (for the guy) but also understand the gvt's position.
Too bad, you'd think that the system would be set up to assist people like that, but perhaps the optics from gvt was that a portion of the funds would go to the mom heading back to help the daughter.. (caveat: Sad case, but I would ask where is the assistance from the gvt of the nation where the daughter is located?)
You've said a lot, but in the end, it really comes down to a few issue including personal responsibility and expectations that the gvt is all things to all people under all circumstances. We can't legislate responsible parenting, nor would we see social services stepping in and taking kids from every dysfunctional family environment.
I also couldn't help notice the comment about kids having to work to get through school: the family environment being one issue unto itself, I have to ask the question about what are these kids spending the money they have earned on?... Food for home? Basic clothing items?... In the back of my mind, I can't help but notice that there are few kids that aren't walking around with iPods and iPhones.
Same can be said about teenage pregnancy... Sad to understand that it is an issue that has been around for decades, but other than the personal responsibility issue, what do we do?.. I can't imagine that gvt institute a program of chastity belts - so that leaves us with the hormonally charged kids understand the ramifications of their actions.
I know that the above is likely an over generalization, but the question still needs to be asked.
Last point; the comment about ghetto building... I do agree that this potentially exists (likely), but these suggestions are brought forth as functional suggestions targeted at motivating people to get away from that communal environment and take control of their own lives... As it stands, the existing system is clearly of limited effectiveness in that we have an entire demographic that represents generations of welfare recipients...
I can't imagine that anyone would support that ends
Whose fault is that, and more importantly, who can actually change that situation?
You'd think that this reality would be enough to force a change to the delivery of the services in the system
Thanks SLM; I appreciate the starting comment... I've never been accused of being PC nor shying away from asking the hard questions in a blunt manner (although I am improving).
I try to boil things down to the lowest common denominator and in the simplest terms, that said, let me pose my position this way:
IF the welfare system didn't exist and the responsibility was assumed by family members (Mom, Dad, bro or sis)... Would we likely see this same mentality or 'system' in practice?
Direct question to you: If your kids needed this help (in my mythical system of family-based assistance), would you suggest that they move home and work with them to move forward or would you write endless cheques to fund them to spare them the social stigma of living in mom's basement?
In the end, I see a huge difference between a hand-up and a hand-out
That is sooo harsh.
Makes me really angry to be honest.
I can see the problem here (for the guy) but also understand the gvt's position.
Too bad, you'd think that the system would be set up to assist people like that, but perhaps the optics from gvt was that a portion of the funds would go to the mom heading back to help the daughter.. (caveat: Sad case, but I would ask where is the assistance from the gvt of the nation where the daughter is located?)
Fact. Just drive past the welfare office. There are also numerous welfare mums who have boyfriends that work in camp making $80G + while the taxpayer is providing a place for them while they are in town.
Ever go to a bar on Welfare Wednesday? Try it and watch your tax dollars in action.