|
Has anybody seen the new $20 bill? (pg. 26)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ_Elyot
This still seems misleading. The broad heading of "social services" covers a lot more than just welfare and unemployment insurance... it covers everything from disability payments to veterans affairs to building government housing. I'd like to see a breakdown of that $140 billion. |
Social services are split up into 3 categories: "social assistance", which makes up the bulk of social services at $96.2 billion, still substantially more than health care. Another $20.4 billion go into what they call "government employee pensions/equality", and $23.4 billion go into "other social services" which the government doesn't care to explain (i.e. it gets misappropriated).
Now I'm not exactly sure whether "government employee pensions" refer to things like teachers, because I believe those are taken care of under the education budget, but let's say for argument's sake that the people receiving them "sort of" earned them, even though they didn't work directly for you or I. The government cleverly splits that budget up with "equality", i.e. Affirmative Action, and God only knows just how much of that $20.4 billion is spent on THAT. Frankly, 1 cent is too much.
As for the broad category of "social assistance", does it really matter how it's split up? "Disability payments" are a scam just like welfare - trust me - I know several people on "disability" and they're quite capable of working. Government housing, CPP, disability, they're all just different semantics for my hard-earned money being taken away from me and given to someone who didn't work for it - whether they were able to work for it is not the issue here. Not only that but it's been long since proven that programs like government housing and CPP are useless and don't even accomplish what they're supposed to.
You want more stats, ask the federal government. I can tell you that the $140 billion in social services does NOT cover health, debt, education, environment, recreation, transportation, industrial development, communication, or national defense. Where else would I want my money going? I don't even want it going to half of THOSE things but at least they're sort of legitimate.
I could go on and on about how none of the other stats make sense either (like $33.4 billion on "Protection?" It's definitely not spent on national defense, and OPP and parking enforcement alone bring in billions of dollars of revenue from the tickets they write so they don't need to be supported by tax dollars). But the point is, Canadians have no awareness of what their tax dollars are actually spent on and most would freak out if they really knew. But the information is out there for public consumption, folks - you just have to look at it! |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Superstar
I disagree. Socialism hasn't failed in the Scandinavian countries. |
Even Sweden has pushed away from the cradle to grave ideoogy since their social programs are going bankrupt. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Even Sweden has pushed away from the cradle to grave ideoogy since their social programs are going bankrupt. |
And in general, the most successful countries in Europe are not the ones where there is pure socialism, but the ones where there is a two-tiered system that still respects private property rights. Like Germany's health care, which is considered one of the best in the world if not THE best. Why? Because they make money from that high efficiency! |
|
|
| ali92 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Social services are split up into 3 categories: "social assistance", which makes up the bulk of social services at $96.2 billion, still substantially more than health care. Another $20.4 billion go into what they call "government employee pensions/equality", and $23.4 billion go into "other social services" which the government doesn't care to explain (i.e. it gets misappropriated).
Now I'm not exactly sure whether "government employee pensions" refer to things like teachers, because I believe those are taken care of under the education budget, but let's say for argument's sake that the people receiving them "sort of" earned them, even though they didn't work directly for you or I. The government cleverly splits that budget up with "equality", i.e. Affirmative Action, and God only knows just how much of that $20.4 billion is spent on THAT. Frankly, 1 cent is too much.
As for the broad category of "social assistance", does it really matter how it's split up? "Disability payments" are a scam just like welfare - trust me - I know several people on "disability" and they're quite capable of working. Government housing, CPP, disability, they're all just different semantics for my hard-earned money being taken away from me and given to someone who didn't work for it - whether they were able to work for it is not the issue here. Not only that but it's been long since proven that programs like government housing and CPP are useless and don't even accomplish what they're supposed to.
You want more stats, ask the federal government. I can tell you that the $140 billion in social services does NOT cover health, debt, education, environment, recreation, transportation, industrial development, communication, or national defense. Where else would I want my money going? I don't even want it going to half of THOSE things but at least they're sort of legitimate.
I could go on and on about how none of the other stats make sense either (like $33.4 billion on "Protection?" It's definitely not spent on national defense, and OPP and parking enforcement alone bring in billions of dollars of revenue from the tickets they write so they don't need to be supported by tax dollars). But the point is, Canadians have no awareness of what their tax dollars are actually spent on and most would freak out if they really knew. But the information is out there for public consumption, folks - you just have to look at it! |
About the disability, and the fact that there's definitely people on it who don't belong on it, what do you think should be done to make sure that the people who are on it, deserve it? Secondly, where do you draw the line between a person being capable and not capable of working? Maybe such a line would depend on their previous experience? An example could be if they are about 50 years of age and was a mechanic for about 30 years and all of a sudden they could never do their field again due to some true disability, like an arm or leg getting severed or even severely injured? Disability is a complex thing to sort out regarding government financial standards and I'm certain in no position to get very deep into such a discussion except for the point that there are too many people scamming the system (and not just in Canada, I'm speaking for my home, the US as well) and claiming they're 'disabled' and end up getting financial service for nothing! Heck, I have an _uncle_ who's been on SSI/disability in this country for decades and he doesn't have much of anything wrong with him at all. He claims to them that he's mentally incapable (I don't know exactly what though) of working. |
|
|
| LoCa |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ_Elyot
For the lion that looks like the Gatecrasher logo??
Or for the on the harp? |
Maybe for the big E on it :p |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by ali92
About the disability, and the fact that there's definitely people on it who don't belong on it, what do you think should be done to make sure that the people who are on it, deserve it? Secondly, where do you draw the line between a person being capable and not capable of working? Maybe such a line would depend on their previous experience? An example could be if they are about 50 years of age and was a mechanic for about 30 years and all of a sudden they could never do their field again due to some true disability, like an arm or leg getting severed or even severely injured? Disability is a complex thing to sort out regarding government financial standards and I'm certain in no position to get very deep into such a discussion except for the point that there are too many people scamming the system (and not just in Canada, I'm speaking for my home, the US as well) and claiming they're 'disabled' and end up getting financial service for nothing! Heck, I have an _uncle_ who's been on SSI/disability in this country for decades and he doesn't have much of anything wrong with him at all. He claims to them that he's mentally incapable (I don't know exactly what though) of working. |
It's a tough issue to sort out, you're right. One very simple way of dealing with it is just to cap the amount of money available to something that lets a person live, but not comfortably.
I hear nonsense all the time about capping salaries, let's first cap social services. People on disability/welfare should receive the equivalent of slightly less than minimum wage - say 80% of it. Further to that, if they're receiving any additional income then the amount available to them would be proportionally less. That way they won't starve, society is still caring for them, but they're still motivated to go out and get a job because they have to pinch every penny.
You can live off about $250 per week (that's Canadian, it would be less in USD). It'll get you food and shelter, and not much more, and that's the point. You want to live in the fast lane, go out and get a job. A conservative estimate of 500,000 people on welfare at $250 a week would be about $6.25 billion a year, less than 5% of what it costs us now, and the welfare budget should be capped at this amount. If more than 500,000 people need welfare at any given time, then there is obviously some underlying economic problem that the country needs to deal with. |
|
|
| ali92 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
It's a tough issue to sort out, you're right. One very simple way of dealing with it is just to cap the amount of money available to something that lets a person live, but not comfortably.
I hear nonsense all the time about capping salaries, let's first cap social services. People on disability/welfare should receive the equivalent of slightly less than minimum wage - say 80% of it. Further to that, if they're receiving any additional income then the amount available to them would be proportionally less. That way they won't starve, society is still caring for them, but they're still motivated to go out and get a job because they have to pinch every penny.
You can live off about $250 per week (that's Canadian, it would be less in USD). It'll get you food and shelter, and not much more, and that's the point. You want to live in the fast lane, go out and get a job. A conservative estimate of 500,000 people on welfare at $250 a week would be about $6.25 billion a year, less than 5% of what it costs us now, and the welfare budget should be capped at this amount. If more than 500,000 people need welfare at any given time, then there is obviously some underlying economic problem that the country needs to deal with. |
Hmm. Interesting theory/proposal. My father thought about similar stuff for welfare here in USA: Instead of giving 400 USD plus food stamps, give about 350 USD for only about 6 months to those who really need it. Regarding disability/SSI, he says that these people should be made to sign a contract prior to applying where they could be be under survellience (sp?) outside their home randomly any time or 24/7 during any day SSI wishes to watch. That could nab plenty of the people right off the bat. For SSI/disability, the current policy of a check-up every 6 months isn't good enough for people who don't really have any disabilities and are capable of doing _some_ kind of work to benefit the society in general.
Can anyone point out the negativities of multiculturism and the 'Charter of Rights' (what is this compared to eh US Consitution?)? As all I saw posted were just prejudiced points of view that viewed people that don't have adaquite (sp?) knowledge of the English (or French?) language as who don't want to learn it, etc. Would the same hold true to those who are living in Montreal or anywhere else in Quebec and have extensive knowledge (actually native) of English but none or minimal of French? Would you think of all non-French-speakers who are even determined to honestly earn a living that live in French-speaking Canada as 'people who don't try hard enough' or 'people who don't want to assimilate' (sp?)? |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| Our definition of poor in Canada is not being able to afford cable. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by ali92
Hmm. Interesting theory/proposal. My father thought about similar stuff for welfare here in USA: Instead of giving 400 USD plus food stamps, give about 350 USD for only about 6 months to those who really need it. Regarding disability/SSI, he says that these people should be made to sign a contract prior to applying where they could be be under survellience (sp?) outside their home randomly any time or 24/7 during any day SSI wishes to watch. That could nab plenty of the people right off the bat. For SSI/disability, the current policy of a check-up every 6 months isn't good enough for people who don't really have any disabilities and are capable of doing _some_ kind of work to benefit the society in general. |
Well I think reducing the funds would definitely be a good idea. Surveillance probably wouldn't fly - one could make the case that you sign away your right to privacy when you go on welfare, but I think a lot of people would still be outraged.
Here's what my plan would be for a welfare system:
- Have it expire after 6 months or even quarterly; a renewal application gets sent out with the last cheque.
- Require them to keep receipts of all major transactions, or if they have a bank account, track it with the express guarantee that the information can only be used in making renewal decisions. Cut them a little slack, but if they can't account for more than, say, 80% of the money they were given, their renewal gets refused.
- For welfare: require them to keep records of jobs they've applied for, just like unemployment insurance. They might also be required to produce copies of the applications, to make sure that they were honest attempts (some people send out bogus ones just to scam the EI here). If they haven't applied anywhere or their applications were clearly bogus, their renewal gets refused. If their applications are grey-area (i.e. they suck but might not be bogus), some sort of government counselling might be in order to help them write a proper one.
- For disability: get rid of the "mentally unfit" category unless they're actually mentally retarded or have a well-documented but untreatable disorder. If they can't prove this, they can work. If they have a treatable disorder, put them on welfare with the expectation that they'll get treatment, which they have to prove in order to renew their application.
- Again for disability: for physical disabilities, have a separate category for terminal/life-threatening things like cancer or MS, which automatically renews and requires no extra paperwork. For other disability, like someone breaking their leg at work, require a documented statement from a doctor explaining the injury and saying HOW LONG it should take to recover, after which their disability will expire (perhaps with a grace period, which can be extended if they can provide a valid reason why they haven't recovered). If disability expires, it reverts to regular welfare with the same restrictions as welfare.
- Further to above: unless they can prove that the disability makes them unfit to do ANY work (like paraplegia), the maximum stated recovery time is 1 year, after which they're expected to find a temporary job (there ARE jobs for people in wheelchairs). If not, then again, it reverts to welfare.
- Make disability non-renewable. If someone somehow acquires a different disability then they have to start the process over again. If they try to apply for disability a second time without ever getting a job, they get red-flagged (not necessarily refused, it could be legitimate) and might have to get regular (monthly, at least) check-ups by a government-appointed doctor.
I challenge anyone to tell me that this system would be unfair. There would be a very, VERY small number of truly needy people that would ever "fall through the cracks" this way, and society can't take care of EVERYONE no matter how good the system is. It might not be 100% fair or 100% foolproof but it has to balance the "safety net" with the individual rights of taxpayers.
| quote: | | Can anyone point out the negativities of multiculturism and the 'Charter of Rights' (what is this compared to eh US Consitution?)? As all I saw posted were just prejudiced points of view that viewed people that don't have adaquite (sp?) knowledge of the English (or French?) language as who don't want to learn it, etc. Would the same hold true to those who are living in Montreal or anywhere else in Quebec and have extensive knowledge (actually native) of English but none or minimal of French? Would you think of all non-French-speakers who are even determined to honestly earn a living that live in French-speaking Canada as 'people who don't try hard enough' or 'people who don't want to assimilate' (sp?)? |
English and French are both considered official languages of this country, so what you're saying does not apply. We are referring to people who come from overseas and don't speak a word of either of them. It is not our responsibility to provide services for them in whatever language they see fit. But it's not really about the language, it is about disrespect for our national culture while we are at the same time required to "respect" theirs.
I'm not going to get into a whole discussion about multiculturalism because it's long and already been discussed. But to put it bluntly, our Charter of Rights has an utterly horrible clause in it that the U.S. constitution does not have, and it reads like so:
| quote: | 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. |
Now subsection 1 is all well and good, but subsection 2 says in no uncertain terms that the government is entitled to violate our charter of rights if it's in the interest of some minority group. It uses the term "disadvantaged", but leaves open to interpretation critical issues like how or why or to what extent they are disadvantaged. There is no burden of proof whatsoever required to employ this clause. It says quite simply that it is OK to discriminate as long as it is FOR one of these groups and not AGAINST them. Now that clause has been bastardized even further into accounting for any arbitrary group that sees itself as disadvantaged.
Tell me, how is that not a violation of constitutional rights? The whole charter is practically nullified in that one paragraph. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
Agreed. And its that subsection that is ruining this country and causing so much tension these days.
This is why i say that reverse racism is alive and well and it's also government sponsored. Sorry but 2 wrongs dont make a right. |
|
|
| ali92 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Well I think reducing the funds would definitely be a good idea. Surveillance probably wouldn't fly - one could make the case that you sign away your right to privacy when you go on welfare, but I think a lot of people would still be outraged.
Here's what my plan would be for a welfare system:
- Have it expire after 6 months or even quarterly; a renewal application gets sent out with the last cheque.
- Require them to keep receipts of all major transactions, or if they have a bank account, track it with the express guarantee that the information can only be used in making renewal decisions. Cut them a little slack, but if they can't account for more than, say, 80% of the money they were given, their renewal gets refused.
- For welfare: require them to keep records of jobs they've applied for, just like unemployment insurance. They might also be required to produce copies of the applications, to make sure that they were honest attempts (some people send out bogus ones just to scam the EI here). If they haven't applied anywhere or their applications were clearly bogus, their renewal gets refused. If their applications are grey-area (i.e. they suck but might not be bogus), some sort of government counselling might be in order to help them write a proper one.
- For disability: get rid of the "mentally unfit" category unless they're actually mentally retarded or have a well-documented but untreatable disorder. If they can't prove this, they can work. If they have a treatable disorder, put them on welfare with the expectation that they'll get treatment, which they have to prove in order to renew their application.
- Again for disability: for physical disabilities, have a separate category for terminal/life-threatening things like cancer or MS, which automatically renews and requires no extra paperwork. For other disability, like someone breaking their leg at work, require a documented statement from a doctor explaining the injury and saying HOW LONG it should take to recover, after which their disability will expire (perhaps with a grace period, which can be extended if they can provide a valid reason why they haven't recovered). If disability expires, it reverts to regular welfare with the same restrictions as welfare.
- Further to above: unless they can prove that the disability makes them unfit to do ANY work (like paraplegia), the maximum stated recovery time is 1 year, after which they're expected to find a temporary job (there ARE jobs for people in wheelchairs). If not, then again, it reverts to welfare.
- Make disability non-renewable. If someone somehow acquires a different disability then they have to start the process over again. If they try to apply for disability a second time without ever getting a job, they get red-flagged (not necessarily refused, it could be legitimate) and might have to get regular (monthly, at least) check-ups by a government-appointed doctor.
I challenge anyone to tell me that this system would be unfair. There would be a very, VERY small number of truly needy people that would ever "fall through the cracks" this way, and society can't take care of EVERYONE no matter how good the system is. It might not be 100% fair or 100% foolproof but it has to balance the "safety net" with the individual rights of taxpayers.
English and French are both considered official languages of this country, so what you're saying does not apply. We are referring to people who come from overseas and don't speak a word of either of them. It is not our responsibility to provide services for them in whatever language they see fit. But it's not really about the language, it is about disrespect for our national culture while we are at the same time required to "respect" theirs.
I'm not going to get into a whole discussion about multiculturalism because it's long and already been discussed. But to put it bluntly, our Charter of Rights has an utterly horrible clause in it that the U.S. constitution does not have, and it reads like so:
Now subsection 1 is all well and good, but subsection 2 says in no uncertain terms that the government is entitled to violate our charter of rights if it's in the interest of some minority group. It uses the term "disadvantaged", but leaves open to interpretation critical issues like how or why or to what extent they are disadvantaged. There is no burden of proof whatsoever required to employ this clause. It says quite simply that it is OK to discriminate as long as it is FOR one of these groups and not AGAINST them. Now that clause has been bastardized even further into accounting for any arbitrary group that sees itself as disadvantaged.
Tell me, how is that not a violation of constitutional rights? The whole charter is practically nullified in that one paragraph. |
Nice plan. I agree that surveillence is a bit harsh for something like welfare. The better plan was what you mentioned.
Kind of interesting that you mention about somoen breaking their leg. My father has a broken thumb (he's left-handed as well and that's the one that got broken) as of 9 July 2004 from a defect machine at his job. Would you think that his compensation (not 'disability', which is different) should be for ever, as legally allowed here? After all, he's worked a total of 29 years since first working in this industry and it hasn't always been bright. What's your opinion on this and other similar cases? I don't know how compensation works over there, but over here, companies try to skimp and only give people a certain amount of time on compensation. My father is actually attempting to do a lawsuit on that mfr. that made the defect machine that has such a blade ampuate his thumb. Our lawyer told us that compensation is forever, legally, as well. |
|
|
| ali92 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Agreed. When my dad came from Holland in 1957 our family lived in someone's basement for free and everyone worked and contributed to the household. EVERYONE including the kids. There was no such thing as welfare back then for ANYONE including immigrants. If you didnt learn english nobody hired you. There were no government funded english courses, just good old fashioned school.
Now tell me why this cant hold true today? |
Does it still hold true in that I can easily find work over there in Holland without knowng _Dutch_ whilst being a native English speaker? |
|
|
|
|
