Welfare, the perpetual handout
William H. Belway
StatsCan has released information that shows that 54% of welfare
recipients have been on welfare for OVER TWO YEARS, and that 78% over 7
months-clearly reform is needed. Given that a sizable number had
post-secondary education, clearly there is a need for time limits on
welfare-18 months out of a 5 year period, and having welfare benefits
eliminated if an applicant turns down a job. This type of abuse [although
it doesn't qualify as abuse-if you suspect welfare abuse, Candace, call
1-800-394-STOP or 1-800-267-TIPS] has been going on for far too long. I
would encourage everyone to contact local Ottawa area MPP's Gary Guzzo and
John Baird as well as Mike Harris' office, as welfare is not meant to be a
retirement plan, Suzanne. Now I know you were planning on living off
welfare for the rest of your life at the height o f the Rae Daze, but that
just isn't going to happen.
54% have been on welfare for two years or longer-premiers Filmon, Harris,
Klein, and believe it or not, Clark in British Columbia need to be
petitioned to put time limits on welfare.
Jason Kodish
In article <6frtik$i...@freenet-news.carleton.ca> cc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA writes:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>StatsCan has released information that shows that 54% of welfare
>recipients have been on welfare for OVER TWO YEARS, and that 78% over 7
What has been neglected here is how many of them are on permanent dissability
of sorts, or suffering from lack of education.
Not to mention the disturbing figure that 11% have post secondary.
More rightoid fact twisting.
--
Jason Kodish
Thirring Institute for Applied Gravitational Research
http://www.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/thirring
-----------------------------------------------------
"when I help the poor, they call me a saint. But when I ask why
there are poor, they call me a communist."-bishop in Brazil.
Lars P Ormberg
Jason Kodish wrote:
> >StatsCan has released information that shows that 54% of welfare
> >recipients have been on welfare for OVER TWO YEARS, and that 78% over 7
> What has been neglected here is how many of them are on permanent dissability
> of sorts,
How many? I doubt all of them.
> or suffering from lack of education.
> Not to mention the disturbing figure that 11% have post secondary.
So 89% are "suffering from lack of education", despite high school
educational programs being made available for adults under welfare by
the government dollar. So they're pretty much lazy.
> More rightoid fact twisting.
As opposed to pinko-commie-lib fact ignoring.
--
Lars Ormberg
(I don't know where Mr. T lives...stop phoning my home) (___)
(o o)
- I'm a genuine, certified, dixie fried, full of /-------\ /
pride, 'til I die pure bred redneck! / | ||O
* ||,---||
mailto:la...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca ^^ ^^
mailto:commodo...@geocities.com
The University of Lars http://www.freeyellow.com/members2/larso/
"The Grateway" http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/polysci/grateway.htm
Lars Across the Globe Campain
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Club/5847/
Drew:So who all goes to these conventions anyway?
Lewis:Well, most of them are Trekkies like us, but then there are
a few Star Wars and Babylon 5 fans there too.
Oswald:Yeah, like that's real.
"The Drew Carey Show"
Jason Kodish
In article <35242E4B...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> commodo...@geocities.com writes:
>
>How many? I doubt all of them.
I'm still looking for the Stats, It was reported a few days ago.
>So 89% are "suffering from lack of education", despite high school
>educational programs being made available for adults under welfare by
>the government dollar. So they're pretty much lazy.
It didn't say that they were or were not involved in those programs at
the time.
>
>As opposed to pinko-commie-lib fact ignoring.
Whatever you say, Senator McCarthy.
>
>--
>Lars Ormberg
>(I don't know where Mr. T lives...stop phoning my home) (___)
> (o o)
>- I'm a genuine, certified, dixie fried, full of /-------\ /
> pride, 'til I die pure bred redneck! / | ||O
> * ||,---||
>mailto:la...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca ^^ ^^
>mailto:commodo...@geocities.com
>
>The University of Lars http://www.freeyellow.com/members2/larso/
>"The Grateway" http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/polysci/grateway.htm
>Lars Across the Globe Campain
> http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Club/5847/
>
>Drew:So who all goes to these conventions anyway?
>Lewis:Well, most of them are Trekkies like us, but then there are
> a few Star Wars and Babylon 5 fans there too.
>Oswald:Yeah, like that's real.
> "The Drew Carey Show"
>
--
Mr. Logical
Here's a hypothetical situtation;
Let's take a stereotypical (not a typical case, by any stretch of the
imagination, mind you) welfare case - lazy as dirt, no interest in getting
a job. It costs about $7500 a year to keep him on welfare.
Now, cut him off. He has three choices ; a: starve. b: get a job. c:
crime.
Now, let's say he chooses c, and starts stealing for a living. If he
settles for as much as he gets on welfare, that's $7500 a year being ripped
off.
If he's caught, it will cost $50,000 a year to keep him in jail.
If he isn't caught, he'll get better at it and keep stealing more and more.
What's more, he'll never choose b. because c. will have become his chosen
occupation. So in either case, you'll wind up losing many more times what
you will have paid out in welfare benefits.
Be nice, or I'll sic Mr. Sarcasm on you
grit...@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca
A state with the balls to mete out justice will NOT lose. You figure that a
government with the balls to abolish the welfare state will simply forget
everything else and that is just not so.
A state that has the balls to abolish welfare will also severely punish those
who steal and that does NOT mean keeping them in a nice jail doing fuck all.
There will be no TV, no pool table in the recreation area, no steak tartar,
nothing. There WOULD be, however, the rustling of their criminal asses up at
5:30AM every morning to get cleaned and dressed for the work detail where they
will bust their asses for 10 hours of hard physical labour until they are
returned to cells. Bloody right we'll get something back for what we spend on
them.
Jason Kodish
In article <jIFocZhJBIw6-p...@remote1159.compusm gritpipe@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca writes:
>
>will bust their asses for 10 hours of hard physical labour until they are
>returned to cells. Bloody right we'll get something back for what we spend on
>them.
And if they are unable or refuse to do the labour? What then?
Derek Nalecki
In article <3525d...@news.vphos.net>, s...@wkpowerlink.com (Mr. Logical) wrote:
>Here's a hypothetical situtation;
>
>Let's take a stereotypical (not a typical case, by any stretch of the
>imagination, mind you) welfare case - lazy as dirt, no interest in getting
>a job. It costs about $7500 a year to keep him on welfare.
>
>Now, cut him off. He has three choices ; a: starve. b: get a job. c:
>crime.
>
>Now, let's say he chooses c, and starts stealing for a living. If he
>settles for as much as he gets on welfare, that's $7500 a year being ripped
>off.
>
>If he's caught, it will cost $50,000 a year to keep him in jail.
>
>If he isn't caught, he'll get better at it and keep stealing more and more.
>What's more, he'll never choose b. because c. will have become his chosen
>occupation. So in either case, you'll wind up losing many more times what
>you will have paid out in welfare benefits.
>
S&#t, even _you_ can't be _this_ stupid.
1. It costs about $75,000 to keep that fellow on welfare - he gets the $7500,
but the welfare pimps - civil servants, "advocates", "activists" and middlemen
get the rest which is collected through taxes under the pretense of helping
the poor.
2. The idea that we should pay off scum, because otherwise it will steal from
us by force, is about as despicable as any ever spewed by the repugnant
welfare advocates.
This is not about this fellow, though, and paying _off_, is it? This is about
the continuation of the welfare system and paying of _you_ and filth like you.
derek n, RdNck, Pen-Arm of the Righteous, esq.
"Never initiate force against another. _That_ should be the underlying
principle of your life. But should someone do violence to you, retaliate
without hesitation, without reservation, without quarter, until you are
sure that he will never wish to harm - or never be capable of harming
- you or yours again."
(F. Paul Wilson - 'THE SECOND BOOK OF KYFHO; Revised Eastern Sect Edition')
********** THE ONLY GOOD ENVIRONMENT IS A MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT ***********
Derek Nalecki
In article <89174586...@thwap.nl2k.ab.ca>, jko...@thwap.nl2k.ab.ca (Jason Kodish) wrote:
>In article <jIFocZhJBIw6-p...@remote1159.compusm
> gritpipe@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca writes:
>>
>>will bust their asses for 10 hours of hard physical labour until they are
>>returned to cells. Bloody right we'll get something back for what we spend on
>>them.
>
>And if they are unable or refuse to do the labour? What then?
>
They don't eat.
grit...@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca
On Sun, 5 Apr 1998 03:11:05, jko...@thwap.nl2k.ab.ca (Jason Kodish) wrote:
> And if they are unable or refuse to do the labour? What then?
Oh that would just be rich - some deviant thug able to commit a crime, but
unable to do some labour to repay their crime? Boy did you fall hard off that
turnip truck. Or does this go all the way back to that squallor camp you were
born in when your mom shrieked as she heard a dull thud, and the immigrant
doctor saying, "I'm sorry, Mrs. Kodish. I drop da baby. I don' know why."
And to the file deviant thug who refused to work. Shoot the fuck. Hardly a
cruel act. The criminal would have exercised its freedom of choice to work or
not to work, and we would mete out the consequences of the choice.
Of course a smart violent thug would have made the choice to not commit a
crime in the first place.
Jason Kodish
In article <3529c...@news.cadvision.com> nale...@rescorporate.com writes:
>
>
>They don't eat.
Then they fight,
and you die.
>
>
>derek n, RdNck, Pen-Arm of the Righteous, esq.
>
>"Never initiate force against another. _That_ should be the underlying
>principle of your life. But should someone do violence to you, retaliate
>without hesitation, without reservation, without quarter, until you are
>sure that he will never wish to harm - or never be capable of harming
> - you or yours again."
>(F. Paul Wilson - 'THE SECOND BOOK OF KYFHO; Revised Eastern Sect Edition')
>********** THE ONLY GOOD ENVIRONMENT IS A MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT ***********
>
>
--
Jason Kodish
In article <jIFocZhJBIw6-p...@remote612.compusma gritpipe@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca writes:
>
>On Sun, 5 Apr 1998 03:11:05, jko...@thwap.nl2k.ab.ca (Jason Kodish) wrote:
>
>born in when your mom shrieked as she heard a dull thud, and the immigrant
>doctor saying, "I'm sorry, Mrs. Kodish. I drop da baby. I don' know why."
Your brainless insults wash off me like water off a ducks back, and show
what kind a pathetic coward you are.
>
>And to the file deviant thug who refused to work. Shoot the fuck. Hardly a
>cruel act. The criminal would have exercised its freedom of choice to work or
So regardless of the criminal act, you will hand out a death sentance for
merely not doing labour.
While I agree criminals should be punished, and harshly so, it does not
warrent a death sentance.
But then you're a fascist, so why should I be suprised at your behavior?
Ken Bendelier
>While I agree criminals should be punished, and harshly so, it does not
>warrent a death sentance.
>But then you're a fascist, so why should I be suprised at your behavior?
Actually, you have advocated the death sentence (note spelling) on a number of
threads. This is typical of your consistency.
Ken
>
>
>
>--
>Jason Kodish
>Thirring Institute for Applied Gravitational Research
>http://www.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/thirring
>-----------------------------------------------------
>"when I help the poor, they call me a saint. But when I ask why
>there are poor, they call me a communist."-bishop in Brazil.
>
>
It is the soldier, not the reporter
That gives us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet
That gives us freedom of expression.
It is the soldier, not the campus organizer
That gives us the right to demonstrate.
It is the soldier, not the lawyer
That gives us the right to a fair trial.
It is the soldier who salutes the flag.
It is the soldier who serves under the flag.
It is the soldier who has the flag draped on his coffin
So that protestors may burn the flag.
- Province
Ken Bendelier
In article <89218423...@thwap.nl2k.ab.ca>, jko...@thwap.nl2k.ab.ca (Jason Kodish) wrote:
>
>For criminals who commit murder, yes.
>Your point being?
Actually, on one thread, I think you wished upon all those who would refuse to
pay taxes to support the poor. The death sentance was a result of some type
of "revolt", which would be interesting to watch and quite an experience see
crushed.
>Besides another of your usual attempts to attack me?
Moi??????
Ken
>--
>Jason Kodish
Ken Bendelier
>Jason Kodish (jko...@thwap.nl2k.ab.ca) writes:
>> In article <3529c...@news.cadvision.com> nale...@rescorporate.com writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>They don't eat.
>>
>> Then they fight,
>> and you die.
There's that old death thing cropping uo again. Tsk tsk.
Ken
David Deilley
Mr. Logical wrote:
>
> nale...@rescorporate.com (Derek Nalecki) wrote:
> >S&#t, even _you_ can't be _this_ stupid.
> >1. It costs about $75,000 to keep that fellow on welfare - he gets the $7500,
> >but the welfare pimps - civil servants, "advocates", "activists" and middlemen
> >get the rest which is collected through taxes under the pretense of helping
> >the poor.
> I sure you have the sources to back this claim up.
Nalecki?? Backup?? Facts??
You're in the wrong newsgroup. Alt.humour.satire is three blocks north
and one block west.
Jason Kodish
In article <6giuu9$1og...@nb.sympatico.ca> kenn...@nb.sympatico.ca writes:
>
>Actually, you have advocated the death sentence (note spelling) on a number of
>threads. This is typical of your consistency.
For criminals who commit murder, yes.
Your point being?
Besides another of your usual attempts to attack me?
--
Mr. Logical
gritpipe@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca wrote:
>On Sat, 4 Apr 1998 07:00:14, s...@wkpowerlink.com (Mr. Logical) wrote:
>> Here's a hypothetical situtation;
>>
>> Let's take a stereotypical (not a typical case, by any stretch of the
>> imagination, mind you) welfare case - lazy as dirt, no interest in getting
>> a job. It costs about $7500 a year to keep him on welfare.
>>
>> Now, cut him off. He has three choices ; a: starve. b: get a job. c:
>> crime.
>>
>> Now, let's say he chooses c, and starts stealing for a living. If he
>> settles for as much as he gets on welfare, that's $7500 a year being ripped
>> off.
>>
>> If he's caught, it will cost $50,000 a year to keep him in jail.
>>
>> If he isn't caught, he'll get better at it and keep stealing more and more.
>> What's more, he'll never choose b. because c. will have become his chosen
>> occupation. So in either case, you'll wind up losing many more times what
>> you will have paid out in welfare benefits.
>A state with the balls to mete out justice will NOT lose. You figure that a
>government with the balls to abolish the welfare state will simply forget
>everything else and that is just not so.
>A state that has the balls to abolish welfare will also severely punish those
>who steal and that does NOT mean keeping them in a nice jail doing fuck all.
>There will be no TV, no pool table in the recreation area, no steak tartar,
>nothing. There WOULD be, however, the rustling of their criminal asses up at
>5:30AM every morning to get cleaned and dressed for the work detail where they
>will bust their asses for 10 hours of hard physical labour until they are
>returned to cells. Bloody right we'll get something back for what we spend on
>them.
Yeah, we'll have hardened criminals when they get out.
The money you save in "luxuries" well get used up (and then some) in
increased expenses for security, medical expenses, quelling riots, etc.
Besides, you think the Canadian public's going to support hard time for
stealing a ham? Do you really think it's moral to stick shoplifters in
with rapists and murderers? Or a return to slavery, or the corruption that
goes along with "prison labor" schemes?
And again, what about the ones that don't get caught? They just wind up
becoming better and better thieves, or worse, may graduate to violent
crime. Even if they do get caught, under your system it's the same as
sending them to "crime college".
Mr. Logical
nale...@rescorporate.com (Derek Nalecki) wrote:
>In article <3525d...@news.vphos.net>, s...@wkpowerlink.com (Mr. Logical) wrote:
>>Here's a hypothetical situtation;
>>
>>Let's take a stereotypical (not a typical case, by any stretch of the
>>imagination, mind you) welfare case - lazy as dirt, no interest in getting
>>a job. It costs about $7500 a year to keep him on welfare.
>>
>>Now, cut him off. He has three choices ; a: starve. b: get a job. c:
>>crime.
>>
>>Now, let's say he chooses c, and starts stealing for a living. If he
>>settles for as much as he gets on welfare, that's $7500 a year being ripped
>>off.
>>
>>If he's caught, it will cost $50,000 a year to keep him in jail.
>>
>>If he isn't caught, he'll get better at it and keep stealing more and more.
>>What's more, he'll never choose b. because c. will have become his chosen
>>occupation. So in either case, you'll wind up losing many more times what
>>you will have paid out in welfare benefits.
>>
>S&#t, even _you_ can't be _this_ stupid.
>1. It costs about $75,000 to keep that fellow on welfare - he gets the $7500,
>but the welfare pimps - civil servants, "advocates", "activists" and middlemen
>get the rest which is collected through taxes under the pretense of helping
>the poor.
I sure you have the sources to back this claim up.
>2. The idea that we should pay off scum, because otherwise it will steal from
>us by force, is about as despicable as any ever spewed by the repugnant
>welfare advocates.
Lots of things are repugnant about living in a civil society. Not being
able to take a baseball bat to a child molester, for instance. Too bad,
you gotta grit your teeth and take it.
And, FYI, I have never been on welfare in my life.
William H. Belway
Jason Kodish (jko...@thwap.nl2k.ab.ca) writes:
> In article <jIFocZhJBIw6-p...@remote1159.compusm gritpipe@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca writes:
>>
>>will bust their asses for 10 hours of hard physical labour until they are
>>returned to cells. Bloody right we'll get something back for what we spend on
>>them.
>
> And if they are unable or refuse to do the labour? What then?
>
90 days in the hole-every time. That requires no labour at all, and the
_RIGHT_ to sleep all day undisturbed.
William H. Belway
Jason Kodish (jko...@thwap.nl2k.ab.ca) writes:
> In article <3529c...@news.cadvision.com> nale...@rescorporate.com writes:
>>
>>
>>They don't eat.
>
> Then they fight,
> and you die.
>
Being locked up in solitary confinement for 90 days does not make a good
fighter. However, being locked up in the hole, prisoners would be fed the
bare essentials to survive, and have the _RIGHT_ to regain privileges by
working.
William H. Belway
Jason Kodish (jko...@thwap.nl2k.ab.ca) writes:
> In article <jIFocZhJBIw6-p...@remote612.compusma gritpipe@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca writes:
>>
>>On Sun, 5 Apr 1998 03:11:05, jko...@thwap.nl2k.ab.ca (Jason Kodish) wrote:
>>
>>born in when your mom shrieked as she heard a dull thud, and the immigrant
>>doctor saying, "I'm sorry, Mrs. Kodish. I drop da baby. I don' know why."
>
> Your brainless insults wash off me like water off a ducks back, and show
> what kind a pathetic coward you are.
>>
>>And to the file deviant thug who refused to work. Shoot the fuck. Hardly a
>>cruel act. The criminal would have exercised its freedom of choice to work or
>
> So regardless of the criminal act, you will hand out a death sentance for
> merely not doing labour.
> While I agree criminals should be punished, and harshly so, it does not
> warrent a death sentance.
> But then you're a fascist, so why should I be suprised at your behavior?
>
People who support capital punishment are worhtless rightoids.
grit...@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca
On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 18:19:12, cc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (William H. Belway)
wrote:
> People who support capital punishment are worhtless rightoids.
Say it all you want. "Rightoids" know full well that one does not get
applause for standing on solid principles.
Butt-fucks like you, however, like to oppose things like capital punishment,
especially for vile deviant thugs who violently violate the rights of others
(though I'd even extend it to those who import narcotics into our country),
because you have some hidden need to cover your bets.
You need that ace in the hole that would save your own ass because you want
that one final escape hatch so that if you YOURSELF wind up in the position of
wanting to commit a vile act to serve your own purpose, that you won't have to
be held ultimately accountable for it.
Derek Nalecki
In article <352ef...@news.vphos.net>, s...@wkpowerlink.com (Mr. Logical) wrote:
>gritpipe@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca wrote:
>
>
>>> Here's a hypothetical situtation;
>>>
>>> Let's take a stereotypical (not a typical case, by any stretch of the
>>> imagination, mind you) welfare case - lazy as dirt, no interest in getting
>>> a job. It costs about $7500 a year to keep him on welfare.
>>>
>>> Now, cut him off. He has three choices ; a: starve. b: get a job. c:
>>> crime.
>>>
>>> Now, let's say he chooses c, and starts stealing for a living. If he
>>> settles for as much as he gets on welfare, that's $7500 a year being ripped
>>> off.
>>>
>>> If he's caught, it will cost $50,000 a year to keep him in jail.
>>>
>>> If he isn't caught, he'll get better at it and keep stealing more and more.
>>> What's more, he'll never choose b. because c. will have become his chosen
>>> occupation. So in either case, you'll wind up losing many more times what
>>> you will have paid out in welfare benefits.
>
>>government with the balls to abolish the welfare state will simply forget
>>everything else and that is just not so.
>
>>A state that has the balls to abolish welfare will also severely punish those
>>who steal and that does NOT mean keeping them in a nice jail doing fuck all.
>>There will be no TV, no pool table in the recreation area, no steak tartar,
>>nothing. There WOULD be, however, the rustling of their criminal asses up at
>>5:30AM every morning to get cleaned and dressed for the work detail where they
>>returned to cells. Bloody right we'll get something back for what we spend on
>>them.
>
>
>The money you save in "luxuries" well get used up (and then some) in
>increased expenses for security, medical expenses, quelling riots, etc.
How did you arrive at that astounding notion?
>
>Besides, you think the Canadian public's going to support hard time for
>stealing a ham? Do you really think it's moral to stick shoplifters in
>with rapists and murderers? Or a return to slavery, or the corruption that
>goes along with "prison labor" schemes?
We already have slavery, within the system that considers all people earn to
be the property of the community (the state), and what little they get to keep
to be "tax expenditures".
Do you really think... no scrap that.. can you find someone *able* to think
who would consider shoplifting - stealing from people who worked hard for what
they have - moral?
>
>And again, what about the ones that don't get caught? They just wind up
>becoming better and better thieves, or worse, may graduate to violent
>crime. Even if they do get caught, under your system it's the same as
>sending them to "crime college".
>
And today of course they are "reformed", and become model citizens - leave for
the outside where they spend the rest of their life continuing to steal
themselves, or becoming wards of a system that steals _for_ them.
..You don't actually...comprehend much, do you sport?!?
derek n, RdNck, Pen-Arm of the Righteous, esq.
"Never initiate force against another. _That_ should be the underlying
principle of your life. But should someone do violence to you, retaliate
without hesitation, without reservation, without quarter, until you are
sure that he will never wish to harm - or never be capable of harming
- you or yours again."
(F. Paul Wilson - 'THE SECOND BOOK OF KYFHO; Revised Eastern Sect Edition')
********** THE ONLY GOOD ENVIRONMENT IS A MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT ***********
>
>
Derek Nalecki
In article <352F1190...@coastnet.com>, David Deilley <blo...@coastnet.com> wrote:
>Mr. Logical wrote:
>>
>> nale...@rescorporate.com (Derek Nalecki) wrote:
>
>> >1. It costs about $75,000 to keep that fellow on welfare - he gets the
> $7500,
>> >but the welfare pimps - civil servants, "advocates", "activists" and
> middlemen
>> >get the rest which is collected through taxes under the pretense of helping
>> >the poor.
>
>> I sure you have the sources to back this claim up.
>
>
>You're in the wrong newsgroup. Alt.humour.satire is three blocks north
>and one block west.
Always, unlike Davey-boy, here who has never posted a source or a backup in
his entire miserable existence on the usenet.
All levels of government in Canada have spend $210 billion on transfers to
persons, "official" social spending, etc. = all forms of welfare (1995)
- Stats Canada at http://WWW.StatCan.CA/english/Pgdb/State/govern.htm
According to Canada's premier social scientist Dr. Chris Sarlo, there are
between 2% and 3% people in Canada that can be credibly defined as poor -
600,000 to 900,000 people.
OTOH, most "poverty advocates" claim it to be on the order of 5 million - a
patently ridiculous number; but let's be generous here and assume a number
half way in between = 2,800 million people
$210 billion / 2,800,000 = $75,000;
Since by your own clumsy admission the fellow on welfare gets $7500 where did
the rest of the money went?!?
Now, is there anything else either of you two leftist "intellectuals" needs to
have explained to you one sentence at a time?
Mr. Logical
nale...@rescorporate.com (Derek Nalecki) wrote:
>In article <352F1190...@coastnet.com>, David Deilley <blo...@coastnet.com> wrote:
>>Mr. Logical wrote:
>>>
>>> nale...@rescorporate.com (Derek Nalecki) wrote:
>>
>>> >S&#t, even _you_ can't be _this_ stupid.
>>> >1. It costs about $75,000 to keep that fellow on welfare - he gets the
>> $7500,
>>> >but the welfare pimps - civil servants, "advocates", "activists" and
>> middlemen
>>> >get the rest which is collected through taxes under the pretense of helping
>>> >the poor.
>>
>>> I sure you have the sources to back this claim up.
>>
>>Nalecki?? Backup?? Facts??
>>
>>You're in the wrong newsgroup. Alt.humour.satire is three blocks north
>>and one block west.
>Always, unlike Davey-boy, here who has never posted a source or a backup in
>his entire miserable existence on the usenet.
>All levels of government in Canada have spend $210 billion on transfers to
>persons, "official" social spending, etc. = all forms of welfare (1995)
> - Stats Canada at http://WWW.StatCan.CA/english/Pgdb/State/govern.htm
Why do you bother listing a source if you're not going to read it? $210
billion is more than the TOTAL expenditures of the federal government. The
total combined expenditures of all levels of government is only $357
billion, and social service comes in at $85.7 billion. Which,
incidentally, has to cover not only welfare, but CPP, family allowance, and
all other social programs as well.
>According to Canada's premier social scientist Dr. Chris Sarlo,
Some guy sponsored by the Fraser Institute. Yeah, there's an objective
source for you - oops, Mr. Sarcasm jumped out a little bit there.
The rest of your post, based on what has shown to be inaccurate figures, is
moot. It doesn't help to fire impressive-sounding numbers out randomly,
Derek - they have to have some grounding in your source.
Mr. Logical
nale...@rescorporate.com (Derek Nalecki) wrote:
History. The who reason they began giving the cons those things is that
they produced a cost savings in the long run, not to mention it made things
safer for the guards.
Treat people like animals, and they'll act accordingly.
>>
>>Besides, you think the Canadian public's going to support hard time for
>>stealing a ham? Do you really think it's moral to stick shoplifters in
>>with rapists and murderers? Or a return to slavery, or the corruption that
>>goes along with "prison labor" schemes?
>We already have slavery, within the system that considers all people earn to
>be the property of the community (the state), and what little they get to keep
>to be "tax expenditures".
A piece of advice - if you're going to duck an issue, don't use a
foaming-at-the-mouth rant to do it.
>Do you really think... no scrap that.. can you find someone *able* to think
>who would consider shoplifting - stealing from people who worked hard for what
>they have - moral?
Yes. Someone who's starving to death. And, if you want to get picky about
it, I guess a lot of criminals have loopholes in their ethical thinking
that allow them to justify their actions as "moral". You've done it
yourself often enough.
>>
>>And again, what about the ones that don't get caught? They just wind up
>>becoming better and better thieves, or worse, may graduate to violent
>>crime. Even if they do get caught, under your system it's the same as
>>sending them to "crime college".
>>
>And today of course they are "reformed", and become model citizens - leave for
>the outside where they spend the rest of their life continuing to steal
>themselves,
I believe that was my point. Thanks for clarifying it for me.
>or becoming wards of a system that steals _for_ them.
Again, ducking the issue with a rant. At least you aren't faking anymore
numbers.
>..You don't actually...comprehend much, do you sport?!?
Beats comprehending nothing at all - sport.
>derek n, RdNck, Pen-Arm of the Righteous, esq.
>"Never initiate force against another. _That_ should be the underlying
>principle of your life. But should someone do violence to you, retaliate
>without hesitation, without reservation, without quarter, until you are
>sure that he will never wish to harm - or never be capable of harming
> - you or yours again."
>(F. Paul Wilson - 'THE SECOND BOOK OF KYFHO; Revised Eastern Sect Edition')
>********** THE ONLY GOOD ENVIRONMENT IS A MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT ***********
>>
>>
bad...@cow-net.com
In <jIFocZhJBIw6-p...@remote744.compusmart.ab.ca>, on
04/11/98
>Say it all you want. "Rightoids" know full well that one does
>not get applause for standing on solid principles.
Do principles come in various "states"? Does the state of a
principle vary with temperature and pressure?
Or perhaps I've misunderstood you? Only unpopular principles are
"solid". Isn't this just the flip side of the relativistic
humanist principles that you so deride? Clearly I'm confused, I
just can't seem to find any solid principles to stand on <sigh>.
--
--------------------------------------------------------
SecureCom support Page (formally NetChat)
http://cud.cow-net.com/badams/index.htm
Barry Adams
Vancouver Island,B.C.,Canada
---
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Logical
gritpipe@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 18:19:12, cc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (William H. Belway)
>wrote:
>> People who support capital punishment are worhtless rightoids.
>Say it all you want. "Rightoids" know full well that one does not get
>applause for standing on solid principles.
>Butt-fucks like you, however, like to oppose things like capital punishment,
>especially for vile deviant thugs who violently violate the rights of others
>(though I'd even extend it to those who import narcotics into our country),
>because you have some hidden need to cover your bets.
>You need that ace in the hole that would save your own ass because you want
>that one final escape hatch so that if you YOURSELF wind up in the position of
>wanting to commit a vile act to serve your own purpose, that you won't have to
>be held ultimately accountable for it.
Er, Gritpipe - a piece of friendly advice - don't let Derek finish up your
arguments for you. Real bad idea.
Ray Cooper
s...@wkpowerlink.com (Mr. Logical) wrote:
>all other social programs as well....
>The rest of your post, based on what has shown to be inaccurate figures, is
>moot. It doesn't help to fire impressive-sounding numbers out randomly,
>Derek - they have to have some grounding in your source.
Lending some credence to the thrust of Derek's message: "One U.S.
study found that the government had to spend $350 to get $100 to the
poor. The rest was simply wasted getting the $100 to the poor...If we
don't think the same thing happens in Canada, consider job-training
programs, which are geared to helping the working poor upgrade their
skills and get better paying jobs. From 1976 to 1990, the federal
government spent over $12 billion on these programs. The
apprenticeship programs have been a dismal failure. There's a 40%
drop out rate, and of those that finish, their chances of higher wages
or of getting a job are no better than those who drop out. Society
suffers a double failure: our skills aren't any better, and the $12
billion is lost forever."
See Ernest B. Akyeampong, "Apprentices: Graduate and dropout Labour
market performances, " StatsCan, Perspectives on Labour and Income,
spring 1991. And finally Patrick Luciani "What Canadians Believe, But
Shouldn't, About Their Economy" 1993
grit...@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca
On Tue, 14 Apr 1998 18:52:02, roy_...@mortimer.com (Ray Cooper) wrote:
> Lending some credence to the thrust of Derek's message: "One U.S.
> study found that the government had to spend $350 to get $100 to the
> poor. The rest was simply wasted getting the $100 to the poor...If we
> don't think the same thing happens in Canada, consider job-training
> programs, which are geared to helping the working poor upgrade their
> skills and get better paying jobs. From 1976 to 1990, the federal
> government spent over $12 billion on these programs. The
> apprenticeship programs have been a dismal failure. There's a 40%
> drop out rate, and of those that finish, their chances of higher wages
> or of getting a job are no better than those who drop out. Society
> suffers a double failure: our skills aren't any better, and the $12
> billion is lost forever."
>
> See Ernest B. Akyeampong, "Apprentices: Graduate and dropout Labour
> market performances, " StatsCan, Perspectives on Labour and Income,
> spring 1991. And finally Patrick Luciani "What Canadians Believe, But
> Shouldn't, About Their Economy" 1993
It also proves my point true AGAIN that government is the instigator of all
our social ills, beginning with the welfare system.
Welfare is a reward for failure.
ABOLISH WELFARE NOW!
jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Organization: Edmonton FreeNet, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Distribution:
gritpipe@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca wrote:
: On Tue, 14 Apr 1998 18:52:02, roy_...@mortimer.com (Ray Cooper) wrote:
: Welfare is a reward for failure.
: ABOLISH WELFARE NOW!
Yes, and start the Mighty Revolution that brings down the poor bashers in
flames.
--
-Jason Kodish
"Never seek to engage in a confrontation, but forced upon you,
never fear a confrontation."-Grand Master Simon
pbucciol
jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote in message
<6h1cmm$jvu$1...@news.sas.ab.ca>...
>Organization: Edmonton FreeNet, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
>Distribution:
>
>gritpipe@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca wrote:
>: On Tue, 14 Apr 1998 18:52:02, roy_...@mortimer.com (Ray Cooper) wrote:
>
>: Welfare is a reward for failure.
>
>: ABOLISH WELFARE NOW!
>
>
>Yes, and start the Mighty Revolution that brings down the poor bashers in
>flames.
How communist of you
Ray Cooper
gritpipe@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Apr 1998 18:52:02, roy_...@mortimer.com (Ray Cooper) wrote:
>
>Welfare is a reward for failure.
>
>ABOLISH WELFARE NOW!
I think it was California that implemented a 3 or 5 year limit to
welfare. I don't remember if that was a lifetime limit or if after a
few years off welfare you could go back on if necessary. During your
time on welfare, you had to attend some sort of approved school to
improve your skills. I think it is a fair plan but unless the entire
country has a similar plan, people will migrate from province to
province looking for the best welfare.
You can call "welfare... a reward for failure" but in a so-called
companionate society it is viewed as compassion for those less
fortunate.
Ray Cooper
jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () wrote:
>Organization: Edmonton FreeNet, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
>Distribution:
>
>gritpipe@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca wrote:
>: On Tue, 14 Apr 1998 18:52:02, roy_...@mortimer.com (Ray Cooper) wrote:
>
>: Welfare is a reward for failure.
>
>: ABOLISH WELFARE NOW!
>
>
>Yes, and start the Mighty Revolution that brings down the poor bashers in
>flames.
Jason Kodish please apologize. Your sloppy editing has made it appear
that I roy_...@mortimer.com (Ray Cooper), wrote or condone the above
sentiment. You will of course apologize if you believe your Grand
Master Simon: "Never seek to engage in a confrontation, but forced
jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
pbucciol (pbuc...@bigfoot.com) wrote:
: How communist of you
It's not called communism, rightoid pencil pusher, it's called survival.
If you wish to starve people, you had better be prepared to give up your
life for inflicting that sort of cruelty on others.
jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Organization: Edmonton FreeNet, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Distribution:
Ray Cooper (roy_...@mortimer.com) wrote:
: jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () wrote:
: Jason Kodish please apologize. Your sloppy editing has made it appear
: that I roy_...@mortimer.com (Ray Cooper), wrote or condone the above
I reexamined what I typed, and confirmed this. I apologize as that wasn't
my intent. I will try to be more cautious in the future.
grit...@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca
On Thu, 16 Apr 1998 04:08:39, jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () wrote:
> It's not called communism, rightoid pencil pusher, it's called survival.
It's called communism, bumfuck.
> If you wish to starve people, you had better be prepared to give up your
> life for inflicting that sort of cruelty on others.
So now it's BLACKMAIL!
"I don't want to carry my own weight around here. Now feed me, OR I'LL KILL
YOU."
I dare you or any lazy ass welfare fuck to try it.
We don't consider this much of a threat. If a lazy-ass welfare fuck can't
gather up enough motivation to get a job, where on earth would they get the
motivation to pick up a stick (or a gun) and whack somebody.
grit...@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca
Incidentally, the state of Wisconsin abolished welfare as of April 1 this
year. Every able-bodied person is now off the dole. Why? No such thing as
dole in Wisconsin anymore.
On Thu, 16 Apr 1998 02:41:47, roy_...@mortimer.com (Ray Cooper) wrote:
> You can call "welfare... a reward for failure" but in a so-called
> companionate society it is viewed as compassion for those less
> fortunate.
Correction, FORCED compassion. I have an audio discussion on this very topic
if you want it posted again for your downloading and listening pleasure.
Welfare is the reflection of this elitist view that, left to our own devices,
people would let those less fortunate starve and die in the streets and that
is just not so. And this forced compassion is done by government at the point
of a gun. Ultimately all governments enforce their dictums with a gun. Don't
pay your taxes and you'll eventually be arrested by someone with a gun.
Welfare sets up this "disconnect" between those who are the providers in this
society, and the takers. And how does it help further social ills? One way
is YOUR disconnection from your own community. Once upon a time if a person
really fell on hard times, the immediate community helped out. Now it
doesn't. Why? People say "I don't have to - I pay the Government to do
that."
Left in the community, the takers in this society would get handouts from
people they would have to meet and greet every day and after a point would
have some serious answering to do if those familiar helping faces started
asking, "How many doors did YOU knock on today looking for a job."
The job of welfare should be left to private charities. If you want an
example of one, The Salvation Army.
Lessen the tax load by extorting that life energy (money) out of people and
the monies available to private charities will go up. This is proven in the
U.S. Americans are far and away the highest contributors to charities per
capita that any other people. Their charitable donations increased in the
Regan years when taxes were cut.
Jason Kodish
In article <jIFocZhJBIw6-p...@remote214.compusma gritpipe@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca writes:
>
>of a gun. Ultimately all governments enforce their dictums with a gun. Don't
>pay your taxes and you'll eventually be arrested by someone with a gun.
That's right, go into a store and try to take something, and there will
be a gun pointed at your head sooner or later. Live in a country and
give nothing back to it, the same thing applies.
You are free not to pay taxes by getting your sorry worthless self out
of my country.
>Welfare sets up this "disconnect" between those who are the providers in this
>society, and the takers. And how does it help further social ills? One way
That disconnect has been created by massive changes from an agrarian
society to a technological one.
In a market that actually responds well to and requires a certain
level of unemployment to function, it is our duty to help those
less fortunate.
>Lessen the tax load by extorting that life energy (money) out of people and
>the monies available to private charities will go up. This is proven in the
When your foul mouth sputtem goes to the corporate welfare bums who
are more responsabile for high taxes than the pittiance given to welfare
recipients, I will accept your arguments.
Until then, you are merely hate mongering, but then for
all your supposed godliness, you are a hatemonger, and take
joy in harming others.
Jason Kodish
>It's called communism, bumfuck.
I don't know what communism has to do with rectal intercourse, though
I do know that Kleinoids and other rightoids have been screwing this
country over for decades, if that's what you mean.
>> life for inflicting that sort of cruelty on others.
>So now it's BLACKMAIL!
No, my friend, it's called war. If you want to wage war on the poor,
you'd better be ready to fight and die.
>"I don't want to carry my own weight around here. Now feed me, OR I'LL KILL
>YOU."
Oh, if those were the reasons behind welfare. Unfortunately while it may
make good propoganda it is not the truth.
If a government can give billions in corporate welfare, but is unwilling
to help hungry citizens, than it should fall.
>We don't consider this much of a threat. If a lazy-ass welfare fuck can't
>gather up enough motivation to get a job, where on earth would they get the
Like I said, laziness is not the reason for welfare. But then reasoning
that out takes a man with brains, not a drooling cursing idiot.
Ray Cooper
jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () wrote:
>Organization: Edmonton FreeNet, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
>Distribution:
>
>Ray Cooper (roy_...@mortimer.com) wrote:
>: jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () wrote:
>
>: Jason Kodish please apologize. Your sloppy editing has made it appear
>: that I roy_...@mortimer.com (Ray Cooper), wrote or condone the above
>
>
>I reexamined what I typed, and confirmed this. I apologize as that wasn't
>my intent. I will try to be more cautious in the future.
Thank you.
pbucciol
Jason Kodish wrote in message [snip]
>
>When your foul mouth sputtem goes to the corporate welfare bums who
>are more responsabile for high taxes than the pittiance given to welfare
>recipients, I will accept your arguments.
>Until then, you are merely hate mongering, but then for
>all your supposed godliness, you are a hatemonger, and take
>joy in harming others.
Hong Kong has low taxes, a vibrant economy and low social program costs. Why
are companies doing well there (even after the Asian flu) and the tax rate
remains low. By your logic, profitable companies= high taxes.
I have the answer...it's your logic.
Mr. Logical
gritpipe@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca wrote:
>Incidentally, the state of Wisconsin abolished welfare as of April 1 this
>year. Every able-bodied person is now off the dole. Why? No such thing as
>dole in Wisconsin anymore.
>On Thu, 16 Apr 1998 02:41:47, roy_...@mortimer.com (Ray Cooper) wrote:
>> You can call "welfare... a reward for failure" but in a so-called
>> companionate society it is viewed as compassion for those less
>> fortunate.
>Correction, FORCED compassion. I have an audio discussion on this very topic
>if you want it posted again for your downloading and listening pleasure.
If you are as Christian as you claim, you shouldn't have a problem with
compassion, forced or otherwise. Most of our laws have to do with "forced"
compassion in any case.
>Welfare is the reflection of this elitist view that, left to our own devices,
>people would let those less fortunate starve and die in the streets and that
>is just not so.
So there's no starving people anywhere in the world?
> And this forced compassion is done by government at the point
>of a gun. Ultimately all governments enforce their dictums with a gun. Don't
>pay your taxes and you'll eventually be arrested by someone with a gun.
You'd rather cops walked around unarmed? Know anyone who actually was shot
for tax evasion?
>Welfare sets up this "disconnect" between those who are the providers in this
>society, and the takers. And how does it help further social ills? One way
>is YOUR disconnection from your own community. Once upon a time if a person
>really fell on hard times, the immediate community helped out.
They still do. I knew a bunch of guys from university who would have had
to go on welfare if their families hadn't helped out. And yes, they all
worked hard and got good marks.
> Now it
>doesn't. Why? People say "I don't have to - I pay the Government to do
>that."
Not all of them.
>Left in the community, the takers in this society would get handouts from
>people they would have to meet and greet every day and after a point would
>have some serious answering to do if those familiar helping faces started
>asking, "How many doors did YOU knock on today looking for a job."
How many welfare recipients did you hire?
I remember one guy who got out of university who had a choice between going
on welfare in Vancouver or staying with his family, who lived in Golden.
This guy had just graduated with a degree in electrical engineering, and
there isn't much call for that in Golden. So, he decided to stay in
Vancouver, where he could hit more businesses, knock on more doors, make
more phone calls, etc.
It took him five months, but he got a job and is now off welfare and doing
quite well. If he had gone to Golden, he'd probably still be unemployed
after two years.
>The job of welfare should be left to private charities. If you want an
>example of one, The Salvation Army.
Ask them sometime whether they can haul the whole load by themselves.
A number of problems with that:
1. Private charities and the communites often do not have the resources
needed to handle the burden, especially during economic downturns.
2. "The Community" oft restricts its donations to those whom lifestyles
they deem "desirable".
3. As we've previously established, it is far cheaper to pay off a welfare
recipient than to jail a criminal. Try asking for donations to cover
prison costs.
>Lessen the tax load by extorting that life energy (money) out of people and
>the monies available to private charities will go up. This is proven in the
>U.S. Americans are far and away the highest contributors to charities per
>capita that any other people. Their charitable donations increased in the
>Regan years when taxes were cut.
And their level of poverty, hunger, crime, and social unrest is far greater
too.
M.Tanner
> Welfare is a reward for failure.
>
> ABOLISH WELFARE NOW!
Hey genius, if you abolish welfare altogether, you're going to have more
robberies, more beggars, and more teenage prostitution. Is that what
you really want?
grit...@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca
On Sat, 18 Apr 1998 05:00:12, s...@wkpowerlink.com (Mr. Logical) wrote:
> So there's no starving people anywhere in the world?
Didn't say that, idiot. Did you read the whole post? It spoke to the elitist
view of this. But you instead show what a fuckin' whack job you are by trying
to make the connection that since there ARE starving people in the world, it
MUST be because we are LETTING them. What BULLSHIT.
> You'd rather cops walked around unarmed? Know anyone who actually was shot
> for tax evasion?
Not shot, but led away with the force of a gun, which exactly holds that
statement true. So if you tried to catch me in a slip up so you could smugly
strut around with a "Ha ha, got you" look, you failed miserably.
> They still do. I knew a bunch of guys from university who would have had
> to go on welfare if their families hadn't helped out. And yes, they all
> worked hard and got good marks.
How do you know they WOULD have had to go on welfare? More fucking elitist
BULLSHIT that if one somehow does not get that "management" position they are
holding out for, that their only other choice MUST be WELFARE.
If our universities are teaching our children to think it sure isn't teaching
our children to work ...
.. university students with their body of knowledge considering welfare as an
option - they ought to be fucking embarassed.
> Not all of them.
Plenty of them. And you are probably among the plenty.
> How many welfare recipients did you hire?
None. Now, ask me why ...
> I remember one guy who got out of university who had a choice between going
> on welfare in Vancouver or staying with his family, who lived in Golden.
> This guy had just graduated with a degree in electrical engineering, and
> there isn't much call for that in Golden. So, he decided to stay in
> Vancouver, where he could hit more businesses, knock on more doors, make
> more phone calls, etc.
>
> It took him five months, but he got a job and is now off welfare and doing
> quite well. If he had gone to Golden, he'd probably still be unemployed
> after two years.
This in no way makes the case for welfare. Of course you conveniently left
out what jobs he was going after in Van. And I know why it was convenient for
you to leave that out. It's because of this other fucking elitist view among
the fuckin' academics that it is somehow an affront to your reputation to take
a lesser job. Well listen up, asshole. When times are tough there is NO job
that is beneath you.
Welfare is just another net to catch people and prevent them from failing.
You take away peoples' ability to fail, and you also take away their ability
to succeed.
> >The job of welfare should be left to private charities. If you want an
> >example of one, The Salvation Army.
>
> Ask them sometime whether they can haul the whole load by themselves.
No I WON'T ask them, because I know what the answer is. It will ne no. So?
Does that stop YOU from starting a private charity? Hell no. The only
inhibitor is that you're probably too fuckin' lazy to get your boney ass
perpendicular to do something about it. You'd rather sit back and whine about
how no effort would be enough, so fuck it, why even try.
> A number of problems with that:
>
> 1. Private charities and the communites often do not have the resources
> needed to handle the burden, especially during economic downturns.
So? In what other things in life are there guarantees?
> 2. "The Community" oft restricts its donations to those whom lifestyles
> they deem "desirable".
And what is wrong with holding people up to some standards and expectations of
behaviour? The only thing your kind sees with it, and it is very obvious from
the thoughts you post, is that you don't want to be held to ANYTHING! You
want all the fucking perks with NONE of the obligations.
I liken you to a class of people that really exist, who would think nothing of
having a new car in their driveway without making any of the payments if they
*knew* they could get away with it.
> And their level of poverty, hunger, crime, and social unrest is far greater
> too.
Vancouver is the crime capital of the continent. Since you fucked that up,
it's easy to discount the rest of that statement.
Werner Knoll
Low social program costs you say? You are absolutely right on this one.
Next time when you are in Kong Kong, do like I have done, walk the back
streets and you will notice people sleeping on the ground with the
little belongings they have right beside them. Walk in the business
sector and watch people begging for foot. Watch the police taking care
of this guy’s by taking them away on trucks so the cannot be an
embarrassment to the well to do. Or better yet, send your sister to
check it out.
Werner Knoll
The law in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and steal bread.
Anatole France
Jason Kodish
In article <6h86kp$sn$1...@news.on> pbuc...@bigfoot.com writes:
>
>>When your foul mouth sputtem goes to the corporate welfare bums who
>>are more responsabile for high taxes than the pittiance given to welfare
>>recipients, I will accept your arguments.
>>Until then, you are merely hate mongering, but then for
>>all your supposed godliness, you are a hatemonger, and take
>>joy in harming others.
>
>
>Hong Kong has low taxes, a vibrant economy and low social program costs. Why
>are companies doing well there (even after the Asian flu) and the tax rate
Perhaps, Paul, Hong Kong doesn't have a pile of corporate welfare bums
leaching off the country.
Mr. Logical
gritpipe@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Apr 1998 05:00:12, s...@wkpowerlink.com (Mr. Logical) wrote:
>> So there's no starving people anywhere in the world?
>Didn't say that, idiot. Did you read the whole post? It spoke to the elitist
>view of this. But you instead show what a fuckin' whack job you are by trying
>to make the connection that since there ARE starving people in the world, it
>MUST be because we are LETTING them. What BULLSHIT.
It's your own logic. You said that people would not let other people
starve. Therefore, there must be no starving people in the world. Unless
of course, the non-hungry are simply unable to help all the hungry ones
which pretty much defeats your arguments as well.
>> They still do. I knew a bunch of guys from university who would have had
>> to go on welfare if their families hadn't helped out. And yes, they all
>> worked hard and got good marks.
>How do you know they WOULD have had to go on welfare? More fucking elitist
>BULLSHIT that if one somehow does not get that "management" position they are
>holding out for, that their only other choice MUST be WELFARE.
Do you really think that these people spent 4 years of their lives and
$35,000 to work at McDonalds?
>If our universities are teaching our children to think it sure isn't teaching
>our children to work ...
Nobody gets through university without working, buddy.
>.. university students with their body of knowledge considering welfare as an
>option - they ought to be fucking embarassed.
It's the government and employers who are supposed to be providing the jobs
for them that should be ashamed.
>> Not all of them.
>Plenty of them. And you are probably among the plenty.
Sorry, never been on welfare in my life.
>> How many welfare recipients did you hire?
>None. Now, ask me why ...
Why? You don't feel like pulling your weight?
>> I remember one guy who got out of university who had a choice between going
>> on welfare in Vancouver or staying with his family, who lived in Golden.
>> This guy had just graduated with a degree in electrical engineering, and
>> there isn't much call for that in Golden. So, he decided to stay in
>> Vancouver, where he could hit more businesses, knock on more doors, make
>> more phone calls, etc.
>>
>> It took him five months, but he got a job and is now off welfare and doing
>> quite well. If he had gone to Golden, he'd probably still be unemployed
>> after two years.
>This in no way makes the case for welfare. Of course you conveniently left
>out what jobs he was going after in Van. And I know why it was convenient for
>you to leave that out. It's because of this other fucking elitist view among
>the fuckin' academics that it is somehow an affront to your reputation to take
>a lesser job. Well listen up, asshole. When times are tough there is NO job
>that is beneath you.
Yeah, he should have went to all that trouble to better his life so he
could work at McDonalds. Incidentally, even if he wanted to work at
McDonalds, he was probably better off in Vancouver than Golden. Contrary
to what you might believe, even minimum-wage jobs are hard to come by in
small towns.
And where do you get off calling me elitist, you hypocritical little snot?
The first thing you did when you got on here was rub your pathetic little
house in everyone's face like it was a badge of your own personal
superiority. Here you are suggesting people should take minimum wage jobs
so you can spit on them instead of kicking them.
You know, there was a time when I was well on my way to becoming precisely
the kind of arrogant little snotbag that you are. I too thought I had
everything planned, all the contingencies covered, that if human beings
were cars I was a Ferrari and anyone who couldn't do as well as I could, it
was their own damn fault and nothing elses. Well, guess what, I took a
fall, and its been a long climb back, and along the road I picked up an
education in humanity 101. And if that fall prevented me from becoming a
prick like you, it was well worth it.
>Welfare is just another net to catch people and prevent them from failing.
No, it's a net to catch them and prevent them from dying. People don't
generally end up on welfare by succeeding.
>You take away peoples' ability to fail, and you also take away their ability
>to succeed.
I have no ability to fail because of welfare? Why did I bother studying
and going to work.
You might want to consider what would happen if entrepeneurs, who you
probably consider sacred, reconsidered risking their money because there
was no social safety net to catch them
>> >The job of welfare should be left to private charities. If you want an
>> >example of one, The Salvation Army.
>>
>> Ask them sometime whether they can haul the whole load by themselves.
>No I WON'T ask them, because I know what the answer is. It will ne no. So?
>Does that stop YOU from starting a private charity? Hell no. The only
>inhibitor is that you're probably too fuckin' lazy to get your boney ass
>perpendicular to do something about it. You'd rather sit back and whine about
>how no effort would be enough, so fuck it, why even try.
As usual, you've missed the point. You just admitted that private
charities can't handle the load. I guess you'd rather that they'd be
saddled with the whole burden of welfare just so you can save a few bucks
on your taxes every month. Sounds to me like you're the lazy one.
>> A number of problems with that:
>>
>> 1. Private charities and the communites often do not have the resources
>> needed to handle the burden, especially during economic downturns.
>So? In what other things in life are there guarantees?
>> 2. "The Community" oft restricts its donations to those whom lifestyles
>> they deem "desirable".
>And what is wrong with holding people up to some standards and expectations of
>behaviour? The only thing your kind sees with it, and it is very obvious from
>the thoughts you post, is that you don't want to be held to ANYTHING! You
>want all the fucking perks with NONE of the obligations.
Those standards and obligations in the past often included the color of
your skin, your religion, or who you chose to sleep with. WHo the hell are
you to tell anyone how to live?
And how dare you speak to me about wanting all the perks with none of the
obligations? You who are willing to live in this country, use its roads,
and are yet unwilling to give up a couple bucks a week so that there can be
a social safety net which YOU YOURSELF might have to use someday.
>I liken you to a class of people that really exist, who would think nothing of
>having a new car in their driveway without making any of the payments if they
>*knew* they could get away with it.
I am sure that if you need health care or welfare, you would gladly refuse
it on general principles. But I doubt it. People like you scream the
loudest when the programs being cut are the ones which directly benefit
you.
>> And their level of poverty, hunger, crime, and social unrest is far greater
>> too.
>Vancouver is the crime capital of the continent. Since you fucked that up,
>it's easy to discount the rest of that statement.
Crime capital of the country, maybe. For the continent, no way. You think
the Stanley Cup riots were in any way comparable to the Rodney King riots?
I've seen Harlem. It makes the roughest part of West End look like the
Garden of Eden. There are kids in Queens suffering from malnutrition -
serious malnutrition.
si...@donotemail.sympatico.ca
>In article <6h86kp$sn$1...@news.on> pbuc...@bigfoot.com writes:
>>
>>>When your foul mouth sputtem goes to the corporate welfare bums who
>>>are more responsabile for high taxes than the pittiance given to welfare
>>>recipients, I will accept your arguments.
>>>Until then, you are merely hate mongering, but then for
>>>all your supposed godliness, you are a hatemonger, and take
>>>joy in harming others.
>>
>>
>>Hong Kong has low taxes, a vibrant economy and low social program costs. Why
>>are companies doing well there (even after the Asian flu) and the tax rate
>
>Perhaps, Paul, Hong Kong doesn't have a pile of corporate welfare bums
>leaching off the country.
--
>Jason Kodish
With their tax rate, there's no need, Jason. Surprise, surprise!
Barry Bruyea
Jason Kodish
In article <jIFocZhJBIw6-p...@remote671.compusma gritpipe@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca writes:
>
>.. university students with their body of knowledge considering welfare as an
>option - they ought to be fucking embarassed.
When God calls you up to the Bar of Life and holds you accountable for
the hate you preach here, I wonder what excuses you will have for Him.
pbucciol
Werner Knoll wrote in message <35390114...@istar.ca>...
>pbucciol wrote:
[snip]
>Next time when you are in Kong Kong, do like I have done, walk the back
>streets and you will notice people sleeping on the ground with the
>little belongings they have right beside them. Walk in the business
>sector and watch people begging for foot. Watch the police taking care
>of this guy’s by taking them away on trucks so the cannot be an
>embarrassment to the well to do. Or better yet, send your sister to
>check it out.
I am briefed on Hong Kong very regularly, for your information. My father in
law lives there. It's funny how you paint it as such a bad city when he
tells me the opposite. I guess I should believe you because of course- you
know much more than him.
Werner Knoll
pbucciol wrote:
>
> Werner Knoll wrote in message <35390114...@istar.ca>...
> >pbucciol wrote:
> [snip]
> >Next time when you are in Kong Kong, do like I have done, walk the back
> >streets and you will notice people sleeping on the ground with the
> >little belongings they have right beside them. Walk in the business
> >sector and watch people begging for foot. Watch the police taking care
> >of this guy’s by taking them away on trucks so the cannot be an
> >embarrassment to the well to do. Or better yet, send your sister to
> >check it out.
>
> I am briefed on Hong Kong very regularly, for your information. My father in
> law lives there. It's funny how you paint it as such a bad city when he
> tells me the opposite. I guess I should believe you because of course- you
> know much more than him.
>
I never enjoyed holidays with nothing to do. When I went on holiday in
1985 with my wife, I spend more time to find out how other people do
make a living. In Japan I did not see people on the streets of Tokyo
begging for food. In Hong Kong it was the first time I did feel sorry
for this people on the streets. I know that most people visiting Hong
Kong look at the other side and pretend not to see any of this things.
Going to mainland China, Guangzhou and other places, I could see people
living in poverty but the were not sleeping on the street and begging
for food.
In Bangkok the poor did seem to be better off than in Hong Kong.
Werner Knoll
Man cannot whistle and drink at the same time.
1586 OE-704
William H. Belway
(jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca) writes:
> Organization: Edmonton FreeNet, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
> Distribution:
>
> gritpipe@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca wrote:
> : On Tue, 14 Apr 1998 18:52:02, roy_...@mortimer.com (Ray Cooper) wrote:
>
> : Welfare is a reward for failure.
>
> : ABOLISH WELFARE NOW!
>
There is no need to abolish welfare-simply replace it with workfare, as
the greatest democrat of the 20th century, Franklin D. Roosevelt, saw fit
to have people work for benefits.
>
> Yes, and start the Mighty Revolution that brings down the poor bashers in
> flames.
>
Yes. That 21.6% cut in Ontario's welfare rates was sorely needed, and the
good news is that its expanding to single parents with children in
daycare. That will reduce more generation welfare lifers, along with a
time limit for welfare, as supported by British Labor Prime Minister Tony
Blair.
William H. Belway
"M.Tanner" (ta...@domiz.com) writes:
>> Welfare is a reward for failure.
>>
>> ABOLISH WELFARE NOW!
>
>
> Hey genius, if you abolish welfare altogether, you're going to have more
> robberies, more beggars, and more teenage prostitution. Is that what
> you really want?
That is why workfare will be expanded for all able-bodied recipients who
are capable of robbery and ttenage prostitution.
Mr. Logical
I have nothing against workfare in principle, except that if you don't have
enough jobs to keep people off welfare, where are you going to find the
jobs to give to workfare receipients?
Jason Kodish
In article <6hqls1$2...@freenet-news.carleton.ca> cc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA writes:
>
>
>There is no need to abolish welfare-simply replace it with workfare, as
>the greatest democrat of the 20th century, Franklin D. Roosevelt, saw fit
I see, so you're going to expand the civil service roster manifold,
of course slavefare workers will require at least minimum wage, and
furthermore will be entiteled to form unions.
I see the cost of welfare going up. Now, if it's done right, and actually
gives people skills, the cost might be worth it. If it's done by the usual
sadistic rightoid methods as merely an instrument to punish the
poor, than forget it. I don't want to pay taxes to subsidize your cruelty.
travellor
On Sat, 25 Apr 1998 05:44:31 GMT, s...@wkpowerlink.com (Mr. Logical)
wrote:
Workfare? I thought slavery was abolished.
Doug H.
If you are looking over your shoulder,
you will not see what you are stepping in.
trav...@geocities.com
jbr...@idirect.com
There was a time when unwed mothers were frowned on and their
children were called bastards. But nowadays unwed mothers are treated like
royalty. They are praised for their struggles and the hardships they endure.
Sympathetic articles appear in newspapers at Christmas beseeching the public
to give to these less fortunate people. And if a politician should make a
remark about this situation that is not in keeping with the politically
correct trend of thought, he is castigated. But there is a certain
percentage of these women who choose this lifestyle as a career path. The
mere fact that so many of these unwed women are on welfare and living off
the taxpayers is never mentioned in our liberal media. The mere fact that
many of them choose this career path is also never mentioned. The mere fact
that they increase the number of their children in order to increase their
welfare payments and welfare housing standards is never mentioned. The mere
fact that they have purposely denied their children the benefit of a father,
is never mentioned. The social engineers of the 60’s and 70’s built huge
welfare projects. These huge buildings blocks in the sky made sense to a
social engineer. They housed large numbers of their clients – welfare
recipients – in one place. And these welfare recipients were for the most
part unwed mothers with two or more kids. These clients were never
discouraged from this welfare lifestyle. In a perverse way the social
workers depended on these unwed mothers. They had a vested interest in
maintaining the status quo. The public became desensitized. Nowadays these
huge complexes are still with us and the problems have increased. They have
their own peculiar sub cultures in these welfare jungles. Its a strange
place where men are not needed except to procreate occasionally. No one goes
to work in the morning like in the normal world and no one comes home from
work in the evening, or any other time. Children grow up in this atmosphere
and never know anyone who goes to work. It is a matriarchal society where
the only career path available or ever discussed is welfare. The army of ever
ready social workers lecture them on how to maximize their welfare benefits.
They have a government-paid apartment or townhouse. They have free
electricity, free parking, free security, free medical care, free drugs, free
dental care and hospitalization. They have an army of social workers ready
and waiting to attend to their problems. If they loose their welfare cheque
it is immediately replaced. They have an army of maintenance workers ready
and waiting to fix or repair or replace anything around the apartment. A
normal working girl would have to be in high management before she could
afford all these goodies. No wonder so many women choose this career path.
They need no education. Not much intelligence. No husband. But all is not
well. Canadian Press recently published the results of a massive Statistics
Canada study of 23,000 children across the country during an eight month
period in 1994 and 1995. The central conclusion of the study is that children
raised by single mothers face increased risks of emotional, behavioral,
academic and social problems. Moreover, studies have shown that the presence
and involvement of fathers in the nurturing and development of their children
confers benefits which are irreplaceable by any substitute, whether the
substitute is the state, a grandparent, a male friend or a step-parent.
The Government of Ontario started a mandatory workfare program called
Ontario Works in order to get welfare recepients off welfare. Almost 234,000
people have left Ontario's welfare system since this government was elected
in June 1995. The Ontario Works Act was passed by the Legislature in November
of last year and will be proclaimed at the beginning of April. •At present,
prisoners may receive their full benefits for the months in which they enter
and leave jail. This practice will end. As a result of an information-sharing
agreement with the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional
Services, social assistance has already been reduced or terminated for more
than 1,700 individuals. In addition to the above changes, the transfer of
single parents to Ontario Works, the government’s workfare program, will
begin April 1. It will be mandatory for single parents with children in
school to participate in Ontario Works. The government is providing $30
million for child care for Ontario Works participants. In 1996, the province
began the phase-in of Ontario Works, the mandatory workfare program that
requires people on welfare to contribute to their communities and use
employment supports to find work. Almost a quarter of a million people have
left welfare since we were elected in 1995. Vast changes like this don’t
just happen. The government changed. They required their social workers to
change. They wanted answers to specific questions. People living with their
parents will only be eligible for welfare if they have been financially
independent and are now in financial need. Most single parents receive their
benefits through the Family Benefits Program which is administered by the
province. They are exempt from mandatory participation in Ontario Works
ONTARIO'S RATES (EXCLUDING DISABLED RATES), ON AVERAGE, ARE 16% ABOVE THE
AVERAGE RATE OF THE OTHER NINE PROVINCES. Between October 1995 and October
1997, the hotline received over 26,000 allegations of welfare abuse. Of
these, 2,075 calls have led to benefits being reduced or terminated. Another
8,000 cases are still being investigated by local social assistance staff.
Recommendations: Social workers should be instructed to encourage these
welfare mothers to find a husband and get off welfare. Welfare payments to
these career welfare mothers should be adjusted so that they want to make the
change away from the welfare lifestyle. Why should our society be held
hostage by these special interest groups?
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Derek Nalecki
In article <35417...@news.vphos.net>, s...@wkpowerlink.com (Mr. Logical) wrote:
>cc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (William H. Belway) wrote:
>
>
>>"M.Tanner" (ta...@domiz.com) writes:
>>>> Welfare is a reward for failure.
>>>>
>>>> ABOLISH WELFARE NOW!
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey genius, if you abolish welfare altogether, you're going to have more
>>> robberies, more beggars, and more teenage prostitution. Is that what
>>> you really want?
>
>>That is why workfare will be expanded for all able-bodied recipients who
>>are capable of robbery and ttenage prostitution.
>
>I have nothing against workfare in principle, except that if you don't have
>enough jobs to keep people off welfare, where are you going to find the
>jobs to give to workfare receipients?
>
Even you can't be this dumb. The jobs are regulated out of existence on
the free market through confiscatory taxes, and vindictive labour and social
regulation.
When the government implements workfare, it exempts itself from those
regulations.
derek n, RdNck, Pen-Arm of the Righteous, esq.
"To be truly selfish one needs a degree of self-esteem. The self-despisers are
less intent on their own increase than on the diminution of others.
Where self-esteem is unattainable, envy takes the place of greed."
(Eric Hoffer)
********** THE ONLY GOOD ENVIRONMENT IS A MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT ***********
travellor
This would be all well and good if Ontario Works' actually provided or
found real work for people instead of being a mask to hide the real
goal which dump the people off welfare at all costs and humiliate
those that remain as much as possible.
grit...@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca
On Sat, 25 Apr 1998 03:34:10, jko...@thwap.nl2k.ab.ca (Jason Kodish) wrote:
> I don't want to pay taxes to subsidize your cruelty.
If you don't want to pay taxes then get YOUR sorry ass out of MY country.
grit...@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca
On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 02:27:00, jbr...@idirect.com wrote:
> Why should our society be held
> hostage by these special interest groups?
Exactly.
ABOLISH WELFARE NOW!!!!!!!
Mr. Logical
gritpipe@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 02:27:00, jbr...@idirect.com wrote:
>> Why should our society be held
>> hostage by these special interest groups?
>Exactly.
>ABOLISH WELFARE NOW!!!!!!!
The bigot has spoken.
Mr. Logical
jbr...@idirect.com wrote:
>in June 1995.The Ontario Works Act was passed by the Legislature in November
>of last year and will be proclaimed at the beginning of April. •At present,
>prisoners may receive their full benefits for the months in which they enter
>and leave jail. This practice will end. As a result of an information-sharing
>agreement with the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional
>Services, social assistance has already been reduced or terminated for more
>than 1,700 individuals.In addition to the above changes, the transfer of
>single parents to Ontario Works, the government’s workfare program, will
>begin April 1. It will be mandatory for single parents with children in
>school to participate in Ontario Works. The government is providing $30
>million for child care for Ontario Works participants.In 1996, the province
>began the phase-in of Ontario Works, the mandatory workfare program that
>requires people on welfare to contribute to their communities and use
>employment supports to find work.Almost a quarter of a million people have
>left welfare since we were elected in 1995. Vast changes like this don’t
>just happen. The government changed. They required their social workers to
>change. They wanted answers to specific questions. People living with their
>parents will only be eligible for welfare if they have been financially
>independent and are now in financial need.Most single parents receive their
>benefits through the Family Benefits Program which is administered by the
>province. They are exempt from mandatory participation in Ontario Works
>ONTARIO'S RATES (EXCLUDING DISABLED RATES), ON AVERAGE, ARE 16% ABOVE THE
>AVERAGE RATE OF THE OTHER NINE PROVINCES.Between October 1995 and October
>1997, the hotline received over 26,000 allegations of welfare abuse. Of
>these, 2,075 calls have led to benefits being reduced or terminated. Another
>8,000 cases are still being investigated by local social assistance staff.
>Recommendations: Social workers should be instructed to encourage these
>welfare mothers to find a husband and get off welfare. Welfare payments to
>these career welfare mothers should be adjusted so that they want to make the
>change away from the welfare lifestyle.Why should our society be held
>hostage by these special interest groups?
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Like I said, I have nothing against workfare per se, but as I said, if
where are you going to find the jobs to give these people?
Eldridge Currie
Mr. Logical wrote:
> I have nothing against workfare in principle, except that if you don't have
> enough jobs to keep people off welfare, where are you going to find the
> jobs to give to workfare receipients?
Your handle was well chosen. You will never make a good politician. :)
---
ETCO
http://www.geocities.com/wallstreet/6069
T Bomhower
In article <3543faa5...@news.ptbo.igs.net>,
trav...@geocities.com says...
> On Sun, 26 Apr 1998 20:27:00 -0600, jbr...@idirect.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> There was a time when unwed mothers were frowned on and their
> >children were called bastards. But nowadays unwed mothers are treated like
> >royalty. They are praised for their struggles and the hardships they endure.
> >Sympathetic articles appear in newspapers at Christmas beseeching the public
> >to give to these less fortunate people. And if a politician should make a
> >remark about this situation that is not in keeping with the politically
> >correct trend of thought, he is castigated. But there is a certain
> >percentage of these women who choose this lifestyle as a career path. The
> >mere fact that so many of these unwed women are on welfare and living off
> >the taxpayers is never mentioned in our liberal media. The mere fact that
> >many of them choose this career path is also never mentioned. The mere fact
> >that they increase the number of their children in order to increase their
> >welfare payments and welfare housing standards is never mentioned. The mere
> >fact that they have purposely denied their children the benefit of a father,
> >is never mentioned.
...
> This would be all well and good if Ontario Works' actually provided or
> found real work for people instead of being a mask to hide the real
> goal which dump the people off welfare at all costs and humiliate
> those that remain as much as possible.
> Doug H.
I have to agree with jbredin that there is too much taboo [political
correctness] involved with how the infotainment media report on the
subject of welfare mothers. All too often they are the sort of women
who traditionally, along with a corresponding considerable minority
of the male population, would have contracted for a captive whore
type of marriage in generations past. Now they have much the same
arrangement as before, but with the state as husband, instead.
In the traditional arrangement, the wives got financial and social
support from their husbands to be as crazy as they wanted to be, as
long as they kept it within the house and the family. As long as it
didn't go any farther than the cloistered, mad household empires of
which the women were absolute monarchs.
The husbands got wild and crazy wives, wild as whores - but captive,
just theirs.
These are the sort of people, men and women, who are in charge of
society generally in places and cultures such as Middle Eastern
Islamic countries. The divide the sexes into homophillic cultures as
much as possible, with men having social contact only with men,
women only with women, the sexes only getting together on occasion
for reproductive purposes or when it is necessary to show God that,
really, they are properly hetero.
In the West, where other types have traditionally been in charge of
ordering society on a general basis, the sort who run Arab/Persian/
Turkish Islamic societies remain a constantly considerable sub-
cultural minority, traditionally contracting for captive whore
marriages, privately, while doing their best publicly to seem
otherwise normally Western.
What makes it obvious that some welfare moms are the same women who
used to [and still do, in more rural or higher class urban
populations] contract for captive whore arrangements called
marriages is that both groups have the greatest difficulty, perhaps
on a very radical instinctual or tribal basis, in acknowledging the
possibility that males can be adults - for social as well as for
reproductive purposes or on a simply chronological basis.
It isn't a superficial affectation. Very radically they simply
cannot abide the idea that men can be their social peers. Maybe not
too many other women can be, either. Not under the same roof as the
mad empress, where she feels thoroughly entitled to be mad. The, or
any father of her children is required to act socially as though he
is a sort of retarded older brother to his own children in order to
be allowed to abide for a while in the cloistered mad empire he
supports financially and bolsters socially. Or would have supported
financially before the state assumed that financial husband role in
captive whore type of marriage arrangements.
Traditionally, the husbands came to three types of accommodation
with their captive whore - she who must be obeyed absolutely while
in full reign, within her domain:
1]a] They ran around the county half the night, drinking and - worse
yet - smoking, and talking about sex on the edge of stagnant ponds
in abandoned gravel pits, before sneaking home late enough that they
wouldn't have to suffer being socially relegated to retarded older
brother status, outside the bedroom.
b] They got real busy as handymen fixing up other people's houses in
their spare time, or busy as professional class workaholics, in
order to stay out of their own houses as much as possible. You could
tell them from the actually ambitious by how little they seemed to
benefit financially from all the busy time they put in.
2] They didn't really mind being retarded older brothers to their
own children while at home. Maybe they kind of liked it.
However, you are right about there being no real work for people who
are either workfare "trained" or kicked off welfare, currently, in
Ontario. But, see, that's not the correct way to look at it. Not the
proper theory of it, from a social conservative perspective. The
correct way to look at it is that economics is entirely a sub-
discipline of psychology. Right thinking produces wealth. If only we
can get welfare recipients thinking right, through workfare, then
the jobs that aren't there now will come to where the right thinking
workforce is, in Ontario.
It's a corollary of moral insanity doctrine: the jobs don't come to
our jurisdiction simply because the people who could do them,
statistically, being in excess to current employment requirements,
are morally insane. And this is very wrong. Because those who
already do well as car dealers and golf pros could do even better if
more of the population were employed. In social conservative
doctrine the unemployed are evil not just in the particulars of
their personal habits but in a general sense of being anti-social,
to the extreme extent that they don't want to see car dealers and
golf pros floated higher yet by a rising tide for all.
Where as fiscal conservatives in government used to be satisfied
with yet another thousand miles [this was before metric] of
snowmobile trails hacked out of the bush, whenever they wanted to
experiment with workfare as a cynical exercise in rejigging the
statistics as to just how bad the unemployment problem was, anyway.
Social conservatives are the same bunch who are convinced that we
are all convinced - just because it got repeated in the media - that
we will all get rich from the spin-off benefits of hosting a
Freemasons' convention. Yeah, probably a hotel full of blasts from
the past won't spend that much, directly, but the spin-off benefits,
wow. And all we have to do is close Main Street for three days
running, so they can march on it. Everybody else who marches at
conventions manages to get it all done in a day. But the spin-off
benefits. You know those numbers have got to be true. Masons will
cast their dollars on the waters of the local economy and dollars
will return multiplied. It's almost but not quite Biblical.
And if only we can get the poor to be right thinking again. Not only
will jobs come to our now right thinking work force as legendary
baseball players to a sporting field mown out of a U.S. state
normally covered edge to edge with corn, but maybe the state as
institution can get out of being the financial husband in captive
whore arrangements, if such arrangements revert to their more
traditional form among the poor. Such arrangements continue as
always among some of the rich, of course. I guess we're just lucky
that they don't insist we all do it, like Iran.
--
copyright 1998, T Bomhower
Werner Knoll
Derek’s old rhetoric. What can I expect from a clown like you.
Derek Nalecki wrote:
>
> In article <35417...@news.vphos.net>, s...@wkpowerlink.com (Mr. Logical) wrote:
> >cc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (William H. Belway) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"M.Tanner" (ta...@domiz.com) writes:
> >>>> Welfare is a reward for failure.
> >>>>
> >>>> ABOLISH WELFARE NOW!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hey genius, if you abolish welfare altogether, you're going to have more
> >>> robberies, more beggars, and more teenage prostitution. Is that what
> >>> you really want?
> >
> >>That is why workfare will be expanded for all able-bodied recipients who
> >>are capable of robbery and ttenage prostitution.
> >
> >I have nothing against workfare in principle, except that if you don't have
> >enough jobs to keep people off welfare, where are you going to find the
> >jobs to give to workfare receipients?
> >
>
Derek Nalecki
In article <35442...@news.vphos.net>, s...@wkpowerlink.com (Mr. Logical) wrote:
>gritpipe@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 02:27:00, jbr...@idirect.com wrote:
>
>>> hostage by these special interest groups?
>
>
>>ABOLISH WELFARE NOW!!!!!!!
>
>The bigot has spoken.
>
Would you care to explain this astonishing allegation, or is this just another
of your childish tantrums?
William H. Belway
travellor (trav...@geocities.com) writes:
> On Sat, 25 Apr 1998 05:44:31 GMT, s...@wkpowerlink.com (Mr. Logical)
> wrote:
>
>>cc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (William H. Belway) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"M.Tanner" (ta...@domiz.com) writes:
>>>>> Welfare is a reward for failure.
>>>>>
>>>>> ABOLISH WELFARE NOW!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hey genius, if you abolish welfare altogether, you're going to have more
>>>> robberies, more beggars, and more teenage prostitution. Is that what
>>>> you really want?
>>
>>>That is why workfare will be expanded for all able-bodied recipients who
>>>are capable of robbery and ttenage prostitution.
>>
>>I have nothing against workfare in principle, except that if you don't have
>>enough jobs to keep people off welfare, where are you going to find the
>>jobs to give to workfare receipients?
>>
>>
>>
>>Be nice, or I'll sic Mr. Sarcasm on you
>>
>
> Workfare? I thought slavery was abolished.
You are herby to be known as a "slow thinker".
William H. Belway
That's the problem with you NDP types-you equate work with slavery.
Gordo
William H. Belway wrote:
>
> travellor (trav...@geocities.com) writes:
> > On Sat, 25 Apr 1998 05:44:31 GMT, s...@wkpowerlink.com (Mr. Logical)
> > wrote:
> >
> >>cc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (William H. Belway) wrote:
> >>>"M.Tanner" (ta...@domiz.com) writes:
> >>>>> Welfare is a reward for failure.
> >>>>> ABOLISH WELFARE NOW!
> >>>> Hey genius, if you abolish welfare altogether, you're going to have more
> >>>> robberies, more beggars, and more teenage prostitution. Is that what
> >>>> you really want?
> >>>That is why workfare will be expanded for all able-bodied recipients who
> >>>are capable of robbery and ttenage prostitution.
> >>
> >>I have nothing against workfare in principle, except that if you don't have
> >>enough jobs to keep people off welfare, where are you going to find the
> >>jobs to give to workfare receipients?
> > Workfare? I thought slavery was abolished.
>
> That's the problem with you NDP types-you equate work with slavery.
I remember reading an article or viewing a news program a couple of
years ago:
There was an African American woman who is a US governor or senator or
something, and she swore that welfare was going to be abolished in her
state. She has (or maybe had) several initiatives regarding single
parent families on welfare, and basically abolishing welfare during a 2
year phase out period. Is anyone familiar with this issue and where it
happened? Did it work out?
grit...@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca
On Fri, 1 May 1998 17:37:09, cc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (William H. Belway)
wrote:
> That's the problem with you NDP types-you equate work with slavery.
No kidding! Isn't it the height of lunacy that these elitist bastard social
engineers have nothing to say about Joe Lunchbucket who busts his ass day in
and day out, only to have half his life energy extorted in the form of taxes.
Oh there's nothing wrong with that - working to give up half to be distributed
to the takers.
But to even suggest that the takers work for what they get? What cruelty!
Unbelievable.
ABOLISH WELFARE NOW!!!
The new catch phrase from Joe Lunchbucket, once he gets sufficiently pissed
off and having his life energy extorted from him, will be "NO PENNIES FROM ME
UNLESS I SEE PERSPIRATION FROM YOU."
That could be the new workfare slogan, "PENNIES FOR PERSPIRATION"
grit...@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca
On Sat, 2 May 1998 00:14:17, Gordo <gste...@sno.net> wrote:
> There was an African American woman who is a US governor or senator or
> something, and she swore that welfare was going to be abolished in her
> state. She has (or maybe had) several initiatives regarding single
> parent families on welfare, and basically abolishing welfare during a 2
> year phase out period. Is anyone familiar with this issue and where it
> happened? Did it work out?
I don't know of the phase out period, but the state of Wisconsin has, as of
April 1 1998, abolished welfare.
Mr. Logical
cc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (William H. Belway) wrote:
>travellor (trav...@geocities.com) writes:
>> On Sat, 25 Apr 1998 05:44:31 GMT, s...@wkpowerlink.com (Mr. Logical)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>cc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (William H. Belway) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"M.Tanner" (ta...@domiz.com) writes:
>>>>>> Welfare is a reward for failure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ABOLISH WELFARE NOW!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey genius, if you abolish welfare altogether, you're going to have more
>>>>> robberies, more beggars, and more teenage prostitution. Is that what
>>>>> you really want?
>>>
>>>>That is why workfare will be expanded for all able-bodied recipients who
>>>>are capable of robbery and ttenage prostitution.
>>>
>>>I have nothing against workfare in principle, except that if you don't have
>>>enough jobs to keep people off welfare, where are you going to find the
>>>jobs to give to workfare receipients?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Be nice, or I'll sic Mr. Sarcasm on you
>>>
>>
>> Workfare? I thought slavery was abolished.
>That's the problem with you NDP types-you equate work with slavery.
Let's just get back to the original conundrum: in a job-short market,
where are you going to find enough jobs to get everyone off welfare?
jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
eenet-news.carleton.ca> <jIFocZhJBIw6-p...@remote1170.compusmart.ab.ca>
Organization: Edmonton FreeNet, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Distribution:
gritpipe@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca wrote:
: On Fri, 1 May 1998 17:37:09, cc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (William H. Belway)
: But to even suggest that the takers work for what they get? What cruelty!
: Unbelievable.
Didn't Communist Russia give everyone a job. Guess that makes you a
Communist.
: off and having his life energy extorted from him, will be "NO PENNIES FROM ME
: UNLESS I SEE PERSPIRATION FROM YOU."
DOes that count for the Oiler's owners too? Guess not.
--
-Jason Kodish
"Never seek to engage in a confrontation, but forced upon you,
never fear a confrontation."-Grand Master Simon
Derek Nalecki
In article <354ae...@news.vphos.net>, s...@wkpowerlink.com (Mr. Logical) wrote:
>cc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (William H. Belway) wrote:
>
>
>>travellor (trav...@geocities.com) writes:
>>> On Sat, 25 Apr 1998 05:44:31 GMT, s...@wkpowerlink.com (Mr. Logical)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>cc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (William H. Belway) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"M.Tanner" (ta...@domiz.com) writes:
>>>>>>> Welfare is a reward for failure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ABOLISH WELFARE NOW!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey genius, if you abolish welfare altogether, you're going to have more
>>>>>> robberies, more beggars, and more teenage prostitution. Is that what
>>>>>> you really want?
>>>>
>>>>>That is why workfare will be expanded for all able-bodied recipients who
>>>>>are capable of robbery and ttenage prostitution.
>>>>
>>>>I have nothing against workfare in principle, except that if you don't have
>>>>enough jobs to keep people off welfare, where are you going to find the
>>>>jobs to give to workfare receipients?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Be nice, or I'll sic Mr. Sarcasm on you
>>>>
>>>
>>> Workfare? I thought slavery was abolished.
>
>
>
>>That's the problem with you NDP types-you equate work with slavery.
>
>Let's just get back to the original conundrum: in a job-short market,
>where are you going to find enough jobs to get everyone off welfare?
>
Let's answer it again, since you are obviously incapable of retaining it for
more than a day.
The government which makes regulations and imposes confiscatory taxation which
are pricing the jobs out of the market, exempts itself from both; thus
providing those jobs.
Anything else, that would be obvious to a ten year old, you need explained to
you one sentence at a time?
Werner Knoll
Derek Nalecki wrote:
> >>That's the problem with you NDP types-you equate work with slavery.
> >
> >Let's just get back to the original conundrum: in a job-short market,
> >where are you going to find enough jobs to get everyone off welfare?
> >
>
> Let's answer it again, since you are obviously incapable of retaining it for
> more than a day.
> The government which makes regulations and imposes confiscatory taxation which
> are pricing the jobs out of the market, exempts itself from both; thus
> providing those jobs.
> Anything else, that would be obvious to a ten year old, you need explained to
> you one sentence at a time?
Another statement by Derek the mouth in motion and brain out of gear
instant expert.
Werner Knoll
If you can’t run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.
grit...@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca
On Mon, 4 May 1998 05:21:32, nale...@rescorporate.com (Derek Nalecki) wrote:
> >Let's just get back to the original conundrum: in a job-short market,
> >where are you going to find enough jobs to get everyone off welfare?
> >
>
> Let's answer it again, since you are obviously incapable of retaining it for
> more than a day.
> The government which makes regulations and imposes confiscatory taxation which
> are pricing the jobs out of the market, exempts itself from both; thus
> providing those jobs.
> Anything else, that would be obvious to a ten year old, you need explained to
> you one sentence at a time?
Don't feel bad, Derek. You have to be voiciferous and vigilant and constantly
repeat the truth, because the liars are constantly repeating their lies.
Ergo I say again:
ABOLISH WELFARE NOW!!!!!!!
Now of course bumfuck KODISH won't understand what the far reaching meaning of
three little words really are, thinking that the only takers the above refers
to are the welfare mommies and the sloths like him, so I'll have to
strengthen it with:
ABOLISH ALL WELFARE NOW!!!!
jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
ews.vphos.net> <35389bd6...@news.mortimer.com> <jIFocZhJBIw6-p...@remote375.compusmart.ab.ca> <3538B9...@domiz.com> <6hqlvr$3...@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <35417...@news.vphos.net> <3542c5bd...@news.ptbo.igs.net> <6id185$pli@fr
eenet-news.carleton.ca> <354ae...@news.vphos.net> <354ea...@news.cadvision.com> <jIFocZhJBIw6-p...@remote1129.compusmart.ab.ca>
Organization: Edmonton FreeNet, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Distribution:
gritpipe@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca wrote:
: Don't feel bad, Derek. You have to be voiciferous and vigilant and constantly
: repeat the truth, because the liars are constantly repeating their lies.
Supporting someone who would strip the poor of their right to vote. Just
like the good little fascist you are.
: Now of course bumfuck KODISH won't understand what the far reaching meaning of
WHat's this obesssion you have with rectal intercourse? Is this your
favorite pastime?
Big Man calls me names behind the safety of his computer and a fake name.
Ahh, well, what can you expect from a three foot two pipsqueek who's
brains are located somewhere in the neither regions.
What can you expect from a tailpipe, except pollution?
William H. Belway
> travellor (trav...@geocities.com) writes:
>> On Sat, 25 Apr 1998 05:44:31 GMT, s...@wkpowerlink.com (Mr. Logical)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>cc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (William H. Belway) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"M.Tanner" (ta...@domiz.com) writes:
>>>>>> Welfare is a reward for failure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ABOLISH WELFARE NOW!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey genius, if you abolish welfare altogether, you're going to have more
>>>>> robberies, more beggars, and more teenage prostitution. Is that what
>>>>> you really want?
>>>
>>>>That is why workfare will be expanded for all able-bodied recipients who
>>>>are capable of robbery and ttenage prostitution.
>>>
>>>I have nothing against workfare in principle, except that if you don't have
>>>enough jobs to keep people off welfare, where are you going to find the
>>>jobs to give to workfare receipients?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Be nice, or I'll sic Mr. Sarcasm on you
>>>
>>
>> Workfare? I thought slavery was abolished.
>
You don't have that much going for you, do you? Pretty slow, right?
William H. Belway
> travellor (trav...@geocities.com) writes:
>> On Sat, 25 Apr 1998 05:44:31 GMT, s...@wkpowerlink.com (Mr. Logical)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>cc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (William H. Belway) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"M.Tanner" (ta...@domiz.com) writes:
>>>>>> Welfare is a reward for failure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ABOLISH WELFARE NOW!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey genius, if you abolish welfare altogether, you're going to have more
>>>>> robberies, more beggars, and more teenage prostitution. Is that what
>>>>> you really want?
>>>
>>>>That is why workfare will be expanded for all able-bodied recipients who
>>>>are capable of robbery and ttenage prostitution.
>>>
>>>I have nothing against workfare in principle, except that if you don't have
>>>enough jobs to keep people off welfare, where are you going to find the
>>>jobs to give to workfare receipients?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Be nice, or I'll sic Mr. Sarcasm on you
>>>
>>
>> I thought slavery was abolished.
>
Abolished? Last time I checked, the Income Tax Act was still in effect.
Mr. Logical
nale...@rescorporate.com (Derek Nalecki) wrote:
>In article <35417...@news.vphos.net>, s...@wkpowerlink.com (Mr. Logical) wrote:
>>cc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (William H. Belway) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"M.Tanner" (ta...@domiz.com) writes:
>>>>> Welfare is a reward for failure.
>>>>>
>>>>> ABOLISH WELFARE NOW!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hey genius, if you abolish welfare altogether, you're going to have more
>>>> robberies, more beggars, and more teenage prostitution. Is that what
>>>> you really want?
>>
>>>That is why workfare will be expanded for all able-bodied recipients who
>>>are capable of robbery and ttenage prostitution.
>>
>>I have nothing against workfare in principle, except that if you don't have
>>enough jobs to keep people off welfare, where are you going to find the
>>jobs to give to workfare receipients?
>>
>Even you can't be this dumb. The jobs are regulated out of existence on
>the free market through confiscatory taxes, and vindictive labour and social
>regulation.
>When the government implements workfare, it exempts itself from those
>regulations.
Derek aren't you the one telling us over and over again that "GOVERNMENT
CAN"T CREATE JOBS"
Not the first time you've contradicted yourself I understand.
By the way, you haven't mentioned how those revenue and expenditure
statistics you claimed as a source show that welfare costs $75,000 per
recipient per year. You've been strangely quiet on that front.
grit...@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca
On Wed, 6 May 1998 00:40:47, s...@wkpowerlink.com (Mr. Logical) wrote:
> Derek aren't you the one telling us over and over again that "GOVERNMENT
> CAN"T CREATE JOBS"
Under workfare, government STILL would not be creating jobs, because it can't.
What it would be doing is getting the things that need to be done attended to
in exchange for welfare. And when the taxpayer is having his life energy
extorted from him to make enablers out of these people who suck of the public
teat, the taxpayer deserves nothing less than visible assurance that he is
getting his money's worth.
Think of it as "pennies for perspiration", or "tokens for toil", or "stipend
for sweat", or "money for muscle", or "lucre for labour".
jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
ews.cadvision.com> <354fd...@news.vphos.net> <jIFocZhJBIw6-p...@remote913.compusmart.ab.ca>
Organization: Edmonton FreeNet, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Distribution:
gritpipe@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca wrote:
: Under workfare, government STILL would not be creating jobs, because it can't.
: What it would be doing is getting the things that need to be done attended to
: in exchange for welfare.
It's called slavery. If the government needs to get things done ,it could
hire these people as employees. I guess that thought was too big to fit in
your head.
: Think of it as "pennies for perspiration", or "tokens for toil", or "stipend
: for sweat", or "money for muscle", or "lucre for labour".
It's called a job, putz, can you say job?
William H. Belway
(jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca) writes:
> ews.cadvision.com> <354fd...@news.vphos.net> <jIFocZhJBIw6-p...@remote913.compusmart.ab.ca>
> Organization: Edmonton FreeNet, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
> Distribution:
>
> gritpipe@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca wrote:
>
> : Under workfare, government STILL would not be creating jobs, because it can't.
> : What it would be doing is getting the things that need to be done attended to
> : in exchange for welfare.
>
> It's called slavery.
No, it isn't. However, if welfare lifers feel they are being exploited all
of 17 hours a week, they can do nothing in the private sector and get paid
for it.
> : Think of it as "pennies for perspiration", or "tokens for toil", or "stipend
> : for sweat", or "money for muscle", or "lucre for labour".
>
> It's called a job, putz, can you say job?
>
You are a putz in the literal Jewish sense.
grit...@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca
On Wed, 6 May 1998 13:04:52, jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () wrote:
> It's called slavery.
What slavery? Nobody's forcing them to work, but if they don't work, they
ought not get the same spoils the REST OF US get for work - money - money in
exchange for giving up some of our life energy to work.
> If the government needs to get things done ,it could
> hire these people as employees. I guess that thought was too big to fit in
> your head.
Then why don't these lazy fucks GO to the government office and APPLY for
work, or to any private sector firm for that matter? I suppose they wouldn't
want to APPLY for a job like other people do, huh? Of course that would mean
that they would have to switch off The Price Is Right, get their ass off the
couch, get cleaned up, and actually leave their ramshackle hut, trailer, or
squatter camp.
I guess THAT thought was too big to fit in YOUR head, asshole.
> : Think of it as "pennies for perspiration", or "tokens for toil", or "stipend
> : for sweat", or "money for muscle", or "lucre for labour".
>
> It's called a job, putz, can you say job?
It's a job when you apply for it, show up for it cleaned and dressed with a
positive mental attitude, and work your butt off at it to the best of your
ability. It's NOT a job when you have to be coerced into getting off your ass
to start contributing to society again instead of being a fucking taker and
expecting to be able to throw your weight around here like the contributors in
this society who actually work for a living and EARN something.
jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
William H. Belway (cc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
: No, it isn't. However, if welfare lifers feel they are being exploited all
: of 17 hours a week, they can do nothing in the private sector and get paid
: for it.
Yes it is. You see, doorknob. When there are things to be done and people
needed to do them, normal human beings give them jobs. Greedy self serving
scum like yourself forces them to do these things for sub minimum wage.
Greedy slime like yourself takes jobs away from people to give them to
your slaves because you don't feel like paying a fair wage.
<petty small minded rightoid insult snipped>
Grow up, Belaway. Prove to us you have even a modicum of intelect in that
empty head of yours.
jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
gritpipe@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca wrote:
: to start contributing to society again instead of being a fucking taker and
By the way, putz. The only thing you've ever contributed to society is a
big mouth and a whole lot of crap.
But then I guess that's why you are ashamed to use your real name here.
A real man stands up for what he says and is willing to put his ass on the
line for what he believes.
A putz calls people names while hiding behind fake addresses and such.
Guess we know which one you are.
jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
gritpipe@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca wrote:
: What slavery? Nobody's forcing them to work, but if they don't work, they
: ought not get the same spoils the REST OF US get for work - money - money in
: exchange for giving up some of our life energy to work.
So if I put a gun up to your head and say give me your money or die, I'm
not forcing you to give me your money,right? That's the same sort of logic
you're using. However, if they're gonna work, they'd better get paid, have
rights to join unions and all that jazz.
Oddly there is a another type of government that guarantees everyone a
job. It's called Communism.
: Then why don't these lazy fucks GO to the government office and APPLY for
: work, or to any private sector firm for that matter? I suppose they wouldn't
They're not lazy fucks, they are human beings. Deserving of the same
compassion and respect as anyone else. Presumably they've already done
that.
: I guess THAT thought was too big to fit in YOUR head, asshole.
Don't call me an asshole, you useless putz. All you do is sit back and
spout out your hate behind the cowardly fake name you use.
If you want to see an asshole, look in the mirror.
: It's a job when you apply for it, show up for it cleaned and dressed with a
: positive mental attitude, and work your butt off at it to the best of your
According to the law, you brain dead loser, a job is what you do when you
exchange work for money. Slavefare recipientss do just that, in other
words, moron, it's a job.
Pretty cool, eh?
: expecting to be able to throw your weight around here like the contributors in
: this society who actually work for a living and EARN something.
The only thing a tailpipe contributes is pollution.
Since mopst welfare recipients aren't on for long and therefore pay tax,
in effect they are being taxed twice. First to pay for the welfare system,
and second as government slaves.
Well, anyone who's on that sort of a program, I advocate internal
resistance. Sabotauge what you are doing, forge records, do whatever it is
you can do to give worthless slime like tailpipe here more trouble than
imaginable.
si...@donotemail.sympatico.ca
On 8 May 1998 14:02:40 GMT, jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () wrote:
>gritpipe@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca wrote:
>: to start contributing to society again instead of being a fucking taker and
>
>By the way, putz. The only thing you've ever contributed to society is a
>big mouth and a whole lot of crap.
>But then I guess that's why you are ashamed to use your real name here.
>A real man stands up for what he says and is willing to put his ass on the
>line for what he believes.
>A putz calls people names while hiding behind fake addresses and such.
>Guess we know which one you are.
--
>-Jason Kodish
Goodness Gracious, fake addresses and fake jobs; what will they think
of next.
>
>
William H. Belway
(jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca) writes:
> William H. Belway (cc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>
>
> : No, it isn't. However, if welfare lifers feel they are being exploited all
> : of 17 hours a week, they can do nothing in the private sector and get paid
> : for it.
>
> Yes it is. You see, doorknob. When there are things to be done and people
> needed to do them, normal human beings give them jobs. Greedy self serving
> scum like yourself forces them to do these things for sub minimum wage.
> Greedy slime like yourself takes jobs away from people to give them to
> your slaves because you don't feel like paying a fair wage.
The best way to "protect" welfare lifers is to make a mandatory time limit
for eligibilty for workfare; let's say 18 months in a 5 year period. That
way
greedy selfish rightoids" won't be able to exploit the helpless innocent
welfare lifers, and it will reduce the number of lifers on welfare at the
moment-54% across Canada. Of course, you can just go on saying stupid
things, like that revolt you predicted in Ontario after the implementation
of the much needed 21.6% welfare cut. Not only has the number of
recipients decreased by 250 000 since then, [still too many welfare
lifers] but it shows that even welfare lifers who are abusing the system
are not as revolting as Jason Kodish. Quelle surprise.
William H. Belway
(jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca) writes:
> gritpipe@no_spam.compusmart.ab.ca wrote:
>
> : What slavery? Nobody's forcing them to work, but if they don't work, they
> : ought not get the same spoils the REST OF US get for work - money - money in
> : exchange for giving up some of our life energy to work.
>
> So if I put a gun up to your head and say give me your money or die, I'm
> not forcing you to give me your money,right? That's the same sort of logic
> you're using.
Your personal attacks on "gritpipe", whoever he might be, you're pretty
slow, aintcha?
However, if they're gonna work, they'd better get paid, have
> rights to join unions and all that jazz.
If welfare lifers want to join a union, they can get off welfare.
>
> : Then why don't these lazy fucks GO to the government office and APPLY for
> : work, or to any private sector firm for that matter? I suppose they wouldn't
>
> They're not lazy fucks, they are human beings. Deserving of the same
> compassion and respect as anyone else. Presumably they've already done
> that.
Presumably. There was big story in Ottawa during the postal strike, of
HUNDREDS of UIC cheques not being picked up by recipients during the
strike-how on earht did these innocent, law-abiding people surive????
>
> : expecting to be able to throw your weight around here like the contributors in
> : this society who actually work for a living and EARN something.
>
> The only thing a tailpipe contributes is pollution.
> Since mopst welfare recipients aren't on for long and therefore pay tax,
Sorry, wrong. 54% of welfare recipients across CANADA are on for 2 or more
years; that's why a time limit of 18 months in a 5 year period is a GOOD
idea. That, and you will sleep well at night knowing that these "greedy,
selfish rightoids" won't be able to exploit these hard-working welfare
recipients.
> in effect they are being taxed twice. First to pay for the welfare system,
> and second as government slaves.
> Well, anyone who's on that sort of a program, I advocate internal
> resistance. Sabotauge what you are doing, forge records, do whatever it is
> you can do to give worthless slime like tailpipe here more trouble than
> imaginable.
>
Have you been taking lessons from Tingley, CUPW president?
jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
William H. Belway (cc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
: The best way to "protect" welfare lifers is to make a mandatory time limit
: for eligibilty for workfare; let's say 18 months in a 5 year period. That
: way
: greedy selfish rightoids" won't be able to exploit the helpless innocent
: welfare lifers, and it will reduce the number of lifers on welfare at the
: moment-54% across Canada.
So, 18 months before you become a slave of the government? Actually, the
best way to protect anyone on welfare is to provide them with jobs at a
fair living wage. Or better yet, get rid of the welfare beurocracy and
administer a guaranteed annual income.
: recipients decreased by 250 000 since then, [still too many welfare
ANd what's happened to them? The idiots and fascists of the right do not
know, or care.
: are not as revolting as Jason Kodish. Quelle surprise.
Stupid and petty insults prove nothing, rightoid.
Barry Gaudet
jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
: William H. Belway (cc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
: : The best way to "protect" welfare lifers is to make a mandatory time limit
: : for eligibilty for workfare; let's say 18 months in a 5 year period. That
: : way
: : greedy selfish rightoids" won't be able to exploit the helpless innocent
: : welfare lifers, and it will reduce the number of lifers on welfare at the
: : moment-54% across Canada.
: So, 18 months before you become a slave of the government? Actually, the
: best way to protect anyone on welfare is to provide them with jobs at a
: fair living wage. Or better yet, get rid of the welfare beurocracy and
: administer a guaranteed annual income.
What? No bureacracy with GAI?
Actually, Jason, you only seem concerned with _some_ people being slaves
of government. Considering the days of deficit spending are long gone
it is no longer possible to for the government to return more in services
and funds than they take in in revenue.
So:
We have two groups: Those who are net recipients of government transfers
and those who are net funders of government transfers.
Why should those funding transfers be slaves of governemnt?
: : recipients decreased by 250 000 since then, [still too many welfare
: ANd what's happened to them? The idiots and fascists of the right do not
: know, or care.
Well unemployment rates are reaching lows of the decade, even decades.....
--
-the shambling wreck
'You won't be needing _this_ anymore'
jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
William H. Belway (cc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
: > So if I put a gun up to your head and say give me your money or die, I'm
: > not forcing you to give me your money,right? That's the same sort of logic
: > you're using.
: Your personal attacks on "gritpipe", whoever he might be, you're pretty
: slow, aintcha?
This is an example of a logical falicy, not a personal attack, unless you
consider my showing the illogic of his words a personal attack.
You're the one who's being rather dense here.
: If welfare lifers want to join a union, they can get off welfare.
If there are lifers, it's likely because they are ill, or for some reason
unable to work. The endless punative measures taken against welfare
recipients mean that there are few if any lifers.
: Presumably. There was big story in Ottawa during the postal strike, of
: HUNDREDS of UIC cheques not being picked up by recipients during the
UIC is not welfare, and as for the story, I don't know where it comes from
or what's behind it. I cannot comment.
: Sorry, wrong. 54% of welfare recipients across CANADA are on for 2 or more
: years; that's why a time limit of 18 months in a 5 year period is a GOOD
And these numbers come from where? You show me the stats, and the source.
: Have you been taking lessons from Tingley, CUPW president?
If the sleaze that conservatives are wish to oppress people, they had
better be prepaired to face the consiquences.
If enough slaves sabotauge their master's plans, the rightoids will be
forced to abandon slavefare.
jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Organization: Edmonton FreeNet, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Distribution:
Barry Gaudet (bga...@uoguelph.ca) wrote:
: What? No bureacracy with GAI?
In fact, instead of having dozens and dozens of social workers, case
workers, administrators, each coming with a minimum $30,000/yearsalary,
the GAI is administered through the tax system.
A GAI would not cost more than the present welfare system, and would
likely cost less.
: of government. Considering the days of deficit spending are long gone :
Ontario's deficit this year, $4+ billion, is it not?
So much for that idea.
: We have two groups: Those who are net recipients of government transfers
: and those who are net funders of government transfers.
: Why should those funding transfers be slaves of governemnt?
Again, the average recipient is on for only a few months, they therefore
pay for their own welfare, in effect.
: Well unemployment rates are reaching lows of the decade, even decades.....
Which doesn't answer the question.
: --
: -the shambling wreck
: 'You won't be needing _this_ anymore'
--
Barry Gaudet
jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
: Organization: Edmonton FreeNet, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
: Distribution:
: Barry Gaudet (bga...@uoguelph.ca) wrote:
: : What? No bureacracy with GAI?
: In fact, instead of having dozens and dozens of social workers, case
: workers, administrators, each coming with a minimum $30,000/yearsalary,
: the GAI is administered through the tax system.
: A GAI would not cost more than the present welfare system, and would
: likely cost less.
Im curious how you came to this conclusion. The two closest test cases,
[negative income tax schemes] were conducted in the 70's in Manitoba and
New Jersey and were VERY expensive. The results were indeterminate. It
seems you have more faith in the 'evil government slavers' than do I., I
have little doubt that the bureacracy would find its' niche.
: : of government. Considering the days of deficit spending are long gone :
: Ontario's deficit this year, $4+ billion, is it not?
: So much for that idea.
Perhaps I should have been clearer: The days of deficit spending to
return more in goods, services & transfers than is taken in in tax
revenue are long gone. Better?
: : We have two groups: Those who are net recipients of government transfers
: : and those who are net funders of government transfers.
: : Why should those funding transfers be slaves of governemnt?
Because the government is expropriating their earnings. They are, in
effect, saying '_We_ shall determine how that money is spent'. How is
that different form saying to the welfare recipient; 'We will determine
how your money THAT IS GIVEN TO THE RECIPIENT is spent?'
: Again, the average recipient is on for only a few months, they therefore
: pay for their own welfare, in effect.
I wonder about that. Do you have a cite?
: : Well unemployment rates are reaching lows of the decade, even decades.....
: Which doesn't answer the question.
Certainly it does. Welfare down, employment up.
jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Barry Gaudet (bga...@uoguelph.ca) wrote:
: Im curious how you came to this conclusion. The two closest test cases,
: [negative income tax schemes] were conducted in the 70's in Manitoba and
: New Jersey and were VERY expensive. The results were indeterminate. It
You have more than scetchy details on these cases? I would have to know
alot more than merely this.
: return more in goods, services & transfers than is taken in in tax
: revenue are long gone. Better?
Instead you get deficit spending to give tax breaks to the wealthy, nice
try., Just proves what the right wants...
: Because the government is expropriating their earnings. They are, in
: effect, saying '_We_ shall determine how that money is spent'. How is
: that different form saying to the welfare recipient; 'We will determine
: how your money THAT IS GIVEN TO THE RECIPIENT is spent?'
The government is not expropriating anything, another rightist myth that
taxation is theft. Taxation is the "entry fee" for living in this society,
and is spent for a whole variety of things. Once the tax money leaves your
account, it belongs and is held in trust for us by the government and used
(ideally) for things that would benefit all of society.
: I wonder about that. Do you have a cite?
I'll see what I can dig up.
: Certainly it does. Welfare down, employment up.
Logical falicy, without proof.
No, all I see around here is the right's desire to control and manipulate
and increase the suffering of those less fortunate than them. I can only
hope these rightoids suffer the same fate.
: --
: -the shambling wreck
: 'You won't be needing _this_ anymore'
--
Barry Gaudet
jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
: Barry Gaudet (bga...@uoguelph.ca) wrote:
: : Im curious how you came to this conclusion. The two closest test cases,
: : [negative income tax schemes] were conducted in the 70's in Manitoba and
: : New Jersey and were VERY expensive. The results were indeterminate. It
: You have more than scetchy details on these cases? I would have to know
: alot more than merely this.
You could look it up since you are such a staunch proponent of GAI. One
test site was Dauphin Manitoba, the other... a town in New Jersey who's
name I cant recall. They took place in the early 70's
The general idea is that you get a stipend, a GAI, no matter what you
earn. But you are taxed on whatever you do earn. I'll make up some
numbers to illustrate: You get a GAI $10000. The tax rate is, say 20% If you
have no income you pay no tax. If you earn $1000 you pay 20% of $11000 or
$220. Sothe threshold level of income would be if one earned $40000 +
$10000 GAI you would pay 20% of $50000 or $10000.
It turned out to be much more expensive but that did include 'one
time' costs such as retraining & education which were also elements of
the scheme.
There hasnt been much enthusiasm on either side of the border to pursue
the scheme sonce.
: : return more in goods, services & transfers than is taken in in tax
: : revenue are long gone. Better?
: Instead you get deficit spending to give tax breaks to the wealthy, nice
: try., Just proves what the right wants...
Do I think taxes are too high? Damned right! As far as Im concerned when
taxation exceeds 1/2 of one's income, it is not only usurious, it's
despicable.
: : Because the government is expropriating their earnings. They are, in
: : effect, saying '_We_ shall determine how that money is spent'. How is
: : that different form saying to the welfare recipient; 'We will determine
: : how your money THAT IS GIVEN TO THE RECIPIENT is spent?'
: The government is not expropriating anything, another rightist myth that
: taxation is theft. Taxation is the "entry fee" for living in this society,
Where exactly did I call taxation theft. Please follow your own logic. If
tax payer must suborn to this 'entry fee' why do you scream fascist at
any mention of an 'entry fee' [not necessarily monetary] for welfare?
: and is spent for a whole variety of things. Once the tax money leaves your
: account, it belongs and is held in trust for us by the government and used
: (ideally) for things that would benefit all of society.
: : I wonder about that. Do you have a cite?
: I'll see what I can dig up.
: : Certainly it does. Welfare down, employment up.
: Logical falicy, without proof.
: No, all I see around here is the right's desire to control and manipulate
: and increase the suffering of those less fortunate than them. I can only
: hope these rightoids suffer the same fate.
And you want to control and manipulate everyone who is a net payer of
taxes. How are you different?