|
| Thread: Unemployment and the Future |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Jebus
Promising
Supreme Hero
TheJester akaJeebs akaJebfoo
|
posted October 04, 2005 12:50 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You blame welfare mothers and the poor for bleeding the system? Making the hardworking tax payer pay to help them out right?
I blame the recipients (who have no intent to ever get off the system) as much as I blame the policy makers for not implementing any sort of program to help them get education needed to get and hold a job.
Quote:
So, are you saying that you don't think poor people should pay taxes?
I mean, since there's obviously no way that we can ensure that the tax money of the single mom doesn't go to some alcoholic bum, wouldn't it just be better to allow her not to pay taxes?
that's a good point... why should the welfare poor live tax free, when the working poor have to dish money out to support the latter?? makes alot of sense...
Quote:
Anyway, your post above seems to indicate that you distinguish between "deserving" and "undeserving" poor - is this true?
If so, don't you think it's a little far fetched to hold a view that emerged among 18th century Enlish puritan bourgeois, based on the view that God favours the faithful, and that people who fail in life are sinners who only get what they deserve?
I don't even know where you dug this up! 
Quote:
And please, for God's sake, stop your exaggerations - you can't expect people not to misinterpret you when you constantly use sarcasm and exaggerations as rhetorical tools, especially not since these tools are unfit for use in written texts.
That's funny , my writing style was my only strong point in any of my high school language classes!
... Im not even sure what part of my last post you think is exagerated.. it's all pretty bang on to how the system works in Ontario.
I never said that the poor shouldn't pay taxes...
What Im trying to get accross is that there's a fine line between those who qualify for welfare and those who don't. Simply put, people who are on welfare have absolutely no financial responsibilities to society (they don't EVER have to pay the money back) and have no incentive to ever get off the system!
Maybe this will help you get some perspective on my feelings...
My mother, single mother of 2 by the time she was 26, was "fortunate" enough to have a government job (and taking home less than half of her crude annual salary) has spent her entire life, counting every cent, living off credit, never able to get an edge on her finances because she was trying to work, raise kids, feed us and clothes us. She never "depended" on the system and due to that she probably lives under the "comfortable norm of living conditions".
Someone on welfare in Ontario probably takes home more than my mom (who worked) and most likely live more comfortably that she ever could. The kids that I know are on the system wear more brand name clothing and have all the latest and greatest toys. (xbox, cd payers..blah blah)
All I've tried to explain (and clearly am doing a horrible job) is how our welfare recipients live without a care in the world, have no responsiblity towards those who feed and clothe them, are not expected to ever get off the system and basically have kids that in turn will bleed the system dry as well
while other's who can barely scrape by, who live in dept, dependant on credit that is sucking the life out of them, can't catch a break and have absolutely no support or help from society.
You're better off on welfare in Ontario, than beeing a working single mother.
(and that's what pisses me off... besides having to explain that 4 times)
When the Ontario government impletmented "work for welfare" the welfare population lost their minds... were they happy to have the chance to earn a living?
did they feel proud that they'd no longer face looks of reprisal from the working class??
no.
they voted in another government who abolished the program.
____________
"You went over my helmet??"
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 04, 2005 02:13 AM |
|
Edited By: Conan on 3 Oct 2005
|
well, it seems I don't agree.
First, your mom owns a house. Most people on welfare don't own a house, they live in government subzidized (spelling?) homes. They make about 500$ a month and more if they have kids.
The problem why they have alot of money like you mention, is the fact that they abuse the system. They collect 2 or 3 Ontario Works cheques and they get even more if they have kids.
I agree with you that programms should be put in place to get them off social assistance, but I don't agree that social assistance gives you more cash than if you work. If it does, it's because they are screwing the system. If that is the case, then the system should be fixed. Of course, no system is void of problems and there will always be those that abuse of it, and that others pay for this.
In any case, there is more peole that need the assistance than there are that abuse it. The fact that programms should be put in place is a good argument, but then we have the attendance problem. If we put mandatory attendance for assistance cheques, then we'll have more poverty since people won't care and won't go. In essence, we'll be worst off...
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Jebus
Promising
Supreme Hero
TheJester akaJeebs akaJebfoo
|
|
posted October 04, 2005 02:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
First, your mom owns a house. Most people on welfare don't own a house, they live in government subzidized (spelling?) homes. They make about 500$ a month and more if they have kids.
My mother now "co-owns" the house and she would never have afforded it without my aunts financial situation...
And even today she barely has any extra cash and has spent the last 30 years trying to pay off her debts.
Also, I was reffering to her status when we were kids.. not today.
Quote:
The problem why they have alot of money like you mention, is the fact that they abuse the system. They collect 2 or 3 Ontario Works cheques and they get even more if they have kids.
I agree with you that programms should be put in place to get them off social assistance, but I don't agree that social assistance gives you more cash than if you work. If it does, it's because they are screwing the system. If that is the case, then the system should be fixed. Of course, no system is void of problems and there will always be those that abuse of it, and that others pay for this.
In any case, there is more peole that need the assistance than there are that abuse it. The fact that programms should be put in place is a good argument, but then we have the attendance problem. If we put mandatory attendance for assistance cheques, then we'll have more poverty since people won't care and won't go. In essence, we'll be worst off...
Im not sure what you mean by "attendance for assistance cheques"...
so basically if we have more ss workers to monitor and investigate (heck they can't even "pop by" anymore to check up on a family without 24hrs notice because it was infringing on their "human rights") we could cut down on the amount of abuse.. but even if we cut down on abuse, we're still not installing a system that promotes getting these people off the system... you shouldn't be a "lifer". If your'e healthy, there's no reason why one day you can't earn your own living.
____________
"You went over my helmet??"
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 04, 2005 02:56 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Im not sure what you mean by "attendance for assistance cheques"...
What I meant was going to these "get back to work programms" and making it in such a fashion that they only get their assistance cheques if they go...
Quote:
so basically if we have more ss workers to monitor and investigate we could cut down on the amount of abuse.. but even if we cut down on abuse, we're still not installing a system that promotes getting these people off the system... you shouldn't be a "lifer".
first, the employment conditions of social workers are very poor, hence the reason why I didn't become one.  second, the problem is 2-fold:
1) we need to crack down on the abuse in one way or another, by visiting like you say or by doing a better job screening them.
2) installing programms that help people on assistance become better people so they can be fit to work. This is where we get into the attendance problem.
Quote:
If your'e healthy, there's no reason why one day you can't earn your own living.
most people that are on assistance are physically healthy ... but mentally ill. And I mean that in all forms of possibility of non mental health. Since mental problems are much harder to fix then physical ones, this is where the problem lies. It's hard to define and hard to fix, if fixable. Doctors, psychologists, social workers ... you name it. They all try with very little success.
This brings me to my last point where when you have so many citizens that are in this situation, you stop pointing the finger at those mentally unhealthy people and start looking at what caused this. Capitalism, I find (and this is a personnal thought) is the wrongdoer. This capitalistic society of ours is great if you succeed, but at which costs?
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Jebus
Promising
Supreme Hero
TheJester akaJeebs akaJebfoo
|
|
posted October 04, 2005 03:10 AM |
|
|
Quote:
What I meant was going to these "get back to work programms" and making it in such a fashion that they only get their assistance cheques if they go...
but you were saying that people just wouldn't do it..
you don't think they would knowing that they're not getting any money?
Quote:
first, the employment conditions of social workers are very poor, hence the reason why I didn't become one. second, the problem is 2-fold:
1) we need to crack down on the abuse in one way or another, by visiting like you say or by doing a better job screening them.
2) installing programms that help people on assistance become better people so they can be fit to work. This is where we get into the attendance problem.
i agree with all of this as well... but we need to change the governments outlook on how they calculate their budget in reference to social services.. for the amount of money we dish out for social services, you'd think they'd be prepared to invest in a more structured system with better screening and monitoring. It would be worth re-investing in the system (ressources and more staff) if it means saving millions in abuse.
Quote:
most people that are on assistance are physically healthy ... but mentally ill. And I mean that in all forms of possibility of non mental health. Since mental problems are much harder to fix then physical ones, this is where the problem lies. It's hard to define and hard to fix, if fixable. Doctors, psychologists, social workers ... you name it. They all try with very little success.
I don't agree here... Having children at a young age is not a sickness or a mental illness... and if we cut down on teenagers getting on welfare (and staying on welfare) half the battle would be won. I mean realistically, you kid can go to day care and then to school... so SS should be paying to support the family until then... after that, the mother should be expected to work (unless she's pregnant again, which is often the case)
Sure there are those who are sick, but that's where we'd need to revamp the E.I. (employement insurance) to help those who are mentally ill.
The first step is getting those who can work off the system.. after that, we'll have free'd up enough money to start emplimenting programs for the sick and needy.
Quote:
This brings me to my last point where when you have so many citizens that are in this situation, you stop pointing the finger at those mentally unhealthy people and start looking at what caused this. Capitalism, I find (and this is a personnal thought) is the wrongdoer.
capitalism is the cause of mental sickness?
Not sure that you'll be able to sell me on this.
Quote:
This capitalistic society of ours is great if you succeed, but at which costs?
at what cost?? at the cost of having to support those who don't succeed!
____________
"You went over my helmet??"
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 04, 2005 03:38 AM |
|
|
I left out what we agreed on, though somehow I think we should focus on what we agree on rather than focusing on what we don't agree on. LOL
About the manditory programms? yes, I think that people still would not show up. It is in fact one of the reasons why these programms don't exist in the form we are discussing.
Quote:
I don't agree here... Having children at a young age is not a sickness or a mental illness... and if we cut down on teenagers getting on welfare (and staying on welfare) half the battle would be won.
i know, but in light of this affirmation:
Quote:
If you're healthy, there's no reason why one day you can't earn your own living.
does this mean that if you're healthy and a single mother you should one day earn your own living? Of course it does. But we need to support them so they can get there.
i wasen't saying that all people on assistance have a sickness. I was only responding to your above-mentionned quote.
Now having kids at a young age is a hard question to debate. All I know is that I am not in their shoes and cannot understand what they have been through or why they came to be in that situation. I just know that once they are a single mother the damage is done and we must help them.
Quote:
capitalism is the cause of mental sickness?
Not sure that you'll be able to sell me on this.
No. Capitalism is the cause of poverty, people abusing the system and all the problems we are talking about.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Jebus
Promising
Supreme Hero
TheJester akaJeebs akaJebfoo
|
|
posted October 04, 2005 04:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
does this mean that if you're healthy and a single mother you should one day earn your own living? Of course it does. But we need to support them so they can get there.
This is what i've been trying to argue all along...(even though some might believe me to be heartless and lacking compassion)
Let's support her and her child, but that in no way means allowing these people to become dependant on society.. Look at people who have jobs, they get maternity leave right? but after that they are expected to go back to work.. the government stops paying.
Why isn't SS the same? Each case should be assessed individually so that if you need to finish school but became pregnant, SS will support you until your school is done.. after that, they could potentially still qualify for subsidized housing, subsidized day care and some assistance, but all in all, you'd be taking over yours and your family's financial responsibility.
I like the idea of our military college... they pay for school, shelter and food.... you come out with a degree and the only payback they expect of you (it's under contract) is that you serve for 4 years. That to me would be acceptable for those who have needed financial assistance... after the 4 years, you could keep working with Social services (and your first hand exp would be a testament to those that you are trying to help..) or you can take your degree and work experience into the field and find a job you'd prefer.
No. Capitalism is the cause of poverty, people abusing the system and all the problems we are talking about.
Ill give you poverty... but I don't agree that someone who choses to fraud the system (the very system that they depend on for their survival) can blame their abusive ways on capitalism.
(Im starting to see the advantage to socialism... you don't have to accept any responsibilily because you can blame everything on society )
____________
"You went over my helmet??"
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 04, 2005 04:24 AM |
|
|
Quote:
(Im starting to see the advantage to socialism... you don't have to accept any responsibilily because you can blame everything on society )
I know this is a joke, but I jumped about a foot when I read it! But I know you Jeebs, I know you..... 
Socialism is not about blaming society, it's about treating everyone equaly, no matter their economic status. For example, in a socialist country, there are no social classes. People aren't distinguished by the money they earn.
Look at it this way: what drives a capitalist? Money and more money. What drives people from abusing SS? Money. We all want money! (I say "we because I do to, living in a capitalist country I am also corrupt - re Conan the 2 faced socialist.) So if money would not drive the individuals, there would be less chances of them abusing SS.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Jebus
Promising
Supreme Hero
TheJester akaJeebs akaJebfoo
|
|
posted October 04, 2005 04:37 AM |
|
Edited By: Jebus on 3 Oct 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
(Im starting to see the advantage to socialism... you don't have to accept any responsibilily because you can blame everything on society )
I know this is a joke, but I jumped about a foot when I read it! But I know you Jeebs, I know you.....
it just seems to the ongoing theme around here 
I've seen alot of things blamed on society these days..criminals, the poor, rapists, pedophiles, abuse, fraud, teenaged moms, etc...
Quote:
Socialism is not about blaming society, it's about treating everyone equaly, no matter their economic status. For example, in a socialist country, there are no social classes. People aren't distinguished by the money they earn.
but technically if you're in a socialist country, why is there money at all? if everyone is treated and paid equally, you could abolish money completely, no?
(maybe im not seeing something)
the only thing that we destinguish by social class in Canada is who gets taxed how much!!
Quote:
Look at it this way: what drives a capitalist? Money and more money. What drives people from abusing SS? Money. We all want money! (I say "we because I do to, living in a capitalist country I am also corrupt - re Conan the 2 faced socialist.) So if money would not drive the individuals, there would be less chances of them abusing SS.
or the government could issue social service credits..
you're housing comes off your check , your bills are paid the same way.. and you only get a "credit card" or grocery card to pay for groceries. This way, you arent' plagued by the "green monster" that is greed... you have no money to blow elsewhere but the things you need to live. Any excess spending would need to be justified and evaluated by your worker.
... if they don't think it's fair, they can get off the system and work for their pay. (then could do whatever they want with their cash)
(here it comes... )
EDIT:
and how come nobody ever gives me feedback on the ideas I set forth to correct the system??
____________
"You went over my helmet??"
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
posted October 04, 2005 04:51 AM |
|
Edited By: Conan on 3 Oct 2005
|
Quote:
but technically if you're in a socialist country, why is there money at all? if everyone is treated and paid equally, you could abolish money completely, no?
(maybe im not seeing something)
Ah, very good. Now you're starting to see. This is a very good point. The point is that socialism inevitably leads to communism. The abolishment of money is to be made in a communist country - not communism that is imposed, the likes we've seen around the world in the past, but the way Marx had imagined it.
The reason I'm so happy you mention this is the fact that it's what I beleive. Socialism is but a means to lead to something better. Social democracy is:
"a transition to a socialist society that could be achieved through democratic evolutionary rather than revolutionary means. It emphasises a program of gradual legislative reform of the capitalist system in order to make it more equitable, usually with the theoretical end goal of building a socialist society"
I personnaly beleive that when people will realize this great accomplishment, they will no longer have their dependancy on money thus creating a communist country.
Wonderful, is it not?
Edit: sorry, I forgot the last part of your post, I was so carried away... give me some time here...
Here we go:
Quote:
or the government could issue social service credits..
you're housing comes off your check , your bills are paid the same way.. and you only get a "credit card" or grocery card to pay for groceries. This way, you arent' plagued by the "green monster" that is greed... you have no money to blow elsewhere but the things you need to live. Any excess spending would need to be justified and evaluated by your worker.
The problem with this is that they still live in a capitalist country. Greed will still be present. The need to abuse the system will still be there. The need for money will still exist. You cannot remove money from them and then expect them not to want it.
You can control their lives to that extent (which I don't agree with) but then you take all liberty away from them. You cannot force people into paying this or that. They must have their own free-will.
Free-will in a capitalist countries serves only to enrich the rich and to enlarge the socio-economic gap.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Jebus
Promising
Supreme Hero
TheJester akaJeebs akaJebfoo
|
|
posted October 04, 2005 05:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You can control their lives to that extent (which I don't agree with) but then you take all liberty away from them. You cannot force people into paying this or that. They must have their own free-will.
Free-will in a capitalist countries serves only to enrich the rich and to enlarge the socio-economic gap.
They can have their own free will (and financial independance) when they earn it. But as long as it's on yours and my dollard, I think the paying citizens should have more control over how their hard earned money is spent. Social services is there to help support the unfortunate by supplying basic needs (food, shelter, clothing) when that stops beeing enough for someone who depends on others, they'll be more than welcomed into the realy world... the working world.
____________
"You went over my helmet??"
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 04, 2005 05:23 AM |
|
|
you make is sound as though it's their fault and they should "pay" for this. It all sounds harsh and "no pity". I find this is more of a punishment than anything else, when really we are talking about people that can't adapt to a society that is poisonned by greed to start with.
There are 2 ways you can look at it.
1) the society is corrupt and some people get caught in it, so you blame society and try to make it better for everyone, or;
2) it's the people that have a problem. In which case, you blame the ones who can't adapt, by stating some of what I am reading from you.
There are people on both sides of the fences here, I would rather not judge anyone, but simply say what I think.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Jebus
Promising
Supreme Hero
TheJester akaJeebs akaJebfoo
|
|
posted October 04, 2005 05:48 AM |
|
|
Quote:
you make is sound as though it's their fault and they should "pay" for this. It all sounds harsh and "no pity". I find this is more of a punishment than anything else, when really we are talking about people that can't adapt to a society that is poisonned by greed to start with.
If I need money, I take out a loan and have to pay it back... you went to school, you took out a loan and have to pay it back... We all pay taxes and new mothers can take a year off (fathers can take time off too, which you know all about). I was paying rent, buying groceries, paying bills, and at the end of the day if I had no money left, that's my problem not anyone elses.
Why should someone on social services be any different?
Why do they get a free ride?? Why does a woman who has a child (and can't support it) get everything handed to her with no expectations of giving back? Someone who loses their job can go on EI for a while, but he can't get a job he can go on social services and never have to pay anything back to society?
You guys look at me like im harsh? I look at you guys like you're too accepting!!
All I said was that social services are there to help "support" people... we're not there to send them around the world first class! If that's the life they want, the can work for it like the rest of us.
...anyways... I don't understand anymore... especially from a group who believe that everyone should be equal.
Look at it from the other side of the coin... how is it fair that we pay to support others, why should I have to pay back my dept when other's don't have to?? If I can't afford something, I can't have it. It's that simple.
____________
"You went over my helmet??"
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted October 05, 2005 01:08 AM |
|
Edited By: Svarog on 4 Oct 2005
|
Jebus, i did say i wont get involved, but i see some positive evolution of your views now. in fact i agree with you more than i do with Conan, concerning the posts on this last page.
You can only compare the rants you wrote earlier [You know what motivates someone to get a job and work?? STARVATION!! (but where I come from, even the homeless have access to shelter, blankets, free hot food and water!!)] with what u wrote recently (Social services is there to help support the unfortunate by supplying basic needs (food, shelter, clothing) when that stops beeing enough for someone who depends on others, they'll be more than welcomed into the realy world... the working world.). Very opposite points of view and you sounded like a true socialist in that last one. A true dedicated member of the "working world". Keep up the positive evolution.
At the beggining instead of just suggesting system inefficiencies and how to fix them, you simply rejected the whole notions of welfare and paying taxes (people that are better off supporting people that are worse off).
... and it pissed me off
Quote:
or the government could issue social service credits..
you're housing comes off your check , your bills are paid the same way.. and you only get a "credit card" or grocery card to pay for groceries. This way, you arent' plagued by the "green monster" that is greed... you have no money to blow elsewhere but the things you need to live. Any excess spending would need to be justified and evaluated by your worker.
I do in fact agree with this idea, especially in countries where health and education is public and free (so that no excess necessary expenses are needed). Either that, or welfare money which is considerably lower than the minimum wage (although i dont think in canada its different. it just comes to system abuse, as conan said.). Note that it shouldnt be the case for so called socially sensitive categories, i.e. people who arent mentally or physically capeable of work; they should get more. I also agree with strict controls of the system, because a country that relies on public system has to make sure that they run as efficiantly as possible and clean of corruption. Corruption is the plague of the social community and should be harshly dealt with.
Teenage single moms, i still strongly disagree since this is also a very vulnerable category. (as i got u, u suggest that they'd be completely cut off welfare and forced to find jobs to support themselves, like other single moms) You seem to think that a minor can take full responsibility of their actions and are imposing impossible standards there. I dont think u understand the full burden of the problem.
In the end, one more example from here: we've got so many people on welfare here (nearly 40% of the working population). Add pensions for the elderly and money for WW2 disabled on top of that, and you get a completely paralized welfare country. That is not good, since every year about third of the country's budget (tax money) is spent on that. But can we blame those people? No, because many of them were fired from companies closed down or sold after the fall of socialism, a whole lot of them (especially Roma population and some people in rurla areas) live in such poor conditions and stay out of the educational system, so theres a cultural problem here; and even if those under welfare wanted to find a job (which most of them do) they cant because there simply arent jobs available here. Not in the government, not in the private sector. Now, who's to blame here and how should we deal with these people, you tell me? Should we do like Bolivia (and other Latin American capitalist ramrant countries) and abolish welfare altogether? Because I find it distasteful to live there in wealthy Canada and complain about a largely functioning welfare system, when u have no idea how much more delicate the situation elsewhere is.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Jebus
Promising
Supreme Hero
TheJester akaJeebs akaJebfoo
|
|
posted October 05, 2005 01:47 AM |
|
|
wow, Svarog thinks Im becoming a socialist!!
Quote:
You can only compare the rants you wrote earlier [You know what motivates someone to get a job and work?? STARVATION!! (but where I come from, even the homeless have access to shelter, blankets, free hot food and water!!)]
you're gonna have to let that one go...
(exageration is a strong mean to get a point accross when you argue... but I shoulda gave more detail: In Ottawa we have a service where the homeless can call and ask for water, sandwiches and blankets. The idea started off with good intentions, but it didn't take long before people abused of that too. They would wait until after hours, to ask for all sorts of "specialty" requests, when they could have gotten it all during the day at the shelters in the area... they ask for rides all over (I heard this week that someone was asking for underwear)
You could notice that in my so called "rants" nobody thought it important to ask what some of my solutions could be for a system that I feel is lacking in effectiveness... had we gotten into solutions from the start (instead of placing blame and responsibility)
we could have saved ourselves some harsh opinions and judgement.
Quote:
I do in fact agree with this idea, especially in countries where health and education is public and free (so that no excess necessary expenses are needed). Either that, or welfare money which is considerably lower than the minimum wage (although i dont think in canada its different. it just comes to system abuse, as conan said.). Note that isnt the case for so called socially sensitive categories, i.e. people who arent mentally or physically capeable of work; they should get more. I also agree with strict controls of the system, because a country that relies on public system has to make sure that they run as efficiantly as possible and clean of corruption. Corruption is the plague of the social community and should be harshly dealt with.
maybe you should have jumped in the conversation earlier than you did... not once did you mention that it's society's responsibility to support and continue to support people on SS like your counter part was trying to make me believe.
..and I find your views on SS as a socialist quite refreshing... I was getting worried there for a while. I think everyone deserves a helping hand sometimes, not a handout. What we take out of the cookie jar, we should have to put back in it.
Once we get rid of cases of abuse, strenghten the system and get the healthy and competant (in the working sense) off their dependancy on society, i may be a little more accepting of those who need more extensive care.
____________
"You went over my helmet??"
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted October 05, 2005 02:33 AM |
|
|
Quote:
we could have saved ourselves some harsh opinions and judgement.
Its not about me "misjudging" you, its about you getting carried away in "exaggerations" and misexplaining yourself. Dont get me started with quoting ur previous posts. I suggest actually you go back and read them urself (but i mean, really do it).
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Jebus
Promising
Supreme Hero
TheJester akaJeebs akaJebfoo
|
|
posted October 05, 2005 02:50 AM |
|
Edited By: Jebus on 4 Oct 2005
|
Quote:
Its not about me "misjudging" you, its about you getting carried away in "exaggerations" and misexplaining yourself. Dont get me started with quoting ur previous posts. I suggest actually you go back and read them urself (but i mean, really do it).
so close...
I wasn't really referring to you "misjudging" me.
Personnally i don't care.
the fact is once the discussion got going, all parties failed to deal with the more important issue: solutions.
You don't like the way I argue, fine. I don't like the way you sit on your high horse, but that's my problem... not yours.
I can go back and "re-read" my posts, and i would bet a fair bit to say that I probably would have said it again. My opinion on the lack of responsibility that people accept for their own actions will not change due to the fact that we seem to have found a common ground on what needs to be done.
It's like in the real world... you don't have to like someone or even agree with them, but you do have to find a common ground to be able to work together.
I have no compassion for those who don't accept responsibility for themselves and expect the world to come to their aide. But I live in a society that does.
EDIT:
just so you know, I did in fact re-read my posts...
I have to say Im dissapointed that you've based your entire opinion of me on the 2 lines that you seem to want to continue to throw in my face!
..and even then, I found myself nodding in agreement with everything I wrote.
____________
"You went over my helmet??"
|
|
pandora
Honorable
Legendary Hero
The Chosen One
|
|
posted October 05, 2005 06:42 PM |
|
|
I think that you guys need to remember here that insults are not acceptable... debating an issue is one thing, but derogatory comments made against others for having a different belief system than your own are quite another.
Jebus, I think what you need to understand is that if you make a strong statement like the one Svarog has quoted, you are going to get a strong reaction. It seems to me to be only natural that that one thing would jump out at him, and since you used multiple exclamation points and caps lock to make the statement, you should expect that. Generally speaking too, if a person goes for dinner in example, and the meal is okay for the most part, but they took one bite of something really nasty - they're just going to remember that one part of the dinner and forget the rest of it.
I am all for a discussion on solutions. Here in Winnipeg we have an extremely high population of native people. The vast majority are on welfare, many suffer from addictions - the areas that they reside in are the areas that keep Winnipeg on the map as the murder capital of Canada. Its an extremely negative thing to have your city saddled with, especially considering that all of the crimes occur in these densely populated high poverty areas, and the per-capita stats do not reflect at all the reality of living in Winnipeg. It is also frustrating that the traty indians have access to free university, exemptions from taxes and free prescriptions - yet these advantages they have are very often wasted. That said - I would never think that they should be left hungry or homeless. The situation they are in is truly tragic, and brought on in large part by by being caught in a cycle they are unable to break free from.
My personal opinion on solutions for those that are able to work, but do not is that massive counselling is needed. I don't think you understand what can happen to a person's esteem who finds themselves in a position where they need others to help them. Young welfare mothers do not recieve enough money to hire sitters to get out of the house. They are often 'trapped' inside with only children as company, this leads to a feeling of isolation - and a feeling that they really have no worth ouside of the home.
Its the same for men who cannot provide for their families, for whatever reason. If you are stuck at home feeling as a failure - and knowing that others in the outside world are looking down at you, and condemning you for taking their hard earned money... how easy to you think it would be to re enter the workforce?
I can understand being frustrated by the situation, because there are naturally a great many ways it could be improved on - but I cannot understand a lack of empathy. We are blessed to be living in Canada, it is simply luck of the draw that we were not born in a country where starvation, disease and war are everywhere - so yes, we do get dinged pretty hard with taxes, but it could be a heck of a lot worse. I would be ashamed if this country did not help its poor.
____________
"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
|
|
Jebus
Promising
Supreme Hero
TheJester akaJeebs akaJebfoo
|
|
posted October 05, 2005 07:53 PM |
|
|
Pan,
(I'd like to know to what "derogatory" comments you are referring. IM me if you can)
I'll agree that my comments were harsh and unsympathetic but sometimes that's how we feel and I wasn't about to shy away from my feelings on this.
... I think you guys are missing my main point in all my postings here and that's to get these people the help they need and get them working again so that they can feel like a productive part of our society.
I don't know how it is in Winnipeg, but I know that in Ottawa, people on welfare (and other lower incomed families) can apply for subsidized housing AND child care. With all the social programs we here in Ottawa have, I just can't swallow the "I can't afford to work, I have to stay at home."
If you've got a large population on the system and with alcohol problems? then talk to Terje about getting those people some help and get them working too! I'd much prefer pay for programs of rehab and job workshops than know that my tax dollars are feeding someones addictions and allowing them to stay at home all day or in a bar.
...Im starting to see why people are shying away from posting in "the other side"...
____________
"You went over my helmet??"
|
|
pandora
Honorable
Legendary Hero
The Chosen One
|
|
posted October 05, 2005 11:59 PM |
|
|
I think you misunderstood me, I wasn't trying to attack your way of thinking. I've come to understand that you shoot from the hip and your responses/posting are generally feuled by the emotion you're feeling at the moment I'm not judging you at all.
I also lived in London, so I know very well the abuse you're talking about - its very true that the system is abused - in my experience there it was commonly post-highschool, many welfare partyhouses... Really a shame.
My only point is that in spite of this, we cannot lose empathy for those that aren't abusing it - and the reasons why they are unable to get out and do something for themselves need to be addressed.
Here we have rampant alcohol abuse and sniffing in the native community, as well as gambling addiction. So in essence, these people are paying back the government as they throw all the money back into the VLT's and the casinos.
With the new smoking bylaws, these people have been at bars less, and at houseparties more - which has upped our already incredible violent crime rate.
People on welfare are often forced to live in housing/areas where such social problems (addictions) are everywhere, this leads to more people finding themselves falling into the same mistakes their parents/friens/neighbors are making. Essentially its a whilpool effect in our core area that's flushing these people's lives away.
More needs to be done to help them get healthy.
[edit] also, don't shy away from posting, or be discouraged because people aren't always going to be on the same page as you. disagreement is good, being forced to look critically at our own way of thinking, and seeing things from different points of view is how we grow. I understand that we won't always agree, but that doesn't mean I have any less respect for you, or your right to your own opinion.
____________
"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
|
| |
|
|
