As a fellow Ontarian I share you concerns that our province is becoming a Kingdom of The Victims. I've never read Rand but I think I'm coming to some of the conclusions of 'Atlas Shrugged' on my own; specifically, that our institutions are sometimes hostile to the people who make Ontario work, and it would only take a small exodus of people saying 'screw this, I'm moving to Alberta or registering offshore and taking my tax dollars with me' to bring the whole system down. In some circles the people who pay the freight are referred to as 'Aryan Taxpaying Machines', or ATMs.

Branding the poor as 'losers' is a great way to get your article featured on the front page of JoeUser , but it reflects a childish and illogical outlook. You contradict yourself! In a previous article you say The Gays aren't evil because they are born that way. Same goes for many of our unfortunate citizens; many come from sexually and physically abusive pasts, are mentally ill, or have had challenges that were not of their doing. Nobody is ascribing 'nobility' to the poor, so let's put an end to that strawman argument. Consider yourself fortunate, John Galt, that your mother wasn't a crack whore in Scarborough and you didn't grow up in the 'hood.

I do agree with many of your sentiments and think we need to debate The Victim Society, but when you lead with 'the poor are losers', well, that's a non-starter.

D

John,

While I also advocate for the elimination of welfare as we know it, it should not be done until a whole slew of other problems are remedied as well. Your statement as to how easy it is to support a family doesn't take into account areas where I was previously located where the average wages are $6-8 an hour, and a 3 bedroom place can cost you upwards of $1100 (because of a land boom, there are VERY few apartments, so apartment living is rarely an option).

The example you cited is nuts. The $2000 the woman received could well have been used in setting up some sort of home enterprise rather than wasting it on extravagant gifts (we spent under $100 on our five children for Christmas because, hello...it's all we had to spend and we don't believe in incurring debt if it is at all avoidable, as it was in this instance). Basically, it could have been spent any number of ways other than how she spent it.

Hard luck cases come from people making stupid choices in the first place. It's buying the 50" TV set instead of keeping 3 months of income in the bank at all times to ensure that if something bad does happen you can get back up on your feet. It's the 50 credit cards all maxed out at 28% interest that causes the hard luck cases.

Frankly, this response is borne out of sheer idiocy. Personally, I have never owned a 50" TV in my life, and don't drink or smoke. Our recent financial crisis came from the fact that the savings we had was eaten up by medical expenses and lost income with the birth of our child, coupled with the fact that my boss laid me off two weeks after our baby was born (in nearly 20 years in the workforce, I had only been without work for two weeks prior). Fact is, there are legitimate hard luck cases, and while you have a right to a complete lack of compassion, it's my hope that that lack doesn't come back to haunt you and yours in the future.

Hear, hear! I agree with Brad, good show old boy.

The poor are poor because God has ordained that they be born peasantry in his 'Great Chain of Being'. It is not the responsibility of us wealthy gentleman to supplement drug habits and bastard children. Peasants should be bloody sterilised, then they would learn that you should only have ten children if you have inherited enough to pay for them.

Good show old dog.

"Champas, can you google up some statistics showing the average work ethics of the majority of welfare recepiants?"

I'm not really sure what this has to do with anything I said. Did you get the name right?

"How about any proof that those same recepiants don't squander it away? "

I never said they don't, in fact I said this..

""It's buying the 50" TV set instead of keeping 3 months of income in the bank at all times to ensure that if something bad does happen you can get back up on your feet. "

In many cases this is true."

"What about corrolation between welfare and drug use? Does one lead to the other? Which one starts which?"

I'm not really sure why you think this is a counter to anything I've said, but I think this is a chicken and egg story. I think it's unsurprising that many people on welfare become despondent and use drugs to try and add some vague sense of enjoyment to their lives (I'm not saying it works, but I can understand the attraction). By the same token I have seen students who take drugs (often to distract themselves from their family situations), fuck up their schooling and later don't really have a future. Maybe if they knew how to find themselves a future they could make one, but the thing is that I'm more likely to know how they can make a go of it than they are because I've been well educated.

"does that mean she should not have done SOMETHING with the money?"

No it doesn't. I am astonished by how many people I know who are middle class make ridiculous choices with their money without any consideration towards investment. And then they act surprised when I am able to afford to take overseas trips on a meagre salary. I make sacrifice. And of course, there are many poorer people who make equally silly decisions. But I am not so stupid as to think that this is just because I am so great, as Sir Peter satirically suggested. My mother taught me how to invest. My mother taught me how to use money wisely. I lived under her wing and because she was a loving mother, I paid attention and learned from her. I could have had a very different path. My father's first marriage broke up because he and his wife were working class and they squandered away their money. To this day, my father does not understand how money works and he tries to get my mother to use money in impulsive, unwise ways. This is because he has not been taught how to use money. And it is hard to teach an old dog new tricks. However, he has made considerable advances in the past 5 years and he can now do the shopping at a pretty good price, that is he doesn't by accident bring home the most expensive brand of pasta and he is learning to understand how budgeting works. He is gradually acquiring some cultural capital because he has married up.

"Champas, you have a perfectly good expensive keyboard, donate it to her family."

Actually I said that for satirical reasons, my keyboard is over a decade old because I don't need a newer computer for my purposes. But on that topic, read my article "The Meaning of Xmas for a Loony Left Secularist" and you will see that I do actually give a lot of money to charities and I mostly choose charitieis that are doing things that will help people be able to become self-sufficient.

I agree that there is a problem with some people becoming dependant on welfare, but does this mean that all these problems would suddenly get solved because we abolish welfare. Come on! That sounds even more pie in the sky than comunism!There is far more to it than that. "Losers" are "losers" for a reason, but I disagree with the reasons JG gives.

be careful what you wish for. If everybody who was believed to be a dickhead got hit by a car, you'd better beware the next bus that passes you.

Helix: fuck you

Woman on welfare with 3 kids and no husband (dead beat too aparently) finds $40,000 in cash.

If this is the same woman that I've been reading about, then she has six, not three, kids. Other than your post I've not read anything about her husband. What I want to know is where the hell is he and why isn't he paying half of the expense of raising his children?! Unless he is either dead, in jail, or skipped the country - then why should I have to pay even a nickel until he's paid his fair share?

Boxing Day, media does follow up story about how the woman spent all $2000 (almost all, I'll get to where the rest is going to go) on toys for her kids.

Damn, must have missed that on the news. I respect her for returning the money - that was the right thing to do, but squandering the opportunity to better the life of her family is tragic to say the least.

From the CBC news Link on her finding and returning the money:

"I just want to congratulate you, thank you and tell you how proud we are of what you did, and the good example you set not just for your kids, but for all Ontarians," McGuinty told Peliti. "You did a wonderful thing." "It's called upbringing," Peliti replied.

I guess that she slept through the lesson on self-reliance.

that the only place we ever saw colonies of people living on the streets was on film or in news reports about third world countries.

Or in the 30s when the unemployed was so severe that most hung out on the railroad--until the a generous government set up work camps.

Mr. Galt,

Having always admired Canadians' willingness to pay higher taxes to support those less fortunate, I am left wondering if the time you devoted to understanding the distinction between college and university came at the expense of the time you might have spent learning to spell. Perhaps the rash of mispelled words are the result of the conserative zeal at the heart of your dispassionate post. One can only pray that you don't become disabled, suffer a significant accident, or make imprudent financial investments. The Canadian safety net certainly has its roots in kindness and compassion. My experience is that people only get as worked up as you seem to have when the story hits close to home. Could it be one of those, "if you spot it, you got it" scenarios where grandma was on the dole? But, I may be wrong......

Second memo to Mr. Galt,

Do you honestly think that someone who successfully applies for and receives welfare has "won the lottery." Sadly, a secondary effect of poverty is settling for less. Ambitious individuals such as yourself would never take pride in succeeding in acquiring a $500 monthly check from the government, and some food stamps. Curious phenomena, though, to add to your homelessness research: the median rent for a two bedroom apartment in Eastern US exceeds $500 per month. Oops, not much money left for wine, weed, and twinkies!

It is your moral obligation to turn in money that isn't yours, no matter the amount. Why be rewarded for something you should have done, anyways?

I agree. It is or should be a moral obligation but the question of why should someone be rewarded is a bit complicated in this day and age.
As you know not everyone IS a moral person and many if not most, would not have turned in the money especially if they needed it.
I feel that they feel (they being governments) that if a reward were given it would, how should I say it, "inspire" people to return the money. (even though they should've in the first place.) But it does become a Catch 22.

Besides, if any of you Pro-welfare people really had any sense of compassion and justification for the entire system, you'd not only reward the woman in the article with the 2grand, you'd raise money to gurauntee she got into college/invested it for long-term goals for the children's future of college.

Well I thought the whole point of welfare was to gurauntee that the person reciving it would "get back on thier feet" and be more productive members of society. So, in effect, that IS the way we raise the money. It doesnt seem to work that often but it does work and I'll address that at the end.

Welfare is a WASTE. Just one that makes you feel better at night before you go to bed. Instead, the same children see their mother's behavior and follow suit. Welfare not only enables the current generation, but encourages the next to follow in their parent's footsteps. Wash, rinse, repeat. If a mother has 3 children and on welfare, one makes it into success and the other two remain on welfare, then

A bit of history. When I was a boy my mother divorced my father, remarried and divorced her 2nd husband. She went on welfare and YES it was her fault. However she didn't "ride" the system, she really tried to get up and move on. But it was very hard in that she was a single mother, we had no family to watch me (my father beat her and then took off) and , as others have said, if she did get a job she would not be able to pay for my daycare or her transportation. Loose loose situation.
Eventually we moved back to new england, when she finnaly saved enough money, and she got a job. Now my extended family could watch me so childcare was not an issue and the family was able to transport her to work and back untill she was able to buy a vehicle. She worked very hard to get off of welfare and in so doing she had very little time for me, in fact since she worked third shift, she had praticly NO time for me because I was in school when she was asleep and when I came home she was on her way to her part-time job before going to work at night.
She had no money to send me to collage or to get me a car so I could get a job. ( I rode my bike, hey you gotta do what you gotta do right?)
I went to Army Basic Training my Junior year of High School and then, after the next years graduation I stayed in the Army.
So no welfare is NOT a waste in the end. And NO it did NOT enourage me to follow in her footseps. I lived with Ramen Noodle or Mac and Cheese meals three times a day. Salvation Army (thank God for them) clothes. Torn shoes and so on. Welfare never gave us a free ride, it didn't pay enough to. Now I have uncontrolable seizures due to the removal of a brain tumor ( which manifested during Operation Iraqi Freedom- how I love the army).
So not only can I not work, which makes me feel worthless, I am on disability from the Army AND FROM MY STATE. Does that make a "sub-welfare" looser/
Oh yes, I also get to live with basicly not knowing my mother BECAUSE of what welfare did to her and I.

Ok so many people on welfare don't get back on their feet and some don't care to or try to and that is wrong. But to say that welfare is a waste and that we should not have to pay for the programme is wrong. Were it not for welfare I don't know where I would be right now. Oh yes I do. I WOULD BE HOMELESS and labeled a "looser"

Why do we reward poor choices, Kingbee? When did it become wrong for people to live up to their own mistakes, instead of blaming other people? The government is a body of people, our same people. The Government isn't an Ends all Beats all answer. Many people live within and without the very laws, regulations, and boundaries of the government very well. It just takes a little brainpower and confidence. Both things which are supposedly within each and every person's grasp if they reached for it. That's the American promise. You work for it, you'll get it as opposed to working for nothing

im not sure if youre responding to my first comment (about the mentally ill and homelessness) or the other one (in which i suggested she keep the money).  i dont recall advocating rewarding poor choices in either (unless you qualify mental illness as a poor choice).

I appologize for not reading what you wrote carefully about the $2000.00. The statement still stands however because while she is on welfare, the whole thing is essentially subsidized anyhow...

In many cases this is true. But not everyone is born into the privilege you and I were either. Not everyone got the relatively smooth upbringing we got. It is possible to overcome some of the odds that people face from day one of their lives, but I doubt many of us who were born into the middle class or the working class would have reacted any differently if faced with the same difficulties.

This if course is a load of horse shit. I could make excuses for my background (Yes, my parents were teachers, however my father was a bastard, and you can fill in the blanks from there.) but it doesn't matter. I have never, ever used it as an excuse (hence why I'm not a loser and a successful businessman). When I didn't sleep the night before an exam because I was busy defending my mother with a baseball bat against my father, I didn't whine to the teacher, I studied as much as I could, and did well, because I worked hard every other day of the year that I was able to sleep normally and get work done, and thus when it came time for the exam I was prepared and it didn't matter much. Even if I only got 70% on the exam, I had worked hard all year long and was well in good stead even if I got a poor mark on the exam.

This isn't about opertunity, or adversity, it's about planing and thinking. And you don't have to be intelligent to plan ahead for the unknown. But instead, losers plan for the moment and fixate on the "now" and immediate pay back (see the woman's actions as proof of this). This combined with extrordiary laziness of which "but someone did something to me that wasn't fair" is just another way of communicating laziness. Sure, shit happens, it happens on a daily basis. Success happens because you know shit happens, make no excuses, deal with it and overcome it. To put it another way, surviving is not an accomplishment, any idiot can do that. Overcoming whatever life throws at you and constantly bettering yourself, well doing so, that is an accomplishment, and that's the difference between losers and winners. Losers make excuses and stay knocked down, winners do not. And make no mistake, this isn't because of any special ability that losers dont' have. This is because of choice and a work ethic.

And yes, I can say that MOST of the people on welfare have some form of habit that they waste their money on to awe inspiring proprotions to the point of not bothering to feed their kids. (hence all of the school breakfast programs etc.) Why can I say this authoritiatively? Because I was brought up in a town with 80% unemployment. Most of my friends came from families that were unemployed. I got an opertunity to see their lives first hand. Further, my parents worked in that same community as teachers, I got direct regurgitation of all of the crap that happened with these people every day. And we're not talking about 20% of them, or even 50% of them. We're talking ALL of them. The ones that didn't have this crap, weren't on unemployement.

As for your arguement that it's just that some people don't have talents that are workable? That's a joke. You use what you have, and find something that people want. If you have something that you can do marginally well, with work you can make it into something unique and saleable. If you can stand behind a counter and ring through coke cans with a bar code reader, you can be off welfare and living your life on your own instead of leaching off of people that actually put an effort into their lives. There are more unfulfilled jobs than there are unemployeed both in Canada and the US and pretty much everywhere else in the world too. This doesn't take talent. A monkey could do these jobs. These people choose not to. And yes, it's a choice not to, and it's laziness again. It's easier to make money on wellfare than it is to actually do a day's work at something you dont' like to do.

As for your assertion about all of the aid workers etc. and what they're doing? It has nothing to do with the people they're helping and everything to do with them. For various reasons, they feel that they have to do this. When they're completely honest with themselves, none of those real reasons (I mean the real reasons, not the ones that they regurgitate to their friends) are anything other than personal issues they have with themselves, or a horrible complex about having any success at all, as trained into them by either their religion or their socialist parents. (i.e. there is no such thing as a truly selfless act.) That they make elaborate excuses for why they are doing this stuff is mindnumbing. That they actually believe that they have the right to demand (by force of arms through the government) that others aid their cause through money is unconcinable. (spelling) If you want to spend your life helping losers, that is your choice, and go ahead. But you do not have the right to tell me that I also have to help them.

That's just balls. You cannot get student loans/OSAP and get welfare at the same time. A full year term at Georgian is not just 2000.oo. You're not even factoring in books, additional fees, childcare costs, transportation, etc,. Hell, there are so many arguements that you have presented in your article that are way off... factoring in population and available employment opportunities is something that you've left out.

Actually if you read what I said I was talking about people not on welfare being able to get student loans. What I said about welfare people is that they get it for free. Yes, that's right, the government will essentially pay your way through college without much effort on your part if you're on welfare. (I know this because I have a "friend" (I wouldn't call him a friend, but I know him well, far more well than I would like if at all possible) that just did this and it pissed me off to no end.

As for books etc. Used ones are great, and when I was at university, I was able to get all of my text books for the entire year for < $200. That's 10 24s of beer, or less than one fith the number of cases that the normal welfare bum goes through in a year (being very generous in suggesting that they only go through one a week, or that they aren't smoking cigarettes or some other addictive chemical, or gambling at Casino Rama or whatever else they do that is collossally stupid and has caused them to still be on welfare after all of this time.) And that's assuming that the government wouldnt' pay for her books, which of course they would.

would it not have been a total waste of our time (not to mention the world's valuable virtual paper resources) to suggest you look for information to further reinforce your own conclusion?

In Ontario, the NDP's own numbers say that only 1 in 4 homeless are actually mentally ill. (My own observations, living two blocks away from Yonge St. in Toronto back this up.)

Thus the argument that was being flipantly made, is not valid. And yes, I have already stated repeatedly that the mentally ill are the only people that we have an obligation to help in a just society, so it doesn't apply as a rebuff for my argument because I explicitly eliminated the mentally ill from my case study.