BC Budget is a slap in the face for the poor
- Thread starter Fudd
- Start date
On a board where everyone contributes a sizeable amount of income to pussy?Fudd said:
Hmmm...
I don't think one must dole out cash to qualify as an "advocate of the poor", as your post implies. Like was mentioned, people can always get a job. My bigger concern would be for the homeless. The rental subsidies are a big help to the poor, and there's the $100/kid allowance that helps the poor parents. Though not part of the buget, it's a recent change that helps them. But there's fuck-all for the homeless. They need programs and shelter. Cash is the worst thing you could give them.
On another issue, can't wait to see post-urbal sprawl Vancouver after they complete that fuckin' Gateway program.
hardly a ridiculous stand. Perhaps the OP could have drawn a clearer distinction between the (working) poor and short-term/long-term welfare recipients.scubadude said:
notwithstanding the more significant and global theme of what constitutes a caring society..... the ever widening gap between "the rich" and poor has been linked statistically to crime and increases in crime. Interesting that some of the most vocal "welfare bums & get a job" types in this thread are the same law and order advocates who regularly show up in the "get tough on crime" threads.
I'm simply saying that I'm tired of hearing that someone elses drug problem is "society's" fault. Take some goddam responsibility for your own action and stop looking to others to give you a free ride.
Maybe we just believe in punishing those who are looking to STEAL a free ride from the rest of us instead of bribing them with social programs?OTBn said:
If you give money to someone to prevent them from committing a crime against you, they'll just keep coming back for more and more money. That's why you never give in to extortionists or terrorists. Oh wait, I forgot, the lefties are always saying that we SHOULD give terrorists what they want instead of shooting back at them.
Whoa there JJ... who are these "lefties" you speak of? If someone IS a terrorist, snuff em. They'll do the same to you, just because you aren't like em...
That goes for any terrorist...biker gang... triad gang...get my picture? Criminal elements need to be dealt with, harshly.
Making mistakes, however, are not worth the pleasure one would derive from the execution of these criminals. What if someone planted evidence of terrorism in your home and you then stood accused of it on that evidence? It really wouldn't be hard for someone to do if they wanted to. End result, you'd be tried and hanged on false evidence. What if you were otherwise falsely accused of another crime? Perhaps a mistake with DNA testing occurred.
I think everyone would be all for the EXTREME punishment of people, provided you could be 100% sure that they were guilty and of a sane mind... and unchanged from that state/risk to reoffend.
I know I would be exctatic if they just started popping Hells Angels... those bastards need to be put down like the dogs they are. Extermination by Asssociation
But back to the poor... the ones that are mentally challenged and low functioning should be returned to facilities. For the rest, housing should be provided... along with drug and alcohol abuse counselling (our premier should attend those counselling courses as well, but that's another story).
Sounds too generous, eh? Well, when's the last time you were able to get a job when you hadn't showered in a month and slept in the trash last night? That's not even taking into consideration what saleable skills they have. There needs to be programs to retrain them into viable workers in this economy so they can start paying us back for supporting them.
The end result, of course, is to remove the public eyesore from our streets... the beggars, panhandlers, squeegie kids and druggies.
Those that don't comply... I dunno... government run work camps? lol
Ok, so that's the governments part in things...what about the free market aspect? Due to overcrowding, poor planning and government ridiculous assessing (gee, this always seems to increase whenever they get rid of other taxes...), even people with reasonable jobs can no longer afford housing. Renting is almost as bad. So what happens when the free market doesn't pay enough for you to provide housing for youself?
What if you have a family?
Take me for example. I have a pretty good job, I'm fairly spend thrift and I have savings. If I had to support anyone else on my salary (a good one, thank you), I couldn't afford the housing I currently have (a simple appartment in Burnaby). Before long, I'd be in poverty. Don't get involved with a deadbeat! er... how about, don't get married and have a child? As soon as you or the mother takes time off to look after that kid, you're screwed for income.
Speaking of being screwed for income, what about putting that kid into child care? There are people who stay home in order to look after their kids, since child care would put them under even if they were working. The cost of those child care facilities is ridiculous...do you realize that if teachers charged the same amount, they'd be making hundreds of thousands of dollars in pay each year? Anyways, so those deadbeats with children are no longer contributing tax dollars either... which all goes back to the government and the "free market" screwing them over due to greed and/or incompetance.
And they wonder why the birth rate in Canada is down....
/pause rant... might be back to rant some more/
That goes for any terrorist...biker gang... triad gang...get my picture? Criminal elements need to be dealt with, harshly.
Making mistakes, however, are not worth the pleasure one would derive from the execution of these criminals. What if someone planted evidence of terrorism in your home and you then stood accused of it on that evidence? It really wouldn't be hard for someone to do if they wanted to. End result, you'd be tried and hanged on false evidence. What if you were otherwise falsely accused of another crime? Perhaps a mistake with DNA testing occurred.
I think everyone would be all for the EXTREME punishment of people, provided you could be 100% sure that they were guilty and of a sane mind... and unchanged from that state/risk to reoffend.
I know I would be exctatic if they just started popping Hells Angels... those bastards need to be put down like the dogs they are. Extermination by Asssociation
But back to the poor... the ones that are mentally challenged and low functioning should be returned to facilities. For the rest, housing should be provided... along with drug and alcohol abuse counselling (our premier should attend those counselling courses as well, but that's another story).
Sounds too generous, eh? Well, when's the last time you were able to get a job when you hadn't showered in a month and slept in the trash last night? That's not even taking into consideration what saleable skills they have. There needs to be programs to retrain them into viable workers in this economy so they can start paying us back for supporting them.
The end result, of course, is to remove the public eyesore from our streets... the beggars, panhandlers, squeegie kids and druggies.
Those that don't comply... I dunno... government run work camps? lol
Ok, so that's the governments part in things...what about the free market aspect? Due to overcrowding, poor planning and government ridiculous assessing (gee, this always seems to increase whenever they get rid of other taxes...), even people with reasonable jobs can no longer afford housing. Renting is almost as bad. So what happens when the free market doesn't pay enough for you to provide housing for youself?
What if you have a family?
Take me for example. I have a pretty good job, I'm fairly spend thrift and I have savings. If I had to support anyone else on my salary (a good one, thank you), I couldn't afford the housing I currently have (a simple appartment in Burnaby). Before long, I'd be in poverty. Don't get involved with a deadbeat! er... how about, don't get married and have a child? As soon as you or the mother takes time off to look after that kid, you're screwed for income.
Speaking of being screwed for income, what about putting that kid into child care? There are people who stay home in order to look after their kids, since child care would put them under even if they were working. The cost of those child care facilities is ridiculous...do you realize that if teachers charged the same amount, they'd be making hundreds of thousands of dollars in pay each year? Anyways, so those deadbeats with children are no longer contributing tax dollars either... which all goes back to the government and the "free market" screwing them over due to greed and/or incompetance.
And they wonder why the birth rate in Canada is down....
/pause rant... might be back to rant some more/
I am not from British Columbia
However, this is all about wealth redistribution isn't it and that knows now borders. What those who are advocates for the poor want is more money from those who work and are felt by those advocates to have too much.
I am all for helping the legitimate poor and distributing some of my wealth to them. However, I am personally fed up with subsidizing people who don't want to work.
British Columbia is like Alberta and there are more jobs than people to fill them. Until people stop looking for someone else to solve their problems, then I will remain on the side of the fence that only helps those who truly need it. Handing out money to any able bodied person is complete stupidity as it reinforces their laziness.
I work hard for my money. According to statistics Canada I was offiicially poor when I was in University and I paid my way through summer jobs and working during the school year. I then spent nearly four years working 70 to 80 hours just to make a wage most who come right out of highschool make yet I also had student loan loads. Now I make a lot of money and am happy to help those unfortunate enough to not have the tools to make it in this world. For those who have the tools, and those who sing their praises (the left wing apologist advocates), GET A FRIGGIN' JOB YOU LAZY BASTARDS!
However, this is all about wealth redistribution isn't it and that knows now borders. What those who are advocates for the poor want is more money from those who work and are felt by those advocates to have too much.
I am all for helping the legitimate poor and distributing some of my wealth to them. However, I am personally fed up with subsidizing people who don't want to work.
British Columbia is like Alberta and there are more jobs than people to fill them. Until people stop looking for someone else to solve their problems, then I will remain on the side of the fence that only helps those who truly need it. Handing out money to any able bodied person is complete stupidity as it reinforces their laziness.
I work hard for my money. According to statistics Canada I was offiicially poor when I was in University and I paid my way through summer jobs and working during the school year. I then spent nearly four years working 70 to 80 hours just to make a wage most who come right out of highschool make yet I also had student loan loads. Now I make a lot of money and am happy to help those unfortunate enough to not have the tools to make it in this world. For those who have the tools, and those who sing their praises (the left wing apologist advocates), GET A FRIGGIN' JOB YOU LAZY BASTARDS!
Hey JJ it wasn't the BC gov who let the people out of riverview ,it was the your friends the libs, PET in ottawa and the bill of rights, get your facts right, you don't want to get banned for misleading info.
There's a BIG difference here buddy... in Alberta, alot of those jobs that are going begging pay big bucks because they are in places like camps for the oil sands...or up in Fort Mac... isolated, expensive places. Your basic subway worker earns at least double what they earn in BC. Actually, given the government issued $6/hr training wage for 6 months, after which people are fired so another $6/hr training wage employee can work for another 6 months... means it's probably triple.CalgaryPooner said:
Of course, if you're really willing to work hard (which most BUMS over here, sent here by other provinces... are not interested in)... the oil companies are always looking for more people, or the supporting construction companies etc
Up north in BC, the boom is similar to Alberta. Herein lies the problem... only certain people (good physical shape) can really benefit here (alot of manual labour). Not only that, they have to GET there, they have to be RELIABLE, and they have to have a desire to work hard. These are all things alot of those poor people either can't or don't want to do.
A mother with kids can't up and move with them when she doesn't have any cash. She probably can't do the physical labour, and she may or may not have servicable (minds out of the gutters here) skills. A druggie will only get worse in that environment, even if he or she manages to get up there and work for a bit... drugs and alcohol flow like water up there, if you have the cash to spend on them. Mentally unstable people... couldn't do it period.
So... of all those "tons of jobs", they would have to either put up with $6/hr (less than they get in welfare, plus the employers tend to be abusive with the hours), or they have to move far away... not really viable. And that's just for those that actually WANT to work.
Do you have any idea how many free loaders have drifted across the country, in order to settle in the "utopia" of Vancouver? The climate is much less drastic than in other Canadian cities... and quite frankly, it seems to me that other provinces enact laws and motions to "push" those undesirables our way. How nice of them.
Eh? The Liberals in power at the moment shut Riverview down, as it was costing them too much money. The Bill of Rights, PET and the boys on capital hill simply got involved when the nurses and doctors at Riverview overstepped their rights.mick_eight said:
Riverview could be reopened to actually serve the needs of the community... as it was intended...rather than being the place where all sorts of horrendous abuse took place...that it was in past.
Make no mistake, the shut down was about cash and greed... not about human rights. It may have been to prevent certain lawsuits, but it was also a matter of "why should we pay for them?". Well, now they are all out on the street... what a great idea.
I don't argue otherwise. The single mothers who are legitimately in a bind deserve society's (and my tax dollar) help. It is the other lazy bastards that need to get a friggin' job. They can move to where the jobs are instead of protesting everything and expecting me to pay for it.CJ Tylers said:
Terrorist???? How did this issue come up here???
As for the poor being "lazy bums", there are many working poor out in our country. People who have families to support while earning minimum wage and may also have to hold down several jobs at once. These "bums" are probably some of the hardest working people out there.
As for the poor being "lazy bums", there are many working poor out in our country. People who have families to support while earning minimum wage and may also have to hold down several jobs at once. These "bums" are probably some of the hardest working people out there.
Most kids are, according to your use of statistics.CalgaryPooner said:
Rupert Murdoch, Jr.; Bill Gates, Jr.; Conrad Black, Jr.; Donald Trump, Jr.; etc. (according to the stats) are all poor & penniless before they get to the age of majority. Like you, they get no help from their parents.
They all pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, too, w/o any help from anyone, just like you did.
Last edited:
Ok, a few answers.
1) As I've always said, disability pension should be completely seperate from welfare and have nothing to do with welfare. Lumping the two together is a typical leftie strategy which allows those who are just milking the system to point at the mentally ill or physically handicapped anytime someone talks about cutting welfare.
2) When you reduce taxes, guess what? Those who ACTUALLY PAY TAXES will benefit more than those who don't even pay them in the first place. Similarly, if Walmart lowers the price of coffee, I wouldn't benefit from that at all because I don't drink coffee. If you want some tax cuts, start paying taxes.
3) I'll look into the whole riverview thing as it happened around the time I first came to BC. But, as far as I remember, the whole idea of turning the mentally ill out on their own was started by the NDP when they were in power and then some doctors etc tried to block it and that's when the feds got involved. But, I'll look into it.
4) What exactly is a 'terrorist' ? Well, if you look at the word itself, you get a bit of a clue. 'terror' is the root. "Terrorist"= one who uses terror. What do they use it for? In an attempt to influence governments or their representatives.
Now, let's look at the idea that those on welfare can be thought of as low-level terrorists. (remember, I am NOT talking about the disabled, as I said, they shouldn't be on welfare, they should have a seperate benefit system).
You don't think they are terrorists? Ok, tell you what, suppose the BC government outlawed all welfare (except for the disabled) tomorrow, and they invoked the notwithstanding clause so that there could be no court overturning of the government's decision. Don't you think things would get REALLY SCARY? Maybe even 'terrifying' ? Don't you think there would be lots of violence?
If you agree that there would be lots of scary violence... well... let's see... The government is giving out a bunch of money to people to prevent those people from being violent and scary. Ie: the government is doing something because they are terrified of what would happen if they didn't do it. Hmm...
If you want to be a bit more relaxed in your semantics, you can just call them extortionists.
As far as housing and 'clean up' and job creation programs for the employable welfare recipients, well, those things have been tried, but guess what? They have extremely low participation rates. Most of them have NO INTEREST in having a clean place to live and clean clothes etc if it means that they have to actually WORK FOR IT. (big surprise). But don't get me wrong, I've always been in favour of workfare programs, same goes for job training and giving a 'hand up' to those who are willing to work their butts off to try to improve their situation. BUT, those programs should only be available to those willing to work their butts off and anyone who isn't, out you go. (No, I'm not talking about 80 hour weeks, or insane working conditions, I'm talking about actually working hard and doing their best and giving 110%, just like I do at work).
1) As I've always said, disability pension should be completely seperate from welfare and have nothing to do with welfare. Lumping the two together is a typical leftie strategy which allows those who are just milking the system to point at the mentally ill or physically handicapped anytime someone talks about cutting welfare.
2) When you reduce taxes, guess what? Those who ACTUALLY PAY TAXES will benefit more than those who don't even pay them in the first place. Similarly, if Walmart lowers the price of coffee, I wouldn't benefit from that at all because I don't drink coffee. If you want some tax cuts, start paying taxes.
3) I'll look into the whole riverview thing as it happened around the time I first came to BC. But, as far as I remember, the whole idea of turning the mentally ill out on their own was started by the NDP when they were in power and then some doctors etc tried to block it and that's when the feds got involved. But, I'll look into it.
4) What exactly is a 'terrorist' ? Well, if you look at the word itself, you get a bit of a clue. 'terror' is the root. "Terrorist"= one who uses terror. What do they use it for? In an attempt to influence governments or their representatives.
Now, let's look at the idea that those on welfare can be thought of as low-level terrorists. (remember, I am NOT talking about the disabled, as I said, they shouldn't be on welfare, they should have a seperate benefit system).
You don't think they are terrorists? Ok, tell you what, suppose the BC government outlawed all welfare (except for the disabled) tomorrow, and they invoked the notwithstanding clause so that there could be no court overturning of the government's decision. Don't you think things would get REALLY SCARY? Maybe even 'terrifying' ? Don't you think there would be lots of violence?
If you agree that there would be lots of scary violence... well... let's see... The government is giving out a bunch of money to people to prevent those people from being violent and scary. Ie: the government is doing something because they are terrified of what would happen if they didn't do it. Hmm...
If you want to be a bit more relaxed in your semantics, you can just call them extortionists.
As far as housing and 'clean up' and job creation programs for the employable welfare recipients, well, those things have been tried, but guess what? They have extremely low participation rates. Most of them have NO INTEREST in having a clean place to live and clean clothes etc if it means that they have to actually WORK FOR IT. (big surprise). But don't get me wrong, I've always been in favour of workfare programs, same goes for job training and giving a 'hand up' to those who are willing to work their butts off to try to improve their situation. BUT, those programs should only be available to those willing to work their butts off and anyone who isn't, out you go. (No, I'm not talking about 80 hour weeks, or insane working conditions, I'm talking about actually working hard and doing their best and giving 110%, just like I do at work).
I agree with jjinvan. The rich shouldn't be taxed to support the poor. Eliminate all social services for the poor. There are way too many left wing judges supporting the poor. The poor are lazy.jjinvan said:
So, JJ, who *are* the ones building this misplaced sense of entitlement?jjinvan said:
That sounds almost conspiratorial.
Just turn off your brains, pleasejjinvan said:
Judges always decide cases in favor of the side that has absolutely no merit. They revel in it, they're never overturned, just on whim they decide cases with ABSOLUTELY NO MERIT. I know the cases had no merit because that's what the voices in my head told me.
Judges also let all the criminals out of jail. The only ones in jail are un-criminals, they're just the poor saps who over-paid the wrong taxes, & so they all get hauled off to jail until they fill out the right forms in triplicate.
No, don't laugh, he's serious.
