Na, just take the welfare away entirely. I'd rather have a new street bike than pay for a twit to waste money all of the time and continually destroy her life every opertunity she gets (especially when she's given the opertunity instead of earns it). See I work. I produce. I deserve the money I make. She steals the money she gets (via the government) and does a piss poor job at that.

Your only job in life is to support yourself (and your children if you have them). It's not hard. It really is quite easy. You don't have to be intelligent, you don't have to be athletic, you just have to put some effort into it. And that's what they don't like. They'd rather steal (or more precisely let someone else steal for them, because they're even too lazy to steal for themselves) than put effort into it. And don't bother with the "bad luck" bullshit. It's just that: Bullshit.

Yeah a bit of a simplistic analysis really John. Nice as it would be to think that just because she has 2 grand suddenly she could afford to put herself through college despite the fact that she probably didn't have the marks to get into college, this is the real world. 2 grand would probably buy about one year of college, during which time she would obviously have to somehow bring in the dough and most importantly raise her kids. And of course it would only buy that tuition if she could get in, which she probably couldn't, because fortunately there are still some academic requirements for getting in.

"without the government stealing my money to facilitate them doing it "

boy poor you, I'm crying into my expensive keyboard with sympathy.

Champas Socialist:

First in Ontario the socalist have made it so that anyone over the age of 23 doesn't have to have the grades to get into College.
Second College is cheapo here. Unviersity is very much more money, but College is cheap. That's because we use College in the correct definition of the word instead of the US definition of the word that has been bastardized to mean Princton and Havard which are actually universities. To go to Georgian Collage, one year of tuition is ~$2000 for someone on an income to pay for and even then you can get student loans to help you with the rest, which she could have easily used some of her welfare cheque for (instead of beer) to pay the rest off like the rest of us do. For someone on Welfare, you get it for almost nothing, so it could have easily been done without any hassle at all.

Thus you entire position is based on ignorance. But then the socialist position IS based on ignorance.

The answer that you suggest I google is because society around the 50s and 60s started giving people something for nothing. Actually it started before then, but the effects started to be noticed because it took that long for people to change their view of being lazy) It was welfare in all of it's various forms that caused homelessness and losers. If you want proof of this, look at the Canadian unemployment rate compared to the US. All things being equal there should be fewer people on welfare based on the socialist position. However Canada has a higher unemployment rate that the US. Why? Because it's more profitable to steal money through welfare than it is to work at a 7-11. In fact, if you look at it, there is a direct corrolation between the rise of socialism in the west and the west's homelessness/welfare problem (they're pretty much the same thing). So if you want to be honest with yourself, blame the real creator of the problem: Socialism.

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. Stupid choices does not a sympathy make. You get what you pay for and reap what you sow, and pay for the consequences of your own actions. So by defintion there is no such thing as a hard luck case, only stupidity that cause people to not plan ahead so that they could deal with shit happening. (i.e. deciding that instead of house insurance they would buy another 24 of beer a month and then they're house burns down (true story))

Hmm, I say "2 grand would probably buy about one year of college"

Then you counter me by saying " To go to Georgian Collage, one year of tuition is ~$2000"

Hang on, no you just agreed with me.

"welfare cheque for (instead of beer)"

I thought it was toys. Or do you just assume that everyone on the dole pisses their pay up against a wall?

"Thus you entire position is based on ignorance. But then the socialist position IS based on ignorance."

Look I make no secret of the fact that I'm an Australian in Australia, not the USA, but come on get your hand off it. You may disagree with socialism, but it makes you look foolish when you just make blanket statements like 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. 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.

The answer that you suggest I google is because society around the 50s and 60s started giving people something for nothing.

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 a way, your response isnt that far off the mark--altho not by intent on your part.  homelessness--the kind seen in america and canada--is a direct result of giving a specific group of people something and nothing actually.  reagan was elected governor of california in the mid-60s because, among other things, he promised to balance the state budget.  unfortunately for him--and the people who voted him into office--that was an impossible task due to a number of factors, most beyond reagan's control. 

using recently enacted legislation, intended to prevent  abusive forcible confined of the mentally ill in state hospitals as part of the previous governor's program to rehabilitate the state's mental health program, reagan first fired so many of the psychiatrists and psychologists working at state outpatient clinics that the inpatient population grew to record levels.  the state was taken to court by state fire marshalls and ordered to reduce hospital occupancy.  at the time, estimated cost of treating a mentally ill inpatient was $20,000 a year and there were, at that point, 40,000 patients approximately in 13 state hospitals. reagan had 14,000 of them removed from hospitals by bussing them to their counties of origin--wearing only the clothes on their backs-- and released. each was given $1. this was followed by the closure of more than half of the state's mental hospitals.  while this saved the state a substantial amount of money, it became a model for every other state and--when reagan was elected president--the federal system as well. consequently tens of thousands of former mental patients were dumped out on the streets. it's estimate that at very least 1/3 of all homeless people today are mentally ill.

Turns in money.

after rereading this, i realized this is the part that really brands her a loser. 

Reminds me out of the book The Losers I read once about a bunch of people on welfare. Sad story about someone who was going to University from a rich family got hit by a car and lost his leg and arm. Point is he lived in this town where the people there were losers. He tried to use the people there to make a business to generate a future. The business fails and ultimately he becomes a loser there for a long time, just living off the system. One day he picks himself off the street and gives time to charity helping out people even less fortunate. Gets over a pain-addicted pain-killer life and does something usefull. Here's a woman with an opportunity to do sometihng usefull and she pissed it away. The 40k yes she could have kept it and helpped her family. Yes she could have taken the reward money + welfare check and gone to college. Just to give her family a future, but here she's just another loser who will always be on welfare because hey she gets her monlthy celibration of good times. It's party time in Welfre land time to light up and booze up. It's party time here lets piss away our future from one check to another.

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

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.

"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.

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.

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......