toronto

[tibear]

RB,

I would say ambition is to be able to provide for your family without relying on social assistance. I will acknowledge that there are some people with physical or mental issues that would qualify them for long term social assistance.

However for the rest, systems currently exist for people to upgrade their education and there are plenty of jobs around for those who don't want to further their education. Unfortunately, some of these people are quite happy sitting at home and waiting the cheque from the government.

RB, do you the remember the NDP MLA comment a couple of years ago about, "The Conservatives were taking the right to choose to work away from people." I think that comment summed up the whole NDP platform.

 

[Reverend Blair]

But doesn't our system punish people with other ambitions...ones that don't fit into some bastardized version of the American dream? We've decided that productivity is defined by "x" and completely ignore the fact that "y" also has value.

Don't take the comment about people choosing not to work out of context either. It refers to a person's right not to be forced into a job that will leave them as poor or poorer than they are on social assistance. It is a necessary concept as long as employers are too cheap to pay reasonable rates for labour and governments are too spineless to shut them down for abusing employees.

 

[tibear]

RB,

So you believe that it is perfectly acceptable for someone to sit at home collect social assistance until they find a job that they deem "acceptable". What about taking personal responsibility for oneself and trying to stand up on your own two feet??

It's interesting in that I we will in likelihood have differing views with childcare. I'm a strong supporter of stay at home parents. The most important "job" a person will ever have is parenting and far too many people leave this responsibility to others that they do not even know. By providing subsidized daycare, it perpetuates the drive for "things".

What's wrong with having a parent stay at home and raise their children. However, this doesn't mean that the parents don't have the responsibility to support their family.

Don't take the comment about people choosing not to work out of context either. It refers to a person's right not to be forced into a job that will leave them as poor or poorer than they are on social assistance.

I guess the solution to your problem is to lower the social assistance rates. This would ensure that people would make more money working than sitting at home.

I don't have a problem with people making a fair wage but there are too many people who are working at "student" jobs trying to raise a family and complaining that they aren't being paid enough. They should upgrade their skills and get themselves a real job.(Same advice you are giving to Canadian Observer on another thread)

 

[Reverend Blair]

So you believe that it is perfectly acceptable for someone to sit at home collect social assistance until they find a job that they deem "acceptable". What about taking personal responsibility for oneself and trying to stand up on your own two feet??

Is that what I said? No, it isn't what I said.

It's interesting in that I we will in likelihood have differing views with childcare. I'm a strong supporter of stay at home parents. The most important "job" a person will ever have is parenting and far too many people leave this responsibility to others that they do not even know. By providing subsidized daycare, it perpetuates the drive for "things".

Are you willing to pay them 30K a year to do it? If so, are you willing to guarantee that no social stigma will be attached to parents who decide to work anyway?

I guess the solution to your problem is to lower the social assistance rates. This would ensure that people would make more money working than sitting at home.

No, the solution is to change the system, including requiring employers to pay a living wage and providing skills training to those who need it.

I don't have a problem with people making a fair wage but there are too many people who are working at "student" jobs trying to raise a family and complaining that they aren't being paid enough.

Define a student job. Is that a retail management position? Most students cannot afford to work a forty hour week in addition to their studies. Is it a full-time labourer? Same thing there.

Until the minimum wage is raised to at least ten dollars an hour (and that's in Manitoba with our low cost of living), universal childcare is instituted, and basic lifeskills training is made readily available, then you will not solve any problems. There are also a myriad of social problems that need to be addressed. In the meantime you can continue blaming the victims. I won't.

All of that does not match the little that CO has told us about his situation. He says that he was middle class or comfortable before, although he doesn't say in what field he does say that he was some sort of professional. That's a lot different than somebody raised in the inner city who didn't finish high school and didn't know anybody with a job when they were growing up.

 

[Jay]

RB,

So you believe that it is perfectly acceptable for someone to sit at home collect social assistance until they find a job that they deem "acceptable". What about taking personal responsibility for oneself and trying to stand up on your own two feet??

And getting some job experience and putting time in and proving one is trust worth etc.

 

[tibear]

RB,

Let me get this straight, you don't want society to force woman to caring a child to term but you want to tell employers how to run their businesses.

You wouldn't be trying to shove your religious believes onto these business owners would you???

Interesting perspective. If you were running a business would you welcome others telling you how to run it?? Oh, sorry NDP'ers don't care about the employer just the employees.

 

[Dr Caleb]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Dr. Caleb and Peapod have the same avatar. :lol:

Oops. But, mine is bigger!

 

[peapod]

I dunno Doc...some would agrue who has the bigger mouth...only time will tell and ehm....welcome

 

[Paranoid Dot Calm]

Hi! Tibear

I'm against anyone who abuses anything.
Thus; I'm against union members abusing their employer and I'm against welfare folks abusing the welfare system.

But, I was wondering ....

What would you think the "abuse" amounts to?
What percentage of homeless, welfare, unionized people abuse the system?

Calm

 

[Dr Caleb]

and ehm....welcome

Thanks!


Aren't the avatars cute though? They're out of synch, and look like they're teasing each other, like little kids!

 

[Reverend Blair]

What would you think the "abuse" amounts to?
What percentage of homeless, welfare, unionized people abuse the system?

Somewhere bewteen 5 and 10 percent, I'd guess. A good deal lower than the percentage of employees who are abused by employers; homeless who are on the street because of the policies of those who insist they want to be there; and people who ended up on welfare because the system repeatedly failed them.

 

[tibear]

I have no idea how many abuse the system. Regardless of the number it doesn't mean that it is something we shouldn't investigate and followup on.

I find it funny when people use the "system repeatedly failed them", who has the ultimate responsibility for one's life. The government or the individual?? Ultimately it is the individual that has failed themselves. Certainly society needs to be their to help people but the individual must REQUEST help, we can't drag people to training sessions or force them to live in a home.

If people don't like the employer they work for they can find another job or improve their skills to get a job that would enjoy. The government has all kinds of programs that help people upgrade their skills.

 

[Paranoid Dot Calm]

Hi! Tibear

When I post on other topics within these forums, I exagerate in order to make a point. I often look for the worst of a situation and mock it.
So, I'm not suggesting that you think nobody deserves welfare.
I know you are just making a point.

Here is some information I found.

Ontario cites $35M in welfare fraud
December 13, 1999
So far case workers have interviewed 61,000 people; about 5,000 of them have had their benefits stopped. Baird says he expects the savings to add up to $200 million eventually.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/national/1999/12/13/wellfarefraud991213.html

The Conservative government needed to make some cuts and they chose the welfare folks.
But .... what the public does not know is that all Harris succeeded in doing was forcing people who normally would qualify for welfare to simply go and see a doctor and be "pronounced" mentally unfit. All Harris did was have poor people get even more depressed and when they went to see a doctor, the doctor gave them medication .... which in fact made the patient "unfit" for work or unfit to work safely .... because of being on heavy medications.
(Welfare Zombies.)

People on welfare just went on Zombie-Disability.
And .... Disability benefits are 400 dollars a month more than welfare.

Calm