New NDP Leader/Leader of the Opposition

[gluadys]

(I had to be very humble to walk into churches disheveled and unkept).

No doubt. But you still went to churches. I understand. I live and worship in a neighbourhood with a lot of street people. They often congregate in our small churchyard (one of the few places they don’t get chased away by security guards.) And sometimes they come into our Sunday service. We are used to it, and generally try to treat them compassionately.

But we don’t have the capacity to see to all their needs on a daily basis. And since most of these people are not in a physical or mental condition to hold down any kind of job—they do need help, a lot of help, on a daily basis. As a church, we need a welfare system to be there for them, to do what we, as a parish, cannot do.

Where are the social workers who say that a person won't get money unless they quit smoking? I don't see them around.

Social workers don’t have the right to set a condition of not smoking. They can advise, but it would be illegal for them to withhold assistance on that condition. But I can’t see anyone being a social worker for the money. Most of them are grossly overworked and underpaid and often unable to provide help they know is needed.

The people who helped me had great care and concern for me and others like myself. We needed help and they gave it. I could not have received their help with pride in my heart.

You could and you did. You pride yourself on not taking welfare. You look down your nose on those who do and harbour prejudicial stereotypes about them instead of having compassion on their necessity.

The men and women who demand a welfare cheque so that they can continue to live in their addictions are the proud ones.

Do you not realize that addiction is a disability, an illness? It is precisely when a person is sick that they most need help. The only problem with addiction is that, although it is curable, it saps the will and desire to be cured---so it is very difficult to help an addicted person until they themselves choose to be helped. This is as true of the middle-class addict as the poor addict.

As for assuming people's motives, I hear all the time from poverty activities about the motives of the police and the motives of politicians and the motives of conservatives. It goes on and on.

I expect your mother had some sound advice for you when you did something foolish (or wrong) because “everybody’s doing it”. I know my mother did.

In a community things happen. A house burns down, someone gets sick, someone dies, crop failure happens. In these emergencies people need help. If they reach out to their neighbour for help and that neighbour doesn't help them and help them freely, that neighbour is not following God's teaching. If a man drinks his life away though and doesn't even plant a garden, he is not going to get any help from the neighbours around him.

Unfortunately, many communities do act in this way, but they are far from following God’s teaching in doing so. A community following God’s teaching would assist the drunk non-gardener on the same basis as any other neighbour. They would rebuild his house, plant his garden, offer him temporary shelter while his new home was being prepared, rally around to get him new clothing and furniture. Perhaps, they would hear, for the first time, the story of his life and what led him into drowning his pain in alcohol. And they would offer support (like AA buddies) for his times of temptation.

Tell me, which course of action is more likely to bring him to Christ and transform his life? The way of compassion or the way of “you got what you deserved and you’ll get no help from us.”

Social services is different

Yes, and they should be. Because social services are not about generosity or charity. They are about helping people access what is theirs by right. At least they should be. In fact, sometimes social services are a huge obstacle to getting what one has a right to.

I've heard from others that this is true but I honestly don't understand yet what you are getting at.

OK. I’ll give you some examples. The welfare recipients I have worked with are mostly sole-support mothers trying to raise kids. Here are a few samples of things they have run into.

1. After the family had to go onto welfare, they had to cut out the childrens’ bi-weekly visits to their grandmother (a visit which normally included a meal). Reason: the meal was counted as “income support from family” and the value deducted from the welfare cheque.

Tell me, are non-poor families who visit grandparents asked to report the value of the meals they get at grandma’s on their income tax? Are they ever asked to treat that as their own income?

2. One mother noticed her November cheque was reduced. On inquiry, she found the social worker had deducted the deemed value of the candy her children received trick-or-treating on Hallowe’en. What non-poor family is ever asked to account for the value of Hallowe’en (or Christmas, or Easter, or birthday) candy as part of the family income?

3. Another mother was employed full-time, so did not receive welfare, but she did receive subsidized daycare for her children and and a rent subsidy. She had the opportunity to take a new job which did not pay much more ($10 a month) but had better prospects for advancement. But that $10 put her above the baseline for both day-care subsidy and rent subsidy. In effect she would lose more than $100 per month if she took a job with a future instead of staying in a dead-end job. As she ended her story she told us “I felt as if the system had slapped me in the face and told me to stay where they put me.”

To her credit, she took the job anyway. But there is something screwy with a system that punishes people who try to get ahead. And it is not the social workers---they have to work within the rules set by the politicians.

4. Another mother told how she was not allowed to give her kids a summer vacation from daycare. She couldn’t send them for a visit to their grandparents farm for two weeks or even enroll them in the free camps for underprivileged children run by the municipality. Why? Because the daycare is obliged to assign any unused space to someone on the waiting list, and then, her children would have to go on the waiting list again. It’s not set up to allow any temporary absence, except for illness.

These are only a few of the”stupid rules” that punish people for being poor and deprive them of opportunities to get off the system. And, as I said, the social workers don’t write the rules. The politicians do. Sometimes a social worker will apply the rules too harshly (as in the Hallowe'en candy incident), but they will never be reprimanded for doing so. OTOH, a social worker who tries to make allowances will be called up on the carpet.

Yet I am continually challenged by newly-arrived Canadians who live 20-30 people to a one or two-bedroom apartment and do not fight and do not squabble over the TV and share one bathroom. They often have jobs below minimum wage and yet in a couple years they have money to buy a condo.

What are you doing? Justifying the oppression of immigrants because some of them survive the mistreatment and go on to prosper? That is like justifying Nazi concentration camps because some of the survivors are now wealthy and successful. It's great when people are able to survive horrendous mistreatment. But it doesn't justify oppressing them in the first place.

But the challenge then to is build communities where there is trust and cooperation.

I couldn’t agree more, except to add “compassion” to that list.

The fact that there is stealing and theft in communities is a symptom of much greater problems that no government can solve. Governments cannot bring healing to communities.

You are right on the first, but only partially right on the second. Government can’t do it all, of course. But they can do quite a bit. They can prevent oppression and exploitation by passing and enforcing just laws.


[quote[I am not against law and order and I do applaud these type of efforts for justice. [/quote]

There is a lot more to justice than law and order. The police,the courts, the prisons can only act after harm is done. Social justice is focused on prevention not punishment. It is focused on seeing that no child goes to bed hungry, especially night after night after night. A good breakfast program in a school assures that a child’s brain development is not compromised by malnutrition and that hunger pangs don’t interfere with concentrating on studies. Take that away and you end up with an un-/under-educated class without even the capacity, as adults, to hold down a decent job, much less any motivation to do so.

But many of us feel that just as much effort or more should be made on a spiritual basis for the deeper problems of a society.

Absolutely. And that is something government cannot do. That is where we do need churches.

When societies run well there is no need for books and books of laws or for social assistance.

Not according to scripture. “Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, ‘Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbour in your land’.” Deuteronomy 15: 11

In the same chapter, and elsewhere in the law of Moses, there are also additional laws about how to treat the poor and indebted so that “There will be no one in need among you . . . if only you will obey the LORD your God by diligently observing this entire commandment that I command you this day.” Deuteronomy 15: 4-5

What is noticeable about laws on lending, freeing debt slaves, cancelling debts and giving to those in need is first that these are laws—they are not commendations of personal charity. And second, that the only qualification on the part of the recipient is need. No other life-style standard is set out to justify refusal to meet their need.

So according to scripture, both laws and assistance are necessities in a God-honoring society. Indeed, the prophets again and again condemn the rulers of Judah and Israel for failing to do their part to keep the covenant in regard to the poor. This, above all, draws the wrath of God against them.

And if you want these money-transfer places to follow law and order - why not welfare recipients? Maybe though you tell those people you are dealing with that they must obey the law.

Why do you accuse me of saying what I did not? I don’t uphold violating the law in any case by anyone.

However, the situations are quite different here. Each case of welfare fraud is pretty much an individual action. (And numerous studies have consistently shown that the rate of fraud is only about 3% of case loads.)

But gouging immigrants’ remission payments to their families overseas is a standard company policy of these agencies and is carried out by the majority of companies concerned.

Second, the laws to prosecute welfare fraud are already on the book and enforced.
Here we actually need to make an anti-gouging law first before the practice can be prosecuted. Until then, this unjust exploitation is not illegal.

Where is the love of country? Where is patriotism and laying down one's life for others?

When your country keeps kicking you in the teeth, why would you expect patriotism? Pharaoh, quite rightly, did not expect patriotism from Israelite slaves. For what reason would a child of the slums, unprotected from drug dealers, gangs, prostitution, landlords who overcharge for rat infested apartments, underfunded and ill-equipped schools, neighbourhoods without libraries or parks----for what reason would a child so neglected by their country be patriotic?

A country that wants patriotic citizens should earn it through services to its citizens: all of them.

I couldn't take money from taxpayers

But you do—in many ways you scarcely think of.

You went to school, didn’t you? You can read and write. You took money from taxpayers.
You walk on sidewalks, right? You are taking money from taxpayers.
Ever use a computer in a library? You took money from taxpayers.
Ever see a doctor? In Canada, that means you took money from taxpayers.
Do you ever ride a bus? Yes, I know you pay a fare, but most public transit systems are also owned and subsidized by governments. So you are taking money from taxpayers.

It is virtually impossible to live without taking money from taxpayers.
Even a homeless person sleeping on a park bench is taking money from taxpayers (for the park and the bench).

In a democracy there is nothing wrong with taking money from taxpayers because that’s how we combine our resources (like the Mennonites you mentioned) to do for all of us what we can’t do each for ourselves.

And just as you have a right to schooling and health care and other tax-funded services, you have a right to financial assistence when you need it. It is false modesty to refuse it. Just a way of boosting your own ego.


–

and especially when Canada is in debt.

Actually, a sound fiscal analysis of most NDP policies indicates that if implemented they would bring down the debt. A focus on preventative health care, for example, reduces the overall cost of health care. Making sure children are well-fed, beginning in the womb and all through school years, significantly reduces costs of keeping them in shelters/hospitals/ prisons later in life. As the old proverb says “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

The same applies to housing. For example, I recently saw the cost of the following shelter options (all government funded):
To provide a bed in a shelter: $69 per day
To keep a person in prison: $143 per day
To keep a person in a psychiatric ward: $665 per day
To provide a person with social housing: $25-31 per day
(Toronto figures)

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...347662780240.393883.50246270239&type=1&ref=nf

Figures will vary locally, but I expect the ratios would not.
If you are worried about debt, the best investment you can ask your government to make is in good, inexpensive social programs like social housing. It is not only immediately beneficial for the bottom line; the carry-over effect reduces all sorts of other costs as well, long into the future.


. . . . continued in next post

 

[gluadys]

continued from previous post

Is it wrong to love one's country? I never thought so until now. Don't you love your country and would bear any sacrifice for your country?

I do love my country and that is why I am in pain for my country today. The current government is destroying the country I was always so proud of.

No, I don’t want to see my tax dollars spent on mega-prisons while depriving refugees of health care.
I don’t want to see billions of $$$ going into tar sands (and destroying the lands and waters of northern BC) when those funds could create thousand of jobs in clean, renewable energy.

These are sacrifices I don’t choose to bear. To submit to these is like sacrificing to Moloch.

I want my own country back: the country that established peace-keeping, that won an international medal for welcoming refugees, the country that built world class communications systems and a health care system for all, a country that did not censor scientific knowledge or arrest thousands of peaceful demonstrators in the streets of Toronto.

Please – employers are living from hand to mouth.

Some employers are. Obviously some are not. Walmart is not. Exxon is not.
Yes, small businesses do need help and their viability has long been an NDP priority. Small, undercapitalized businesses, like poor people, also suffer from oppression and exploitation by global capital that comes in and undercuts their prices and ability to serve a market.

What makes me any different? Why should I be above them? And no, I would not scream if my competitor had lower prices. I would congratulate him on his intelligence on making something as good for a cheaper price. Maybe he invented a machine or organized his shop better.

I didn’t say he was making it for a cheaper price. I said he under-priced his goods. He is selling them at less than it costs him to make them. For the purpose of driving you out of business. He is undercutting your right to make a fair profit on your goods.

Underselling your labour infringes on the rights of other labourers to a fair wage in the same way.

If your employer can’t pay full-time, then let him hire you part-time—for as much time as he can afford. Then you can also work for another employer who can’t afford full-time help as well and so help both of them and yourself.

Now, if you want to take pity on your current employer by putting in volunteer hours over and above paid hours, of course, that is up to you. But what does illegally accepting less than minimum wage do other than encourage employers to break the law and depress wages for everyone?

This is typical NDP/leftist rhetoric. You think nothing of going into a taxpayer's home or job site and sticking your nose in their marriages or affairs and judging them and telling them what to do and how to run their lives but when honest, hard-working people who could have been addicts themselves but chose not to are concerned about the addictions of our society you shut them up.

I don’t know how marriages got on that list. And if you were really concerned about addictions, you would be more concerned with healing addicts than in punishing them. As for keeping a close eye on business practices, that’s necessary to maintain health and safety standards and to keep cheating to a minimum.

People have a right to work hard

No they don’t. That is a responsibility and a duty, not a right.

and keep the rewards of their labours.

They have the right to receive the due reward of their labours,
and the responsibility to share it with others.
They also have the responsibility to pay dues and taxes.
And tax-supported social programs is one way to discharge one’s responsibility to share with those in need.

I actually don't know much about the situation – just what I heard from others – there was alot of anger. How did they make an incorrect call?

The public sector unions refused to enter into negotiations to amend contracts that would keep everyone employed, but with fewer days a month of work (and with a comparable cut in pay). The alternative would be to lay people off so the remainder could keep working at regular wages.

The government decided to go ahead with the reduced hours/reduced pay plan instead of laying people off in the middle of an already hard recession. But they had to do it without the consent of the unions—effectively throwing out negotiated contracts. A lot of NDP (especially those in Ontario), would be angry with me for saying it was the right choice but I do think the unions were being obtuse. (I met NDPers in private sector unions who also thought the public sector unions should have been more cooperative with the Rae government. In the private sector, unions were negotiating pay cuts and downsizing and there was no equivalent to Rae days.)

What you said about the rich is actually probably true. There are many rich people around who did not earn their money honourably. I agree with this assessment, but what can the left do about this?

Nothing until they are the government. But as a government, there are many ways to prevent the abuse of power (and many ways to abuse power as well—government is always a two-edged sword). In any case, the responsibility of a government, as laid out in scripture, is to prevent and punish the exploitation of the vulnerable at the hands of the powerful. And that is what God holds a government, a nation, accountable for.

So the real question is why did the right-wing governments do nothing?

And by the way, many people on the right are poor; they votes conservative to keep the government small and out of their lives.

As I said, government is a two-edged sword. It can support abuse of power. If your major experience of government is the policeman taking bribes from local drug lords while evicting you from your apartment and getting no help from the welfare office, why would you support giving the government more power?

So the point is not whether you have more or less government, but whether you have good or bad government. People like good government programs and fight to keep them.

Are not we supposed to respect authority? Did you not respect your parents? Do you not do what your boss asks you to do at work? Do you not show respect to a policeman or a house owner? I'm sure that you do.

We are supposed to respect every single human being, for each and every one is an image of God. Every single person, including the beggar, the prostitute, the drug addict, the hungry child, the homeless teenager, the disabled alcoholic, every single one is Christ seeking our love, compassion and respect. Every one is to be treated with dignity and reverence as if he or she were Christ himself.

Respect should not be limited to your list.

Perhaps there is less incentive and I think that we don't have the crime rate that the US has (according to some but not all statisticians) because we have more welfare. But, don't we still have the same problems? Don't we still have the same attitudes? And what would ever have given me the right to steal even though I was in a shelter eating bread from a food bank day in and day out?

I believe I was speaking about removing incentive to steal, not about giving anyone a right to steal.

The problem is this – the left always looks only at one side. What if my employer raises his wages but the landlord doesn't raise his rent?

That’s easy. You are better off, right? Maybe well enough off to get a better apartment.

But go back to the original question.
You are not well off. You are living in the cheapest digs you can find commercially. Your job currently covers your rent and a few basic needs. Then the landlord raises your rent. You ask for a raise and your employer refuses. Can’t afford it.

Now what do you do?

I agree with you on this but cannot I and others be allowed to do this even if it means the streets and being poor?

I certainly don’t know of anyone standing in your way. That was the situation Jesus and his disciples lived in. And the practice of voluntary poverty is an ancient and honorable Christian tradition.

I have great admiration for people like the Catholic Workers and the Mennonites and intentional Christian communities, like Sojourners in Washington DC and the Simple Way in Philadelphia who choose to live among the poor as poor themselves. I try myself to live simply (and financially I must live fairly simply) and to support such communities. (We have two in my own neighbourhood.)

But choosing to live in poverty, like St. Francis, is a totally different matter than having a government which rules in such a way as to compel many families and individuals to live in poverty without any choice.

You have a point here and yes, we need to go after the rich, but how can we justifiably tell a rich man to not cheat on his taxes when we are on welfare and taking the taxes he has already paid for ourselves as a free gift? He won't accept that.

Taking welfare when needed is not cheating anyone. Cheating on taxes (or on welfare) is wrong and there is every justification for telling the rich man as well as the poor man that it is wrong to cheat. Tax fraud is just as illegal as welfare fraud and rightly so. What difference does it make that one is rich and the other poor? How does that excuse cheating? Doesn’t it make it even worse, since he has no spur of need to offer as an excuse?

Who cares whether he accepts it or not. He is in the wrong. The honest welfare recipient is not.

Christians should not support this in the polls (though many poor, right-winged Christians vote the way they do to keep the government small and freedom of religion around) but we shouldn't be borrowing that money either. I cannot sin against my boss at work and then go to him and tell him to treat me properly according to God's laws.

Sometimes people need to borrow. In the agricultural society of ancient Israel (and this is still true of farming generally), when the harvest was poor and food and new seed had to be purchased, a poor farmer had to borrow in the hopes that next year’s harvest would be more than sufficient both to feed his family and pay his debt. What would you have him do? Watch his children starve?

In our society, typically, one needs to borrow to buy a home or start a business. There is nothing wrong with this. A house is a safeguard against future need; it usually increases in value and can be sold at a profit, becoming the capital for retirement income. (That is what I currently live on.) And if a business succeeds, the profits will pay off the loan.

Prudent borrowing is ---well—prudent. It is a sound business practice whether the borrower is an individual, a business or a government. It is far from being a sin.

True, if you are personally sinning against your boss, you have no leg to stand on. But that doesn’t mean your boss cannot be required by law to treat you properly. One wrong does not justify another. (And I note that you are using this argument repeatedly.) If he finds out that you are cheating him, he can take you to court.

Remember the difference between a personal situation and a social situation. The law applies to all employers’ treatment of all employees, both the honest and dishonest employees. You are trying to justify the ill-treatment of all employees by all employers because your personal sin give you no right to accuse one employer—yours. Why should your personal sin against one employer be a justification for depriving all employees of just treatment at the hands of other employers?

People on the right say the exact same things about the left. All of this welfare help given to certain groups by the left because these groups are apparently at a disadvantage is seen as racism by the right.

Yes, because they identify certain racial groups as “the poor”. Say “poor “ and in their heads they think “Black, Indian, Chinese, Mexican” etc.

So poor-bashing and racism go hand in hand.
Never mind that the majority of the poor are not visible minorities or immigrants but home-grown white Americans (or Canadians).

When I was poor and basically I still am, I never stopped loving the right or being right-winged because I saw it as a much more just way.

I can understand you feel that way, and many do. But I don’t understand how you manage it. I see very little in ideas from the right that match the biblical vision of social justice. And much that seems to be contrary to it.

We are all part of groups. People cannot make differentiations quickly. They cannot have a 20-question interview with everyone they meet. [snip] If people in shelters don't want to be judged, then they need to prove they exhibit good behaviour. Those people shopping in the mall have rights also. They have rights to shop in peace and without danger.

Well, since people make snap judgments based on appearance, an unshaven, unkempt person doesn’t really have an opportunity to exhibit good behaviour, do they?

Better that we improve people’s situations so that they don’t need to live in shelters, can afford to shave and wash, and do laundry. Then they would have a chance of going to a mall without scaring the regular shoppers.

 

[gluadys]

You've said several things here. When you talk about Unregulated Capitalism, what is it that you are getting at? I view socialism as the main evil of the world but you speak of capitalism. I am trying to understand the motives of someone who is left-winged and wants to help the poor. Is there anything that I have in common with such a person? What can I learn from the other side of the spectrum? The example of the church is a true example. Who would have thought that churches in Canada now have to watch out for social workers?

You know, there is a story I often hear from clergy who engage in conversations with atheists. The clergy person asks the atheist: describe the God you don't believe in. The atheist does. The clergy person then says: Hey! I don't believe in that God either. May I tell you about the God I do believe in?

So, in order for you to understand why many Christians support socialism, perhaps we should begin with why you think socialism is the main evil of the world.

Describe this evil socialism and what makes it evil.

I'll bet dollars to donuts you are not describing socialism as I understand it.

So to understand me, you have to look not at the great evil you see in your socialism, but at the basics of socialism as I see it.

 

[rambot]

The same applies to housing. For example, I recently saw the cost of the following shelter options (all government funded):
To provide a bed in a shelter: $69 per day
To keep a person in prison: $143 per day
To keep a person in a psychiatric ward: $665 per day
To provide a person with social housing: $25-31 per day
(Toronto figures)

I just want to note the psychiatric wards are NOT something that should be dismissed as "too expensive". There are people in our society that require that kind of support.

 

[mzungu]

FtcdatSAPoD

Is it wrong to love one's country? I never thought so until now. Don't you love your country and would bear any sacrifice for your country?​

What good is it to save a country while allowing its people to die?

​

 

[gluadys]

I just want to note the psychiatric wards are NOT something that should be dismissed as "too expensive". There are people in our society that require that kind of support.

I agree. Where they are needed, they are needed.
Prisons and shelters are sometimes needed too, in spite of their cost.

The comparison was not intended to suggest otherwise, but only to show how inexpensive it would be to provide every homeless person a decent home vs. the alternatives we do fund.

I think you would agree as well, that homelessness can aggravate psychiatric problems while having a stable living situation goes a long way toward facilitating successful psychiatric treatment.

Another facet of making sure people are decently housed is that the level of social violence goes down, so communities are safer.

So people concerned about public debt and public safety are the very people who should be promoting provision of basic needs for everyone. Quite apart from simple humanity, it is also the least expensive option and reduces the need for the more costly alternatives.

 

[FtcdatSAPoD]

I just want to note the psychiatric wards are NOT something that should be dismissed as "too expensive". There are people in our society that require that kind of support.

I would agree with this. Many feel that this argument that psychiatric wards were too expensive was simply false and that the real purpose of opening the doors of these wards was to create more chaos in society and increase the budget of the police force and social services. I have spoken with many a security guard, for example, who has said that they wouldn't be needed if many of these street people were confined to specific areas. They cause trouble (and often cannot help it) wherever they go.

The comparison was not intended to suggest otherwise, but only to show how inexpensive it would be to provide every homeless person a decent home vs. the alternatives we do fund.

Totally agree.

I think you would agree as well, that homelessness can aggravate psychiatric problems while having a stable living situation goes a long way toward facilitating successful psychiatric treatment.

For sure. Shelters, for example, are dangerous places which can cause unstability.

Another facet of making sure people are decently housed is that the level of social violence goes down, so communities are safer.

Yes.

So people concerned about public debt and public safety are the very people who should be promoting provision of basic needs for everyone.

Basic needs are food, clothing and shelter - not a healthy allowance to go out and indulge in addictions. Everytime the right promotes the basics the left cries fowl and says that there is no quality of life!

Quite apart from simple humanity, it is also the least expensive option and reduces the need for the more costly alternatives.

There must be a big misunderstanding here. Isn't it the right (not the left) who are promoting psychiatric wards and containment and prisons etc. To those of us on the right, the left is always trying to create bigger budgets and push homelessness into our faces and to close down all the psyche wards and put the public in danger etc. Maybe we should also make a differentiation between a conservative government and decisions made on a lower level. A conservative government might want to stop abortion and same-sex marriage but bureaucracy in general will be pushing these things on to the public. I've heard that our Prime Minister has his hands tied in many a situation. We on the right want less public debt and more public safety so we want more wards and prisons and less welfare. I remember a case recently where a Tim Horton's refused to serve a street person and wanted this person off the premises because they knew the person was dangerous. We on the right blamed the bleeding-heart liberals in the press for slamming this decision but what else was the Tim Horton's supposed to do? They have experience with these people all the time while the liberal journalist who lives his/her life in safety in a suburb somewhere doesn't have any personal dealings with this person. A property management guy told me once that the bleeding-heart liberals on BIA committees are always trying to make everyone accept the homeless with open arms with no regard to public safety.

 

[FtcdatSAPoD]

What good is it to save a country while allowing its people to die?

[/indent]

What do you mean here? When I love my country by making small sacrifices for it, am I supposed think twice about these sacrifices because people are dieing as a result of this countries' decisions? So if I use and abuse the countries resources that gives me more credibility in offering solutions? Is this what you are saying?

 

[mzungu]

What do you mean here? When I love my country by making small sacrifices for it, am I supposed think twice about these sacrifices because people are dieing as a result of this countries' decisions? So if I use and abuse the countries resources that gives me more credibility in offering solutions? Is this what you are saying?

A country is nothing without its people and a country is not a country when it cares not for its people. Anyone who thinks that the few are above the many is fooled!

If by saving a country one means to balance the books and by doing so creating more unemployment, hardship, poverty, and destitution for the people then I can say to you go save something else.

 

[FtcdatSAPoD]

I do love my country and that is why I am in pain for my country today. The current government is destroying the country I was always so proud of.

Can I just tell you of an impression those on the right have? Many of us on the right won't take government jobs because we feel that they are a waste of tax-payer money. We don't make use of every social assistance benefit in sight just to get ahead in life. We often work at jobs that are hanging on a thin thread. We don't mind this but as we go to work and trudge along in life, we then have to endure another slap in the face. Anti-poverty activists, those on welfare with nothing to do all day and those in comfortable government jobs with time on their hands and those in unions who give them the day off – all of these people swarm the streets every so often on behalf of anti-poverty issues “because they care” about their country. We, on the other hand, cannot afford to do this because we have to work (every day counts for us and many of us have no sick days to take off, no vacations we can take, no RRSP's we are saving up etc.). Our opponents cannot afford to not do what they do because their money will dry up if they don't protest. Governments often judge a protest on numbers. When thousands turn up for an anti-poverty protests but on a few for a conservative rally (because most of these people must work all day and week and year and for a lifetime) it angers us because not only do we refuse to accept all of this free money but those who accept that money are free to protest for more money and become politically active in ways we can only dream about. (And then to add insult to injury, many on welfare slam conservative men who sacrifice enough [really sacrifice with no coffees, little meat etc.] to be able to allow their women to stay at home and take care of family needs.)

while depriving refugees of health care.

Two stories at this point. On my last job I was told (by a foreign-born Canadian) that we could not get medical benefits because the immigrants working for the company would use those benefits to send prescriptions back home. A friend told me one time that in the restaurant he worked in Muslim (whom I had met and trusted) told him that all of the other Muslims in the restaurant had claimed refugee status to get into Canada only to revert back to Islam once they were accepted as refugees.

To submit to these is like sacrificing to Moloch.

Yet over 60,000 babies are really being killed per year in Canada.

a country that did not censor scientific knowledge or arrest thousands of peaceful demonstrators in the streets of Toronto.

When?

Yes, small businesses do need help and their viability has long been an NDP priority. Small, undercapitalized businesses, like poor people, also suffer from oppression and exploitation by global capital that comes in and undercuts their prices and ability to serve a market.

This is not personal but now I know we are reading in two different languages. Please believe me when I say that most if not all small business owners consider the NDP/left as the very enemy of small business. I have rarely met a small business owner who didn't want to break nails with his teeth he was so angry at the left for their insane policies and practices.

I said he under-priced his goods. He is selling them at less than it costs him to make them. For the purpose of driving you out of business. He is undercutting your right to make a fair profit on your goods.

If a competitor is under-pricing goods this means he has money saved up and can afford to do this. Firstly, I can do the same thing by saving up money. Secondly, he might go under by not making a profit. Thirdly, life is not about immediate gain. It is about long-term strategies in building communities and living wisely. I may live under the poverty line now but if I live right, in twenty or thirty years I might be able to live above it. Why do I need everything right here and right now?

Underselling your labour infringes on the rights of other labourers to a fair wage in the same way.

Again, I simply had no right nor the foolishness to demand a wage that would allow me to live like a king while the business owner was living like a pauper.

If your employer can’t pay full-time, then let him hire you part-time—for as much time as he can afford. Then you can also work for another employer who can’t afford full-time help as well and so help both of them and yourself.

I care about the people around me and I now that some of the people I have worked for were on the verge of going under despite all of their efforts. It was hard not to work for these hard-working Canadians who wanted to keep business alive here in Canada – to work for them for free because their state was so pitiable. These people considered the government their main enemy and they told me so themselves.

Now, if you want to take pity on your current employer by putting in volunteer hours over and above paid hours, of course, that is up to you. But what does illegally accepting less than minimum wage do other than encourage employers to break the law and depress wages for everyone?

Firstly, many of these employers are employing family members for free who in turn reap the benefit of profit when the business, as a result of their sacrifice, turns a profit in the future. Secondly, I do consider other Canadians not part of my immediate family to be akin to my brothers and sisters. Thirdly, many of these employers do make sacrifices when they can for their employees as reciprocation. I've had employers offer me their vehicles for use. I've had employers give me food and clothing. You have to remember that many people live lives totally apart from government intervention and standards and thought. The government wants to tax everything and know about everything and equalize everything. Now we are supposed to include someone's help with a move as income on our taxes. If someone baby-sits her grandchildren for free, the children's parents are supposed include that as income. This is sheer craziness. This is none of the governments business!

No they don’t. That is a responsibility and a duty, not a right.

Then tell that to the welfare recipient their responsibility and duty is to WORK because no one is telling them that at the moment.

They have the right to receive the due reward of their labours,
and the responsibility to share it with others.

Again, though, we have thousands of government employees living high off the hog. Most people in private enterprise make half or less of what government employees make. Yet it is these gov't employees who preach to the rest of us that we have a responsibility to share our wealth with them. Not only do they not labour (and I've been told by former gov't employees that gov't employees do not labour), they don't share the money they get.

They also have the responsibility to pay dues and taxes.
And tax-supported social programs is one way to discharge one’s responsibility to share with those in need.

Firstly, though, true responsibility for one's fellow man is truly discharged in true community and always has been. If people don't want to be part of true communities and instead want to live lives of unaccountability outside of these communities that is their problem. Like I said before, in true communities, if someone plants a garden and the crop fails, that person gets help from everyone around them. If someone doesn't even plant a garden because of their own laziness, they won't get help. Immigrants tell me all the time that in the countries they came from, if someone was an alcoholic, they still had to go to work the next day and be a part of community. That's life. Don't feel sorry for such people.

The public sector unions...Rae days.)

Thanks for explaining this. Appreciate it. Many businesses find unions difficult to deal with and any sign of cooperation from a union is good.

But as a government, there are many ways to prevent the abuse of power.

But what about the high wages of government employees in the social services and of unions? Isn't this shameful?

If your major experience of government is the policeman taking bribes from local drug lords while evicting you from your apartment and getting no help from the welfare office, why would you support giving the government more power?

My experience with the government is government employee after government employee being vastly overpaid for jobs that would have a quarter of the salary in the private sector.

We are supposed to respect every single human being, for each and every one is an image of God. Every single person, including the beggar, the prostitute, the drug addict, the hungry child, the homeless teenager, the disabled alcoholic, every single one is Christ seeking our love, compassion and respect. Every one is to be treated with dignity and reverence as if he or she were Christ himself.
Respect should not be limited to your list.

Proverbs 19:29 says, “Judgments are prepared for scoffers, And blows for the back of fools.” Jesus told the adulterous woman to go and sin no more. Are you doing that to welfare recipients? You can't take one scripture only.

 

[FtcdatSAPoD]

con't

But go back to the original question.
You are not well off. You are living in the cheapest digs you can find commercially. Your job currently covers your rent and a few basic needs. Then the landlord raises your rent. You ask for a raise and your employer refuses. Can’t afford it.
Now what do you do?

Job 2:10 says, "But he said to her, "You speak as one of the foolish women speaks. Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?" In all this Job did not sin with his lips."

But choosing to live in poverty, like St. Francis, is a totally different matter than having a government which rules in such a way as to compel many families and individuals to live in poverty without any choice.

But when Jesus said we would always have the poor with us, He was talking about sin in our lives and what sin does to us. We cannot eliminate poverty nor should we be like that poverty-activist, Judas, who was the biggest theft of the public purse among Jesus' disciples. As well, many right-winged people who live under the poverty-line and never have steak and rarely see the outside of their city or community refuse to be victims even the left says they don't have quality of life.

Who cares whether he accepts it or not. He is in the wrong. The honest welfare recipient is not.

But tell me, how many welfare recipients do not also have family whom they could turn to? Are they really in need? Few of them are. They are simply making use of the system for themselves. When I had Chronic Fatigue, I insisted on living at home but still, those in the gov't around me kept asking what gov't program I was on. Didn't they realize I was living at home?

Sometimes people need to borrow.

In the community I grew up in, the local store would give groceries on credit to the farmers in the depression so that they could pay back when they sold their crops. Why don't you let the business community decide when this should happen. Governments are not businesses. Governments don't make money. They shouldn't be involved in business decisions.

Remember the difference between a personal situation and a social situation. The law applies to all employers’ treatment of all employees, both the honest and dishonest employees. You are trying to justify the ill-treatment of all employees by all employers because your personal sin give you no right to accuse one employer—yours. Why should your personal sin against one employer be a justification for depriving all employees of just treatment at the hands of other employers?

Again, there are so many good things that happen in private enterprise that go unreported that it would take books and books to report. The left always talks about these boogeymen of discrimination and abuse and says we must have laws to keep these things from happening. These things don't happen. Many, many people are good people who are good not because the government says they must be good but because they understand community. There are two worlds that exist. The world of the government is different from the world of real life. People who work in the government and surround themselves with the government do not understand or even want to understand what life is like in the unregulated world of the real life and business. They actually get scared thinking about it. They think that thousands of people are dying of starvation and abuse in real life.Whatever.

Yes, because they identify certain racial groups as “the poor”. Say “poor “ and in their heads they think “Black, Indian, Chinese, Mexican” etc.
Tell the left to quit focusing on the poor blacks or the poor Indians or whatever group they say is poor.
So poor-bashing and racism go hand in hand.

Many right-winged people of all groups blame leftist ideology and people of the left for the interference their groups are experiencing. It's the left who says this group is poor and that group is poor and we need to equalize everything. Rhubbish. Every group has their own advantages/disadvantages. They need to face themselves honestly and then by their own actions and activity see their lot improve by themselves. But the left won't allow it. The left will always move in to their own advantage and budget increase and make sure they exploit the situation. For example, so what if I cannot afford a car. Maybe in the future I will but that is my business not the business of some poverty activitist who wants to conclude I don't have quality of life!

I can understand you feel that way, and many do. But I don’t understand how you manage it.

I look at the situation long-term and not the immediate gratification of my needs.

I see very little in ideas from the right that match the biblical vision of social justice. And much that seems to be contrary to it.

There is much teaching and many examples of how God, in His justice, brings people to poverty to draw them to Himself and to teach them what He wants them to learn. My own poverty, while probably brought on more to do with outward circumstances than my own behaviour, has had to be accepted as part of my experience with God for my good.

Well, since people make snap judgments based on appearance, an unshaven, unkempt person doesn’t really have an opportunity to exhibit good behaviour, do they?

When do we rise above our feelings and do what is good for the greater good? Do we always have to be so sensitive?

Better that we improve people’s situations so that they don’t need to live in shelters, can afford to shave and wash, and do laundry. Then they would have a chance of going to a mall without scaring the regular shoppers.

Where is the thankfulness? When I was in the shelter lying on a mat and having a full stomach (even if it was only bread) and with at least a blanket over me (even if it wasn't totally clean and smelling like squeezed lemon) and it was raining and pouring and cold out, at that point I had just as much to be thankful for than anyone I knew. But anyone who entered the shelter on behalf of social services would never have told us that. Those people simply wanted us to be victims and sadly most people in the shelter believed them.

 

[mzungu]

 

[rambot]

I agree. Where they are needed, they are needed.
Prisons and shelters are sometimes needed too, in spite of their cost.

The comparison was not intended to suggest otherwise, but only to show how inexpensive it would be to provide every homeless person a decent home vs. the alternatives we do fund.

Fair enough... for the most part.

I think you would agree as well, that homelessness can aggravate psychiatric problems while having a stable living situation goes a long way toward facilitating successful psychiatric treatment.

I'd agree that it COULD but I think more often, it is true that mental illness causes an inability to maintain a dwelling and maintain stability. It really depends on where the individual is in terms of their balance between addictions, mental health and capacity for change.

Another facet of making sure people are decently housed is that the level of social violence goes down, so communities are safer.

True...generally very true.

So people concerned about public debt and public safety are the very people who should be promoting provision of basic needs for everyone. Quite apart from simple humanity, it is also the least expensive option and reduces the need for the more costly alternatives.

I would only disagree that I think EVERYONE should be interested in promoting basic needs for everyone. Sadly, some people see that as them having to sacrifice something themselves in that tradeoff.

 

[gluadys]

I would agree with this. Many feel that this argument that psychiatric wards were too expensive was simply false and that the real purpose of opening the doors of these wards was to create more chaos in society and increase the budget of the police force and social services. I have spoken with many a security guard, for example, who has said that they wouldn't be needed if many of these street people were confined to specific areas. They cause trouble (and often cannot help it) wherever they go.

I don't know about "confining" them. But certainly de-institutionalizing them with no provision for community supports was a big mistake.

There are simple, and not too expensive ways to house those who could be psychiatric outpatients. Group homes where people get training in life skills, supervision so that they take their medications, and are provided with decent meals--these are not difficult to create. And it is certainly better than leaving them to their own resources in run-down boarding rooms as happened in the neighbourhood I live in.

Totally agree.

For sure. Shelters, for example, are dangerous places which can cause unstability.


Yes.

See, we are not so far apart in our values after all. Maybe we just label them differently.

Basic needs are food, clothing and shelter - not a healthy allowance to go out and indulge in addictions.

Currently, in Ontario, social assistance payments don't even cover food, clothing and shelter. And what about toiletries (e.g. shampoo, toilet paper), a telephone and transportation? I would consider those basic needs as well, especially if one is looking for work. Also household cleaning supplies. How is one supposed to keep one’s clothes clean if one can’t afford a box of detergent?

You might like to try this interactive questionnaire to compare what you think people on assistance should have with what they actually get in Ontario.

Do The Math! Hosted by The Stop Community Food Centre

Everytime the right promotes the basics the left cries fowl and says that there is no quality of life!

Well, if we can at least agree on the basics, we are getting somewhere. Current minimum wages don't cover even the basics and social assistance is well below that.

There must be a big misunderstanding here. Isn't it the right (not the left) who are promoting psychiatric wards and containment and prisons etc.

You bet they are. Yet they are also the ones who demand lower taxes. So why don't they support less expensive options than prisons and psychiatric wards?

Doesn't make sense, does it? Choosing the expensive way and at the same time reducing government revenue is a surefire recipe for running up deficits and increasing the public debt—which they also claim to be concerned about. That’s why right-wing fiscal thinking seems so screwy to me. It’s so self-contradictory. If you want to keep taxes low and public debt low, then the least expensive program is the one to go with--and that is affordable (geared-to-income) housing for all who need it.

To those of us on the right, the left is always trying to create bigger budgets

Well, that is a misconception. The left would spend more money than right-wing governments do on social programs, but they would also spend less money on other things (like $16 glasses of orange juice or vacation jaunts for cabinet ministers in military aircraft, not to mention extravagant pensions for former MPs).

So overall a budget based on left-leaning policies doesn't have to be any bigger. Also, since much left-leaning policy is to spend money preventatively (making sure children always have adequate nutrition, for example--whatever the state of their parents' finances), there are many potential savings in other segments of the budget such as health care.

You might start looking at the Alternative Budgets prepared by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. The national office prepares a federal budget and there are several provincial offices that prepare budgets for their home provinces. They are well-vetted by competent economists. As you will see they compare quite favorably with the actual budgets of the governments concerned.

Find Publications - Results | Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

We on the right want less public debt and more public safety

I would say you are more likely to get both if you support the social policies of the left.

 

[gluadys]

Fair enough... for the most part.
I'd agree that it COULD but I think more often, it is true that mental illness causes an inability to maintain a dwelling and maintain stability. It really depends on where the individual is in terms of their balance between addictions, mental health and capacity for change.

I remember a 30-year old study done in New York City about people with multiple handicaps: e.g. a homeless person who is also a schizophrenic and an alcoholic.

The study wanted to determine what was the most effective way to deal with such a situation. Some felt, as you imply, that one had to deal with addictions and mental health before a person would be ready to live in a home of their own. Others contended that placing a person in secure housing was the best foundation for dealing with all their problems.

So they followed a number of NYC social assistance cases in which some got the first treatment and some the second. What they found after 18 months is that people who went from addiction-recovery programs back into a homeless situation quickly returned to their addictions. But people who had a secure home base did better on all other aspects of their problems as well.

Sorry, I don't have the references at hand. That was before computer days and I have long ago lost the hard copy of the report. I expect if you look around you may find similar research on-line.

Obviously, too, people with such problems should not be simply abandoned in a home as if that were a cure in itself. Having a home base is only one aspect of a complete treatment program. But it is one that enhances the success of the other aspects of treatment.

I would only disagree that I think EVERYONE should be interested in promoting basic needs for everyone.

Totally agree.

 

[gluadys]

Can I just tell you of an impression those on the right have? Many of us on the right won't take government jobs because we feel that they are a waste of tax-payer money.

Some are. Some aren't. I expect you appreciate having garbage picked up, having sidewalks swept, having mail delivered and a thousand other government jobs--especially a police force.

We don't make use of every social assistance benefit in sight just to get ahead in life.

Social assistance doesn't help anyone get ahead. Often it is an obstacle to getting ahead. Did you read those cases I posted? Those are all ones I have personal knowledge of.

Here is another.

Young woman, recently divorced, two children, husband not paying child support. Her only family, her own mother whose income is a disability allowance.

Young woman wants to get ahead. She would like to get into the hospitality industry. So she enrols in a course on hotel management. Consequence: she is kicked off of welfare.

But, doesn't welfare want people on social assistance to be improving their skills? Well, yes, sort of. But you can only take courses offered by community services. And what courses are offered by community services? Data entry and child care. Both jobs that pay minimum wage and seldom include benefits. And provide virtually no means of advancement.

This is another young woman with gumption: with her mother's approval she moved in with her mother to save on rent payments (overcrowding her mother's apartment) and stayed with the hotel management course. I lost track of her after that and don't know the final outcome.

We, on the other hand, cannot afford to do this because we have to work (every day counts for us and many of us have no sick days to take off, no vacations we can take, no RRSP's we are saving up etc.).

We know that. That is oppression. That is denying you both your legal right to time off and your God-given right to a sabbath rest.

That is why anti-poverty activists are out there fighting for your rights.

You may not be able to jeopardize your job by participating, but you could at least be grateful and wish them success. Then you would not have to drudge your whole life away in work.

You should be able to work so that you can live well, not live merely to work yourself to death. As Jesus said "The sabbath was made for man....". You deserve it, you need it. God made you to have a time of rest, refreshment and spiritual renewal, and the capitalist system is taking it away from you.

(And then to add insult to injury, many on welfare slam conservative men who sacrifice enough [really sacrifice with no coffees, little meat etc.] to be able to allow their women to stay at home and take care of family needs.)

More oppression. There was a time when 5-6 days of 8 hours work paid enough that it was not a sacrifice to keep one parent home with the children. It still should not be a sacrifice. I believe every household that wishes to--including single-parent households--should be able to keep one parent at home with the children without it being a financial burden.

And tell me, if the right is really so into family values that it applauds those who sacrifice to keep a parent at home, why do they demand that single parents be subjected to workfare--required to seek jobs outside the home? You would think that caring for children is not work!!!

That is another crazy contradiction of right-wing thinking I can't get my head around.

Here is another irony for you. The very first welfare program in Ontario was instituted back in 1912. It was Mother's Allowance. The purpose was to allow single women (whether widowed, divorced, deserted or never married) to be able to stay at home and tend to their children. Women without a partner to support them and without a family (as many were immigrants) to help them were turning their children over to the state-run orphanages, giving up their parental rights, so someone would be caring for them while they themselves sought employment. The government figured (correctly) that it would save money to have the children cared for in their own homes by their own mothers instead of being wards of the state reared in expensive institutions.

Now, even the so-called Family Values crowd expects mothers of 3-year-olds to get out and work to "earn" their welfare allowance. What a turn-around. And what is the justification for it?

(fyi, I remained at home with our children for 12 years on a very low income and for another 6 years only worked part-time.)

Two stories at this point. On my last job I was told (by a foreign-born Canadian) that we could not get medical benefits because the immigrants working for the company would use those benefits to send prescriptions back home.

I expect your informant was either lying or misinformed himself. That company is screwing their employees if they are using that as an excuse to deny medical benefits. More oppression.

A friend told me one time that in the restaurant he worked in Muslim (whom I had met and trusted) told him that all of the other Muslims in the restaurant had claimed refugee status to get into Canada only to revert back to Islam once they were accepted as refugees.

Well, I know that person is misinformed as no Muslim has to pretend not to be a Muslim to claim or receive refugee status in the first place. Canada is not off-limits to Muslim refugees. That would violate the Charter of Rights.

Yet over 60,000 babies are really being killed per year in Canada.

Unfortunately yes, but the abortion rate in Canada is relatively low and declining. And at least abortions in Canada only kill the fetus not the fetus and the mother both.

When?

June 26-27, 2010. 1100 mostly innocent civilians arrested (a good number of them not even participants in the demonstrations). That is nearly double the number arrested in Montreal under the War Measures Act at the height of the separatist movement when Pierre Laporte was kidnapped and murdered. And there was nowhere near that level of threat or provocation in this case.

Please believe me when I say that most if not all small business owners consider the NDP/left as the very enemy of small business.

You might ask your local NDP riding association to introduce you to the local business people who support them. I expect that if you are in Alberta, they would be few and far between. But they exist and in my part of the country, there are more than a few.

If a competitor is under-pricing goods this means he has money saved up and can afford to do this. Firstly, I can do the same thing by saving up money.

No you can't. You don't have time. He is already underpricing you and you can't meet his prices and save money while you are losing it.

You really think this is a fair business practice? Internationally, it is illegal. It is called "dumping". And even the WTO will allow one nation to retaliate against another which is dumping goods below cost on their markets. I think it may be illegal under domestic laws as well. In any case it is morally reprehensible.

Why do I need everything right here and right now?

You don't. But whether it is goods, services or labour, underpricing the product is unfair to your sisters and brothers who need a fair return on their work. That is why it is morally wrong of you to accept less than the legal minimum wage, no matter how poor your employer is.

Genuine conservatism of the Adam Smith sort didn't call for ruining your neighbour's prospects in order to boost your own. Still less does it call for ruining your neighbour's prospects without even benefiting yourself.

Again, I simply had no right nor the foolishness to demand a wage that would allow me to live like a king while the business owner was living like a pauper.

Who said anything about you living like a king? Minimum wage is what you are entitled to and you can't live like a king on that.

I care about the people around me

Then stop cheating on them by acting in a way that encourages employers to break the law and robs people of decent wages.

These people considered the government their main enemy and they told me so themselves.

Big surprise!!! Yes, those who break the law generally consider those who enforce it their enemy.

Firstly, many of these employers are employing family members for free who in turn reap the benefit of profit when the business, as a result of their sacrifice, turns a profit in the future.

So, they are exploiting their own family too. I hope all those family members are 18 or over. Child labour, even by your own children, is also illegal--even when you pay for it. Child labour without pay is grounds for calling in the Children's Aid.

Thirdly, many of these employers do make sacrifices when they can for their employees as reciprocation. I've had employers offer me their vehicles for use. I've had employers give me food and clothing. You have to remember that many people live lives totally apart from government intervention and standards and thought.

These are personal matters, personal interactions between you and employers you also consider to be friends.

But you can't base the legal framework on such interpersonal relationships. Especially in larger enterprises where employers have few personal contacts with those who work for them.

Yes, it is nice when you can live just within your community and not have to turn to an outside source for help. But that is not an option for everyone.

The government wants to tax everything and know about everything and equalize everything. Now we are supposed to include someone's help with a move as income on our taxes. If someone baby-sits her grandchildren for free, the children's parents are supposed include that as income. This is sheer craziness. This is none of the governments business!

See, you object to that. So did those welfare mums I wrote about last time. If it is wrong to include it as income for tax purposes, it should be wrong to include it as income for welfare purposes as well, don't you agree?

Then tell that to the welfare recipient their responsibility and duty is to WORK because no one is telling them that at the moment.

Maybe that is because the majority of able-bodied welfare recipients ARE ALREADY WORKING. And they being told that, because if you are able to work and you are on welfare, you have to show that you are conducting a job search, same as when you are on EI.

Most people on welfare who are not working can't work. They have mental problems, health problems, outmoded skills, inadequate education or training, etc. Many women who want to work and could work, are blocked by non-existent child care. And nearly half of the people on welfare are children.

Most people in private enterprise make half or less of what government employees make.

What's your documentation for that? Are you really including all government employees right down to the janitors and night watchmen? or just the heads of government agencies who get 6-figure salaries?

One thing about the public service is that it is well served by unions.
People in private enterprise also did well when unions were stronger.
They could again.

Of course, not if people like you keep undercutting their gains by working under the table and depressing wages.

Firstly, though, true responsibility for one's fellow man is truly discharged in true community and always has been.

Then it is important to make the government an expression of the community instead of the lackey of the giant corporations and financial institutions.

That is what democracy offers us if we will use our power to reclaim a government that is truly of the people, by the people, for the people.

If people don't want to be part of true communities and instead want to live lives of unaccountability outside of these communities that is their problem. Like I said before, in true communities, if someone plants a garden and the crop fails, that person gets help from everyone around them. If someone doesn't even plant a garden because of their own laziness, they won't get help.

And as I said before, if the community was really following Christian teaching, he should be helped, for God does not command retaliation but teaches us to love all our neighbours. A genuine community would act to bring that person into the community, not reject him.

But what about the high wages of government employees in the social services and of unions? Isn't this shameful?

No, you being underpaid, and helping to drive wages down is what is shameful. Unions help bring the benefits of a successful company (whose success is owed as much or more to the workers as to the investors) to those workers. They help assure that the distribution of a company's success is not all sucked up by those on top with none going to those who laboured for it and have a right to it.

My experience with the government is government employee after government employee being vastly overpaid for jobs that would have a quarter of the salary in the private sector.

Then we need more and stronger unions in the private sector.

When we had strong unions the average CEO had an income 8-10 times what the lowest-paid worker earned. Now the average CEO has an income over 300 times what the lowest-paid worker earns. Do today's CEOs put in that much more work than their grandfathers did? I doubt it.

I expect that even the workaholics only put in about 65-75 hours a week just like their grandaddies did.

So why should their income go up so much while the common labourer's does not?

Proverbs 19:29 says, “Judgments are prepared for scoffers, And blows for the back of fools.” Jesus told the adulterous woman to go and sin no more. Are you doing that to welfare recipients? You can't take one scripture only.

Oh, I have lots more than one scripture and all much more relevant.

Your citation is about scoffers, fools and an adultress.
Nothing there about being poor.

 

[mzungu]

The problem with the right is that they care for the profits of large corporations, they care for the bonuses of the Golden boys, they care for the profits of the arms industries and they couldn't care less for the people. If they had their way then public schools would be abolished. National health care too. Everything would be privately owned and anyone who is poor, handicapped, destitute, unemployed, etc. would be considered garbage and not fit for society.

The only thing the right cares about is money! Look at what they have done to farming by having the supermarkets dictate to the farmer, the specifications of the produce; This has resulted in perfectly good food being thrown away or left rotting in the fields. The private arms industry has been having a field day with the taxpayers money. The financial sector has created nothing while reaping huge amounts in profits and bonuses for its golden boys.

¡No pasarán!
​

 

[FtcdatSAPoD]

Public schools.
National Health Care.
Public highways.
Public care for senior citizens.

In the last 20 years, I have only obtained one certificate from a public institution and the all other schooling has been purposefully from private schools. I can't stand public schools.

In the last 20 years, I have reimbursed the government through private contributions back to hospitals etc. for all medical visits and expenses incurred.

I will be giving the senior pensions cheque I will receive in the future to the government bank account that is meant to pay off our government debt.

I consider public highways and transit to be part of infrastructure and not necessarily having to do with moral issues. Schooling and medical issues are moral issues in almost every sense of the word. I pay faithfully for a transit pass and if it is stolen, I buy another one.

 

[FtcdatSAPoD]

But you still went to churches.

What amazed me was that I was getting sympathy and help from others. There is a general empathy among most men for those who are truly in need.

As a church, we need a welfare system to be there for them, to do what we, as a parish, cannot do.

We need the church, but we also need our families and many of these people have families who can help them. We also need jobs. We need businessmen and all other aspects of society. I meet these mentally ill people on welfare who are functioning at a much higher level than I did when I was on the streets and had CFS and such brain fog that I couldn't even make a budget or barely count money. I really, really wonder how some of these people qualify.

Social workers don’t have the right to set a condition of not smoking. They can advise, but it would be illegal for them to withhold assistance on that condition

.
Then why are you a social worker? Isn't this against your morals to not give advice to people. I and many others would not have such a job that was against our principles. When you get before God, He won't excuse your behaviour when you say you were told to do such things as refer people to abortion clinics or accept their homosexual lifestyle. If you treat your friends and family differently and love them enough to give them advice and put boundaries on your relationships for their good, then why don't you do this for society in general? Are you doing this for the money?

But I can’t see anyone being a social worker for the money. Most of them are grossly overworked and underpaid and often unable to provide help they know is needed.

I hate to say what I am going to say but it will have to be said at some point. This reasoning is exactly why so many private sector workers want nothing at all to do with public sector workers either in family relationships or church situations or clubs or even at the supermarket. After nearly thirty years of working in private enterprise, I make just over $13.00/hr, finally have sick days (never had them before until a few months ago), it's the second job of my life with life insurance benefits, it's the first job that I've had that gave me RRSP contributions but these are paltry. I don't have job security – my job can end in two weeks. When I go to work, I have to put out 150%, lifting heavy materials, remembering many, many details, etc. If I have the same job in ten years, I'll still have to put out the same amount. Many, many private sector employees shake their head in utter disbelief at the delusion of public sector employees. They simply do not want to be around the public sector. I avoid all situations with public sector employees at all costs and I know of many others. I remember a woman who demanded her husband step down from a public sector job because he was becoming such a jerk, she was afraid she might have to leave him. As soon as he got out of the job, he was fine. I know of a town with national public sector offices in it and the private business' will basically not hire anyone who has already worked for the government because they are so rude and arrogant. I have many more stories I could tell.

You could and you did. You pride yourself on not taking welfare. You look down your nose on those who do and harbour prejudicial stereotypes about them instead of having compassion on their necessity.

Try to think of a relative who is living at a low-income level. Think of a relative that you wouldn't dare to ask money from because you know that they need the money for themselves. Ask yourself if you have any pride in your heart for not asking them for money. If you have no pride, ask yourself if you have love in your heart for them and would never do anything to hurt them. I'm sure you have the latter. If you don't relationships based on love, then at least in the area of stealing from your fellowman, you must have love for your fellowman, right? If you don't steal from your fellowman because you have pride that you don't need their money, isn't that a bit tenuous? I identify my emotions with love not with pride.

Do you not realize that addiction is a disability, an illness?

I understand addiction but I have read many stories and met people who were addicts and still say they are who don't give these people any excuses.

A community following God’s teaching would assist the drunk non-gardener on the same basis as any other neighbour. They would rebuild his house, plant his garden, offer him temporary shelter while his new home was being prepared, rally around to get him new clothing and furniture.

No, they wouldn't. And by the way, why don't those on welfare do this? I know they don't. They get welfare and demand more and more and rarely help their fellow man. I don't think this system is transforming anyone. Those men I was in the shelter with, who were already receiving so much from the government, were still dangerous men to be around. The shelter management of the shelter I was in the longest made sure that my one bag I had which had little of value in it, ended up in a locked locker because they were concerned. Low-income housing areas of a city, where people are receiving far more from the government than the rest of us, are still the most run-down and dangerous places to be in.

I'll respond more but thanks for the info on Bob Rae. And I'm sure you all do many things on your own time with your own efforts to help the poor. I've honestly had to often work 10-12 hours a day just to break even and/or study so my efforts have been limited.

 

[FtcdatSAPoD]

A community following God’s teaching would assist the drunk non-gardener on the same basis as any other neighbour. They would rebuild his house, plant his garden, offer him temporary shelter while his new home was being prepared, rally around to get him new clothing and furniture.

No, they wouldn't.

I need to explain this a bit more. I grew up in communities that still had sacrifice in them. The men of these communities were very concerned about debt. If the community didn't have money for a facility such as a hospital, the men of the community from all walks of life would work together to build such a facility or a road or whatever was needed. This happened often. The farmers and businessmen were very hard-working, never or rarely took vacations, saved for the education of their children, sacrificed very much for their wives and served their families. If someone was a full-blown alcoholic, he was pitied and often allowed to sleep in a porch or a barn and he was given compensation if he worked even an hour for someone.

If, after all of the hard and back-breaking work this farmers did day after day for their families and for their communities, anyone should have ever come into such communities and told these men that they should build such an alcoholic man a house of his own and give such a man free money and that the community should even go into debt for such a man - that person would have been committed to an institution faster than the alcoholic.

And the women and children of these men would never have called their hard-working husbands and fathers arrogant for their love of their country, families and communities. Many of my ancestors were honourable men of sacrifice who would do anything they could for those they loved and the country they loved. It is my responsibility as their heir and as a child of God to do the same.

You will never convince me of incorruption in the welfare system because I've talked to too many people, social workers, ex-social workers, patrons of women's shelters, disabled or those who professed to be etc. who have all told me of the corruption. It's rampant. And many of these people told me these things without knowing at all about my own experience in the system.

I do hope that your efforts to help people will have fruit but I am very, very skeptical. There has to be another way. But I will post more about what I feel is the difference between socialism and capitalism and maybe I'll find answers to the responses of those posts.