Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
teabag





Joined: 30 Nov 2008
Posts: 501
Reputation: 118.7
votes: 6
Location: Mississauga Ontario

PostPosted: Wed May 26, 2010 8:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually I believe that in Ontario a single person on welfare gets the bottom of the barrel. Single mothers get a better deal so that welfare actually encourages them to have more children.

Believe me in the greater GTA area where most of the jobs are a room at $100 a week or $400 a month is a find. Believe it or not an older person has a tougher time out there even at minimum wage. Once the schools are let out the minimum wage jobs are gone and most of them end up being part-time. If a person on welfare earns any extra money during the first three months 100% is taken off their cheque. After three months this is reduced to a 50% clawback.
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed May 26, 2010 9:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fiscalconservative wrote:
Craig wrote:
fiscalconservative wrote:
Neither do I, but there is a significant minority of these people that are simply unemployable. If you cut off their benefits, where will they go ?


Depends how you define "unemployable". Walk into any fast food joint and there will be retards sweeping up the floors. If they are employable than anyone who WANTS to work can find work. Too many people in our society call themselves unemployable because they are lazy. Having a disability doesn't make you unemployable. It just gives you an excuse to pretend that you are.


You are talking about exceptions the - "retards" are window dressing. Its true that there are people with a couple strikes against them that cling to that excuse as a crutch - but there are others that with four or five strikes against them. There is a gentleman I know who is proud Italian who has done hard manual labour all his life. His English is crap, his body is ruined and he has no education. Now he can't find a job, and I don't believe someone turns 55 and decides..."hey I want to be a lazy welfare bum". He worked hard all his life, and I don't think he deserves to be treated like shit.


If his body is ruined then he can go on disability; no shame in that.
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed May 26, 2010 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

teabag wrote:
Actually I believe that in Ontario a single person on welfare gets the bottom of the barrel. Single mothers get a better deal so that welfare actually encourages them to have more children.

Believe me in the greater GTA area where most of the jobs are a room at $100 a week or $400 a month is a find. Believe it or not an older person has a tougher time out there even at minimum wage. Once the schools are let out the minimum wage jobs are gone and most of them end up being part-time. If a person on welfare earns any extra money during the first three months 100% is taken off their cheque. After three months this is reduced to a 50% clawback.


Maybe the solution is to move out of the GTA then?

My brother rents a large 3 bedroom apartment for $400 a month. My whole house is $650.

This nation was created by people moving to where there were better economic activities. Today however you're considered cruel if you suggest such thing.

In the vast majority of cases, the "unemployables" are avoiding making the tough decisions. Nothing worth having comes easy.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Wed May 26, 2010 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

["Cool Blue"]This nation was created by people moving to where there were better economic activities. Today however you're considered cruel if you suggest such thing.

In the vast majority of cases, the "unemployables" are avoiding making the tough decisions. Nothing worth having comes easy.[/quote]
This is one of my biggest problems with EI as it is currently structured - it encourages people to stay in areas in numbers far larger than the local economy would otherwise support. I'm more and more convinced that EI reform and Equalization reform go hand in hand.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Wed May 26, 2010 10:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fiscalconservative wrote:
You are talking about exceptions the - "retards" are window dressing.


Not my point at all. I was talking about the extreme examples. If they can do it then most anyone can. There is almost no excuse.

Quote:
His English is crap, his body is ruined and he has no education. Now he can't find a job, and I don't believe someone turns 55 and decides..."hey I want to be a lazy welfare bum". He worked hard all his life, and I don't think he deserves to be treated like shit.


Working hard is only part of the equation. Making good choices is the other part. Living in an English speaking country and not learning English is a bad choice. There are consequences to making bad choices. I don't go to work everyday to pay someone's bills because they couldn't figure out that learning English in an English country might be a good idea. Maybe he can find work in Italy?
teabag





Joined: 30 Nov 2008
Posts: 501
Reputation: 118.7
votes: 6
Location: Mississauga Ontario

PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 8:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cool Blue,

I don't know where your brother is living and just picking up a newspaper in the GTA will tell you those rents don't exist. If you can rent that cheaply the fact is you are in all likelihood living in an area that doesn't have good employment prospects.

My nephew has shared accomodation in a very small house for $600 per month and I am not talking anything remotely considered more than the basics. A bachelor apt in Brantford runs over $500. This is in Brantford not the GTA. Remember there is no room in a welfare cheque to pay utilities or transportation costs.

I think that some of you are so fixated on the blame game you choose to ignore realities. People are not necessarily out of work because they aren't looking or are unwilling to move. Not everyone on welfare are lifetime recipients. In case you haven't noticed we have had over a year of lost jobs and people are trying to get back on their feet.

One employer I talked to had received over 100 applications a day for just one trucking job posted. Guys that have never had to pound the pavement in their lives have been out there looking. Some of them with no E.I. as they were self employed and their funds have run out.

I remember when a welfare single mom would be visited by a worker to check to see if anyone was living there with her. Often the single mom has a boyfriend lodging and paying the freight while she receives her cheque along with subsidized housing. So there are abuses.

Presently welfare is demanding proof of two job applications a day. One craggy middle aged guy told me that he was going to have to start applying for a job as a receptionist He had been applying for minimum wage jobs and only had a temporary job as a security guard. Even at minimum wage it sure would be a lot more money than his welfare cheque. The foodbank allows him one visit a month for 3 days food supply. He has even applied for a job in Saskatchewan and he presently lives in Ontario. So please don't tell me people are unwilling to move. Sometimes moving is impossible with the costs involved unless you have a willing employer or a good friend to help you out. Otherwise you are stuck looking where you are.

And like I have previously said jobs and higher rents go together.
Not everyone is out there to scam welfare. For what the big cheque? Don't make me laugh.
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I don't know where your brother is living and just picking up a newspaper in the GTA will tell you those rents don't exist. If you can rent that cheaply the fact is you are in all likelihood living in an area that doesn't have good employment prospects.


He's in Cornwall, Ontario. Current unemployment rate, 5.6%, the lowest in Ontario. There are TONS of jobs to be had in eastern Ontario right now.

Like I said, the problem is the GTA, and more specifically southern Ontario as a whole. They were too dependent on the manufacturing industy and didn't diversify their economies in the 90s like the rest of the country did.

20 years ago the unemployment in Cornwall was 26%. I know how tough it can be because I lived through it. I recall being in a line up of 200+ people applying to work at Harvey's. I was a teenager in competition with men with families to support for $5 an hour jobs.

As for welfare requiring job applications, I know how that works too. My families business regularly gets welfare recipients asking them to sign they're forms. When my parents tell them they don't need any help the welfares tell them that's okay because they're not looking for work. They just want the signature to make it look like they applied. Then there's also things like one guy I knew who would dress up in S&M drag gear when he was handing out applications...

And ya, the woman with a boyfriend living together is a common scam. Often though that boyfriend is also on welfare and he gave the welfare office the address of a friend or relative to make it look like they weren't living together.

Not only did I grow up in government housing surrounded by welfare recipients, drug addicts and hookers, but I also began my career working for the welfare office.

My parents refused to accept welfare even though at the time welfare would have meant an increase in income; they realized what a trap welfare can be. There is almost ALWAYS a better option than welfare. Not an easier option, but a better one.
fiscalconservative





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 1043
Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9
votes: 6

PostPosted: Sun May 30, 2010 10:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:

Working hard is only part of the equation. Making good choices is the other part. Living in an English speaking country and not learning English is a bad choice. There are consequences to making bad choices. I don't go to work everyday to pay someone's bills because they couldn't figure out that learning English in an English country might be a good idea. Maybe he can find work in Italy?


Try learning another language when you are over 30 and a below average IQ.
teenagetory





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 369
Reputation: 30.4Reputation: 30.4Reputation: 30.4
votes: 1
Location: Halifax

PostPosted: Sun May 30, 2010 5:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Workfare appears to be the way to go in theory at least. If things were to work out on paper, it could be beneficial for our deficit problem. We could pay someone far less than what a unionized employee would get. But there is the rub. The type of work that most of these recipients would do is unionized, so it would take a hell of a fight to get it done. I just don't think any of the current lot of Tories has the political stomach for it.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7524
Reputation: 301Reputation: 301
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Mon May 31, 2010 9:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

fiscalconservative wrote:


Personally, what I would do would be to raise welfare rates - but bring with the new rates comes full time work. 40 hours a week, no bullshit. You don't want to work, give them $100 a month and food and shelter in some sort of cross between a homeless shelter and a public housing project. With a police officer and social worker in the building.

There is all sorts of work that needs to be done, from answering the phones at 311, to picking up garbage. There are loads of things that could be recycled if people did not have to pay workers 12 dollars an hour (toss in vacation pay CPP and EI). Lots of houses being torn down could be recycled instead of being trucked off to the dump.

Furthermore, if people do their jobs well, there should be merit pay. A number of training programs should be made available to people who have completed a year or so and did a good job.

I guess the bottom line is it should be converted from the current communist system where everybody gets the same no matter what to one which follows a reward model like real life.


I think this is the right way to go;
If you can work and you qualify for Welfare then the government asking for work to be done in exchange for that welfare is not unreasonable.

I would even take it a step to the left by requiring 25-30 hours of work a week, this way if you really want to get out of picking up dead fish at the side of the river you have time to be able to apply and interview for work in the private sector.
orenda14





Joined: 21 Mar 2009
Posts: 94
Reputation: 27.9Reputation: 27.9Reputation: 27.9
votes: 2
Location: nova scotia

PostPosted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 8:28 am    Post subject: cut where required Reply with quote

When I see some of our local louts drawing welfare while our local farmers bring in Jamaican and Mexican farm workers there is definetely a problem here.
Welfare has its place, I know people who need and deserve it, yet they have to jump through hoops of fire to get it, I also know some lazy louts here who should be cut off ASAP.
If work is available for the healthy the welfare should be cut, end of argument
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2

Goto page Previous  1, 2  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Discussion: should government make cuts to welfare spending?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB