Ontario considers easing welfare rules - Toronto Star

[Frankie3s]

"NIAGARA FALLS, Ont.–Ontario will look at relaxing welfare rules to allow more people to apply but Ottawa needs to take another look at inequities in employment insurance, Finance Minister Dwight Duncan said Friday after the province posted 71,000 job losses in January."

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/583621

I couldn't believe what I was reading in today's Toronto Star. Increasing the welfare rolls is not the answer to self-sustainability. I would rather these people be given government jobs than to be sitting at home and collecting checks for nothing. Who's going to pay for this bailout? I'm sure we all know the answer to that question.

[MrBurns]

**** welfare and the bums that leech off it.

[HBP]

I know someone on welfare who just keeps buying gaming consoles for the kids + games + tv's and all that jazz.

Shame really.

[Peckerwood]

So there is an upcoming recession to which money will be tight...so some may end up unemployed...and the government's best idea is to go further into debt without having anything to show for it?

Government waste at it's finest...yet again. :rolleyes:

[Euphoriiick]

I would think we are in the early stages of a depression. I'm a government worker and a postgraduate, but I can also say that I grew up on welfare initially, so I consider myself one of those immigrants that was aided by this system. I know there are many who abuse it, but without social supports our society would become anarchaic.

[stealth]

I'm not sure I get the connection between job losses and welfare.

If a system need to be re-vamped in light of economic hardships due to JOB LOSSES, than its the E.I. system.
People can be on welfare for decades without ever having worked a job.

But the E.I system needs to be more efficient to be able to let recently unemployed ppl collect more of what they contributed, and have more options for re-education, and career transitions.

[abu_sme]

I'm not sure I get the connection between job losses and welfare.

If a system need to be re-vamped in light of economic hardships due to JOB LOSSES, than its the E.I. system.
People can be on welfare for decades without ever having worked a job.

But the E.I system needs to be more efficient to be able to let recently unemployed ppl collect more of what they contributed, and have more options for re-education, and career transitions.

+1 Down with Welfare up with employment insurance which has up until recently been a cash cow for the government.

Increasing welfare increases unemployment by letting people who don't want to work sponge off the system. Lower welfare=more hardship for welfare recipient=incentive to find a job.

[Peckerwood]

but without social supports our society would become anarchaic.
Anarchaic...the opposite of archaic. In other words...modern :lol:

I am sure you meant to say anarchic.

In truth without welfare people would actually have to work for a living and also be forced to rely on neighbours and friends thereby increasing community cohesion rather than centralizing it into a top down maternal/paternal relationship with government.

Dependency of the worst sort...one that relies on central authority for it's leave.

[_Allan_]

**** welfare and the bums that leech off it.

**** you too ja****s. I am waiting for the stupid government to pay me my back payments of EI from part of Nov, Dec and Jan ... no one is hiring right now, what am I supposed to do? Live at a homeless shelter, or get welfare in the interim? Not everyone who is ON Welfare wants to be. I'd rather work, but due to several compounding circumstances, I can't get a job or license in my field at this point in time.

I agree, there are several thousand people who are on Welfare who abuse it, but there are several hundred like myself, who are on the verge of living on the street, who WANT TO WORK, but can't. So until you know that EVERYONE on Welfare "leeches" off it, maybe you should change your attitude and go **** yourself.

[googoo]

I know someone on welfare who just keeps buying gaming consoles for the kids + games + tv's and all that jazz.

Shame really.

Report them!

**** you too ja****s. I am waiting for the stupid government to pay me my back payments of EI from part of Nov, Dec and Jan ... no one is hiring right now, what am I supposed to do? Live at a homeless shelter, or get welfare in the interim?

No, you are one of the people that most of us have no problem with, short term because you have to survive, not like a large % of welfarers(:)) that consider it "making a living", and will stay on it as long as they can.

Brent

[stealth]

**** you too ja****s. I am waiting for the stupid government to pay me my back payments of EI from part of Nov, Dec and Jan ... no one is hiring right now, what am I supposed to do? Live at a homeless shelter, or get welfare in the interim? Not everyone who is ON Welfare wants to be. I'd rather work, but due to several compounding circumstances, I can't get a job or license in my field at this point in time.

I agree, there are several thousand people who are on Welfare who abuse it, but there are several hundred like myself, who are on the verge of living on the street, who WANT TO WORK, but can't. So until you know that EVERYONE on Welfare "leeches" off it, maybe you should change your attitude and go **** yourself.
Take it easy...and try not to take things too personally.

Once again, it sounds like the problem is with EI not welfare. You shouldnt have to wait 3-4 months to get back whan you have contributed to EI (or at least some portion of it), and if you were receiving it, you wouldnt have to be on welfare.
The other thing that pisses me off about welfare is the way it is geared towards rewarding single moms to stay home and have more kids, thus ensuring they cant return to work.

IMO the only people that should be on welfare are those with legitimate physical and mental disabilities. All other support systems need to be more specific to the situation that has caused the financial hardship.
Maybe welfare should be under the umbrella of the healthcare system instead?

[laptop-tech]

Great news. I need to replace the tv in the basement and this extra income fits perfectly.

[stealth]

Great news. I need to replace the tv in the basement and this extra income fits perfectly.

Careful, I'll watch the beer stores in Mississauga around the 23rd of the month for a Tony the Tiger with a laptop arriving in a taxi (chronic welfare ppl always seem to take taxis to get beer) and I'll use that as my opportunity to break in and steal your new tv.

[_Allan_]

Take it easy...and try not to take things too personally.

Once again, it sounds like the problem is with EI not welfare. You shouldnt have to wait 3-4 months to get back whan you have contributed to EI (or at least some portion of it), and if you were receiving it, you wouldnt have to be on welfare.
The other thing that pisses me off about welfare is the way it is geared towards rewarding single moms to stay home and have more kids, thus ensuring they cant return to work.

IMO the only people that should be on welfare are those with legitimate physical and mental disabilities. All other support systems need to be more specific to the situation that has caused the financial hardship.
Maybe welfare should be under the umbrella of the healthcare system instead?

Sorry it just p*sses me off when people blanket EVERY OW recipient as "leachers" as he did.
I had to go and FIGHT for my benifits at the "EI Referees Panel" ... then EI paid me 1 week of my 34 weeks of benifits I get (I worked nearly double the hours required for 2008 - 1832 hours) and I've received payment for ONE week of 34 ... now I'm waiting again for them to "process" information which should ONLY take then 30 minutes to say "ah, ok, he worked, but only for 3 weeks, basically he was trained, and let go. Reinstate his claim." but for some reason it takes them 3 WEEKS to get anything done ... I'm part of a Facebook Group that says EI should be an OPTIONAL program, and if you pay into it, as soon as you lose your job - quit, fired, laid etc - you should get the amount you paid in right away, so if over 5 years, you've paid $5000, they should cut you a cheque right then. Then they can asses you and say "Ok, over the next 20 weeks, we'll give you $300/wk. After that, you should have a job."

[Nikita]

The other thing that pisses me off about welfare is the way it is geared towards rewarding single moms to stay home and have more kids, thus ensuring they cant return to work.



What pisses me off about welfare is the way the don't go after the fathers of these children and make them support their children so the moms can return to work, thereby rewarding them (the fathers) for having unprotected sex and then bolting at the words 'I'm pregnant', resulting in single moms having to go on welfare.

[laptop-tech]

Careful, I'll watch the beer stores in Mississauga around the 23rd of the month for a Tony the Tiger with a laptop arriving in a taxi (chronic welfare ppl always seem to take taxis to get beer) and I'll use that as my opportunity to break in and steal your new tv.

hahahahaha

[Rishi]

What pisses me off about welfare is the way the don't go after the fathers of these children and make them support their children so the moms can return to work, thereby rewarding them (the fathers) for having unprotected sex and then bolting at the words 'I'm pregnant', resulting in single moms having to go on welfare.
I'm sure you know that courts already have the ability to garnish a father's wages to collect child support. The problem is fathers who don't have any income, in which case there really isn't anything that can be done to get them to pay up.

[_Allan_]

I'm sure you know that courts already have the ability to garnish a father's wages to collect child support. The problem is fathers who don't have any income, in which case there really isn't anything that can be done to get them to pay up.

Like the old saying "You can't make a rock bleed."

[MrBurns]

**** you too ja****s.
I agree, there are several thousand people who are on Welfare who abuse it, but there are several hundred like myself, who are on the verge of living on the street, who WANT TO WORK, but can't. So until you know that EVERYONE on Welfare "leeches" off it, maybe you should change your attitude and go **** yourself.

If there was no welfare, what would you do? Maybe save money BEFOREHAND for a stormy day?

I'm pretty sure in my post I didn't mention anything about temporary help. Let me check. Yep, I'm right. Just talking about bums who leech.

[Nikita]

I'm sure you know that courts already have the ability to garnish a father's wages to collect child support. The problem is fathers who don't have any income, in which case there really isn't anything that can be done to get them to pay up.

Like the old saying "You can't make a rock bleed."

I think you both missed my point here, being that not allowing single moms to go on welfare punishes the mom and children only, but you say nothing about the dads who did the same thing the mom did, have unprotected sex with no financial means to care for the babies they created.

Stealth said the system rewards single moms, I'm just trying to point out it rewards the dads just as much.

[CanadianMike]

What pisses me off about welfare is the way the don't go after the fathers of these children and make them support their children so the moms can return to work, thereby rewarding them (the fathers) for having unprotected sex and then bolting at the words 'I'm pregnant', resulting in single moms having to go on welfare.
this is true in regards to single moms....but there is definitely 'family usage' of it where a couple will continue to produce offspring for the purpose of getting more 'income' effectively.

welfare is not a lot of money--however welfare + an 'under the table job' can work out to be a decent amount.

this isnt to say 100% of welfare recipients are leeching at this level. another common 'misuse' of welfare is a relatively well off 18ish year old will leave their parents house in the suburbs, come to toronto or elsewhere--start collecting welfare with a few of their other friends, and they will collaborate to live somewhere. when you're young you dont need much, so some people effectively use it as backpacking funds.

the fact the misuse of the system is quite rampant is an indication of its flaw....and it results in it being less effective for its intended purpose. i dont think even the biggest welfare proponent is in favour of the 'fun' student usage outlined above.

[stealth]

I think you both missed my point here, being that not allowing single moms to go on welfare punishes the mom and children only, but you say nothing about the dads who did the same thing the mom did, have unprotected sex with no financial means to care for the babies they created.

Stealth said the system rewards single moms, I'm just trying to point out it rewards the dads just as much.

Then you've failed, b/c nowhere in your posts have you explained how welfare REWARDS deadbeat dads?? Do dead beat dads get an increase in welfare entitlement for fathering additional kids that they dont take responsibility for? No.
Not sure when you became such a man hater...seems pretty recent.

My point was, having kids should be something that someone considers whether or not they can afford to do it, and it should not preclude someone from being able to work a job. Dual income families do it, why shouldnt single welfare moms? And since ultimately women can decide whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term, ultimately they have the responsibility of making that choice.

I have tremendous respect for WORKING single moms. Welfare single moms, sitting around in their subsidized housing all day while their kids are at school, or spending baby bonus checks at the Bingo parlour, not so much.
It seems like you're trying to troll in a new thread and resurrect an argument that wasnt settled to your satisfaction because many people didnt agree with you, and ended up getting a thread locked before.

[Ziggy007]

I support the concept of welfare, it has good intentions, except too often it is abused.

I propose that the government, and the taxpaying people of Canada actually get something in return.

I think that each person collecting welfare should have to perform a minimum amount of hours (10-15) per week in a volunteering role. Whether that time is spent at a hospital, food colleciton, or just picking up garbage in local parks I don't care.

Under this scenario everyone would win. Tax dollars go to helping those who need it, and the people who are paying them (taxpayers) are getting a service in return, and so is the entire country as a whole. That said it would also provide incentive for people not to leach off the system, or at least it would be considered leaching if they had to work for it.

[Frankie3s]

An idea that might be a bit far fetched, but since Canada needs to have people populating the north to prove our claims of sovereignty over our territory why not send long term recipients up north to live with the Inuit, children and all? Set up a full community, teach them how to hunt and fish, live in the bush, etc. People who don't want to live there, they'll have to find jobs instead.

[Peckerwood]

I support the concept of welfare, it has good intentions, except too often it is abused.
Hell hath no fury as a well intentioned government

[bolmsted]

+1 Down with Welfare up with employment insurance which has up until recently been a cash cow for the government.

Increasing welfare increases unemployment by letting people who don't want to work sponge off the system. Lower welfare=more hardship for welfare recipient=incentive to find a job.

+2 Employment Insurance income is a joke IMHO especially for someone in middle class. They give you what $447/week (or approx $1788/month) and it's TAXed on top of that. I could barely afford to pay my mortgage and utilities with that let alone put food on the table and pay for transportation costs to find another job.

I think EI and CPP should be abolished in favour for putting the money in pocket to save for a rainy day but this is a penalty for people such as me that would do this as it helps out people that don't plan for this, etc.

[mrG]

I support the concept of welfare, it has good intentions, except too often it is abused.

I propose that the government, and the taxpaying people of Canada actually get something in return.

I think that each person collecting welfare should have to perform a minimum amount of hours (10-15) per week in a volunteering role. Whether that time is spent at a hospital, food colleciton, or just picking up garbage in local parks I don't care.

Under this scenario everyone would win. Tax dollars go to helping those who need it, and the people who are paying them (taxpayers) are getting a service in return, and so is the entire country as a whole. That said it would also provide incentive for people not to leach off the system, or at least it would be considered leaching if they had to work for it.

I really like this idea.

An idea that might be a bit far fetched, but since Canada needs to have people populating the north to prove our claims of sovereignty over our territory why not send long term recipients up north to live with the Inuit, children and all? Set up a full community, teach them how to hunt and fish, live in the bush, etc. People who don't want to live there, they'll have to find jobs instead.

Haha. An interesting idea, I give you that.

[nX07]

I support the concept of welfare, it has good intentions, except too often it is abused.

I propose that the government, and the taxpaying people of Canada actually get something in return.

I think that each person collecting welfare should have to perform a minimum amount of hours (10-15) per week in a volunteering role. Whether that time is spent at a hospital, food colleciton, or just picking up garbage in local parks I don't care.

Under this scenario everyone would win. Tax dollars go to helping those who need it, and the people who are paying them (taxpayers) are getting a service in return, and so is the entire country as a whole. That said it would also provide incentive for people not to leach off the system, or at least it would be considered leaching if they had to work for it.

I love this idea

[shadow_cruiser]

A tenant I rented out my basement to told me his baby mama has a house and checks coming in every month, both provided by the government. The really ****** part is she goes out every weekend to the clubs and spends it all when her child is not getting any support.

Many people take advantage of the system we have, such a shame really.

[Nikita]

Then you've failed, b/c nowhere in your posts have you explained how welfare REWARDS deadbeat dads??

If you don't consider NOT having to support the children you create a 'reward' for having unprotected sex, then you have failed.


Do dead beat dads get an increase in welfare entitlement for fathering additional kids that they dont take responsibility for? No.
Not sure when you became such a man hater...seems pretty recent.

Not sure when you became such a woman hater....maybe just as recently as you seem to think I became a man-hater...:rolleyes: Actually not even sure why saying the same thing you said but switching genders, to make a point obviously missed, makes me a man hater??

My point was, having kids should be something that someone considers whether or not they can afford to do it, and it should not preclude someone from being able to work a job. Dual income families do it, why shouldnt single welfare moms? And since ultimately women can decide whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term, ultimately they have the responsibility of making that choice.

And my point is that a man is equally responsible for creating a child as a woman and is therefore equally responsible for supporting his children. Just because women make the 'ultimate decision whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term' is about the most ridiculous excuse for fatherly irresponsibility I've ever heard. Men have absolutely no right or reason to assume that if their action results in a pregnancy, the woman should have to abort a pregnancy for the guy's convenience.

I have tremendous respect for WORKING single moms. Welfare single moms, sitting around in their subsidized housing all day while their kids are at school, or spending baby bonus checks at the Bingo parlour, not so much.
It seems like you're trying to troll in a new thread and resurrect an argument that wasnt settled to your satisfaction because many people didnt agree with you, and ended up getting a thread locked before.

If quoting you (and only changing genders) is trolling than you my dear are as big a troll as I. Unfortunately you simply didn't get the point I was making by yes mocking your statement. As for the rest of your post I have no idea what thread or what argument you are talking about, nor do I much care...;) You don't agree with my opinion, I don't agree with yours...get over it.

Right, because future welfare mothers had no say in the matter when it came to deciding whether to have unprotected sex or not. How sexist.

Actually they have just as much say as the fathers, no more and no less. Last I checked it still took a man and a woman having unprotected sex to make a baby. How sexist to give equal responsibility to both...uh huh.