It costs more to keep people in poverty than it does to fix the problem.

Sorry-- I thoroughly disagree with the argument:

Health care-- many poor people have less accessto health care. The right wing solution is to direct healthcare only to the people who can pay solving this part of the problem from their perspective.

Crime? That is sickening poor-bashing as an argument. Rich people also commit crime-- a lot does not get caught-- much of it is not even defined as crime. Huge amounts of money is spent protecting the assets of the rich. I do not accept that poor poeple use more crime and justice resources.

The income they would make? And collective wealth? Well that is part of the problem isn't it-- the rich don't think in terms of collective wealth and they make more exploiting the poor than they lose. Yes society as a whole may be a little poorer but they are richer and more powerful. They like it that way. The video's attempt to pander to the greed of those who are better off disgusts me.

The video does not even get at the profitable side of having poverty-- if it were not so profitable we would not have it. Wealthy people benefit by gouging the poor, by keeping them poor and expoiting them.

The video does not go there becaue it wants to present the false idea that we have a common interest-- all in it together. It is a lie. One the rich like becuase it serves them well to have people think what is good for some people is good for everyone and they sell their prescriptions.

The truth is that we are in a class war. People are taking advantage of others for profit. It stinks-- can't be cutely managed but also cannot be addressed until people realize it is there.

Poverty is not a mistake with nobody getting a benefit as the video suggests-- it is a crime where some people get what others need and real people die because of it. Like I said -- I hate the video.

This is a 3 minute very low budget piece.

Lets see you do better or do you think the average person will read your dense well written analysis.  I like much of what you write but it is almost inaccessible for me and I have two university degrees.  Despite this respect for your point of view I don't pass on much of your stuff because most peoples eyes start rolling after the first densely packed paragraph.

I want a debate about poverty not a doctrinal thesis.  In think this video will encourage real debate. 

I hold my view sincerely and can defend it. I think it is counter productive to campaign to the effect that we are all in this together when we are in a class war of exploitation. Why should I not express that opinion here?

And how can you say not much meets my standards? I support a lot of work being done by many progressive people.

I don't have to agree with everything and I don't have to shut up about it especially when I think it damages the cause.

I don't care how well meaning it is -- saying poor people cause more crime is something we would not let our enemies say -- why should we let our friends get away with that crap?

Your post does not address or refute my argument-- I guess you figure a personal attack works best huh?

Is there some reason why you suddenly think there is some party line I need to toe here?

Why post a criticism that does nothing more than criticize me for not sharing your point of view without a shred of argument or evidence to back it up? Somehow I am supposed to like the video because what -- did you make it? Some friend of yours make it? Why? Isn't this a place to debate and share ideas? Why shouldn't I be able to say I hate the video and give my reasons for it? Is it suddenly politically incorrect to disagree with the CCPA here? Sorry I did not get the memo. And who the hell are you to tell me what I have to like and what I don't?

Money is require for all those things mentioned. If the wealthy weren't busy hording it for...well for whatever it is that makes the gerbils run on their wheels they describe as their brains. When is enough enough.

As an example using education, while there are lots of issues with university students I believe we have to start at the beginning, elementary schools. Universal breakfast and lunch program free to every child. No fees for any activity such as art, sports, field trips, music etc... Way more support staff, aids etc... Many children get left behind before they even reach middle school, stigmatized for being poor. No child should have to pay for their parents misfortune or mistakes. We can deal with university issues after we fully fund primary education.

Money can't buy love

But money can buy the time one needs to foster love for others outside of our own immediate families.

Northern when you say:

"Not much meets your standards and people doing nothing you despise. Catch 22 you got me"

Don't try to pretend it is respectful.

It is many things but respectful is not on that list.

And no I don't have a chip on my shoulder but if you make comments like that to me then I don't feel obliged to be nice about it.

And you are full of shit here-- you picked this by responding to a comment that was on topic with a comment that was snarky and personal-- the rest of your comment on this is purely hypocritical and perhaps projection-- I have disagreed with a lot of people here pleasantly in many threads but I don't stay nice when people think they can score points by personal remarks, snarkiness or attacks. My comments before yours were not a personal attack on anyone or even personal at all. You made it personal and that changed the tone. Now you want to say that's about me? You want to say I am the one making a personal attack here?

Seems you are the one with the personal attack and then you are the one being the victim when you got called on it.

I will jump over the acrimony. I don't think poverty issues are addressed by crapping on the rich, they don't read these blogs. It may feel good but what does it accomplish? If we promote better political polices without the slurs, the majority of voters may pay attention to the rationale. People shut down quickly when the discussion becomes " their bad, were good".

Glenl-- the acrimony is not about the topic-- and while we may not agree I can respect your point of view -- (The acrimony was about an uncalled for personal remark)

To address your thoughts, I can see the point of view but I feel that the solution does not come in convincing the rich that we all can get along and that we really are nice people after all-- I think it comes by engaging and inspiring people who are suffering to understand why they are suffering and what needs to be done. If the people who are poor stopped supporting the people who are hurting them the pain would stop. We have a lot of propaganda out there speaking about good versus bad governance and who would be best for PM etc. Lots of discussions suggesting we are all in this together when in fact we aren't. There are conflicting interests -- reasons why people are getting hurt-- others are benefiting. Getting people to wake up to that reality seems to me more important and a step that must happen before attempting reconciliation with the rich.

I think most people do not see it as a rich vs poor tension and that is why we are getting nowhere. Policies are not being rejected because they are good or bad but because of whose interests would be helped or hurt. We will have more people suffer and die than we need to if we put off this realization.

Perhaps there is value in both messages going at the same time. There may be people for whom your idea works -- I find I am struggling to convince people who are getting the crap knocked out of them to understand they are in a conflict.

I must say that apart from that point-- I do not find it excusable for the CCPA to use arguments about poor people and crime in the way this piece did. Regardless of which approach you want -- yours or mine-- that is unacceptable. The suggestion that there is more crime from poor people is a popular myth but has never been proven-- and that is still without acknowledging prejudices and barriers to justice or the immoral acts of people in power.  That portion of the piece really did it for me and left me unable to say anything good about the video. I was shocked as the CCPA, I would have thought, ought to know better. The notion that poor people are thieves and criminals because they are poor coming from a supposedly progressive place is rather offensive and I am surprised there are not more here having trouble with this-- it was pretty blatant in the video.

That part I totally agree with, the video reduces the problem to a benefit cost ratio, adds both in totally unsubstantiated ways and assumes the poor are a cost to society. The poor are a result of political policies and priorities in my opinion. Trying to solve poverty in one stroke is, I believe, admirable and impossible. I don't believe it happens by sending checks in the mail ( this should also happen to alleviate the immediate pain ), systemic changes are required that break the cycle.

This was in response to Sean

Is altering the system an approach that will likely be successful in the near term?

I agree epaulo13. I take an incremental approach, trying to make improvements.

I would be considered a conservative here ( small c, mostly). We are not necessarily the enemy. Speaking for conservatives, which I have no right to, we can be engaged towards solving social problems. I would gladly pay a " child lunch program " tax. I get overwhelmed by contemplating solving all the problems at once. I tune out when I'm treated as the problem and not part of the solution. I'm also old and tired and have to go to bed soon. This is the first thread that I have engaged and I thank you all for the discussion.

rabble.ca also has a link to the story.

I think there needs are two categories of poverty that need to be considered. 

Working poor probably are big savings on the system.  They don't wear out roads and are very frugal and utilitarian in their spending choices.  The surely don't overuse tax breaks as most of these require up front spending.

With extreme poverty many studies have shown that by homeless people cost more to the system than the cost of providing them adequate housing.  Indeed it was under the Bush administration that big steps were taken to spend the money on housing with major initiatives in Oregon and Connecticut.  They didn't do this out of the kindness of their heart obviously.

I think the issue is that with more and more people tipping from poverty into extreme poverty that issues like emergency health care costs to the system increase simply due to poor living conditions.

I don't doubt that Sean.  It is just that society connects the terminology with homeless level poverty.  This is very unfortunate in my opinion.  I see a number of reasons for this.

1. Government poverty programs increasingly target abject poverty.  Housing money, small as it is, is directed mostly to homelessness and recovery housing.
2. Government has pushed the issue over to helping groups, many of them faith based.  These groups also work disproportionately with the homeless and desperate.
3. The visibility of homelessness has turned it into the face of poverty.  While people who are spending large parts of their income on housing almost by definition are not going to be visible in society.

I think the collapse of the USSR sealed the deal for neo-conservative, anti-worker policies. I think unions got as much traction as the did in the mid-last century because western rulers were afraid that workers would rebel and possibly usher in communist/socialist governments and economic princiiples. With it's demise, that esternal threat no longer existed and it has become open-season on reducing and eliminating workers' rights and social programs. Right now, the rich are making more money than ever before and to say that they could be making more by taking care of poverty probably has no resonance with them.

The questions are: Cheaper for whom; and Cheaper than what?

Poverty exists because it's cheaper for the capitalists to throw people out of work and underemploy people as a means of improving profits than it is to pay for full employment all the time. It also exists because capitalism operates by transferring wealth from the many to the few.

So it's definitely not cheaper for the capitalists to give everyone a good-paying job and otherwise provide financial support for the poor. The extra costs of supporting the poor fall not to the capitalists but to society as a whole. Capitalists are happy to let us all share in paying those costs.  Nobody's going to convice them or their political servants otherwise.

It would certainly save all of us money if everyone had a good job and nobody was poor. But that's not going to happen in this society. We will continue to share society's burden of poverty, whether it happens to us personally or to others, and in this way provide flexibility to the capitalist system by subsidizing its ready access to cheap and disposable labour.

Organize the unemployed and poor people to fight back. For example, if you were a professional person then you might consider volunteering a service that the poor and unemployed could use and that's a ticket to help organize them. Volunteer for anti-poverty advocacy groups. Roll your sleeves up and do some volunteering at one of the many food banks in Canada to get a better idea, if you dont' already, of what poverty is really like. Join a political organization of like-minded people who actually concern themselves with poverty in this country.

Also, why isn't public transit free where public transit is offered. It's already subsidized, why not go the rest of the way. I consider transit fares a form of discrimination to the poor, to whom every dollar counts.

Would someone be so kind as to give an example of when significant change in a country's direction has occurred by gently and subtly changing the public's world view?

As far as I can tell every example I am aware of has been people getting in people's faces and telling them something that actually disturbed them and their world view.

I'd like to see some support for the gentle do it incrementally, be subtle approach. Especially I would like to know if the gentle reinforcement of the very ideas that are doing damage has ever helped anywhere. I remain unconvinced that the non-confrontational quiet way is anything other than a form of acquiescence.

I think the most successful social movements came from people engaging in the change head on -- in calling a farce a farce and a crime a crime and directly saying the system is a problem. Indeed political change also does not come by degrees it usually happens very quickly and often suddenly. The well-mannered approach where nobody gets disturbed but somehow change direction is an armchair idea but nothing to do with how change happens.

I agree some people get turned off but others get inspired. Pablum does not make any change and the CCPA video we have seen -- it makes for behind the lines comfort that something is being done even though probably nobody but well-meaning already convinced activists will ever see it through. I can't imagine it convincing anyone or turning heads among the undecided or opposing views.

Like I said, perhaps it makes some people feel better that something is being done. Personally, I think stronger arguments without obvious flaws make for better sources to change minds. And I think it is not the  rich who need convincing yet. They are still laghing their way to the bank.

I'd be all for a video that would contextualize the current economics aimed at people who are suffering because of it so at least they understand what is happening to them. Then if they can wake up and get involved we can do something.

I don't dislike the CCPA, I have no reason to dislike this video except what I see in it.

Its amazing how the "right wing" agenda keeps getting advanced in society, step by step, and the "progressive" agenda seem to get left further and further behind.

Back in post 39 I listed a few concrete policies that may help alleviate poverty in Canada. In response I've gotten " wait for the revolution", " create the revolution" and " organize the poor to fight back". Brilliant, just fucking brilliant.

Glenl, many of those social programs used to be available in BC, to some degree. Not anymore though. Except for mixed neighbourhood subsidized housing.

Where in Canada does one have to pay for a library card?

What would be your higher income level for income tax payments?

They are excellent examples, and as I said there used to be programs across BC along those lines. And there needs to be again. They most all were gutted after Paul Martin cut health care transfer payments to the provinces after Mulroney drove the country into deficit. This was even in the face of how effective life skills, parenting classes, etc. were shown to be.

Now what we have is provincially funded group foster homes owned by private individuals and corps. This billion dollar industry is instead of teaching young parents life skills in order to circumvent child apprehension, or hiring a family support worker at a much lower cost to teach them life skills from the ground up. Thus they are building a whole new generation of parents who will not know how to be parents because they lived in group homes with rotating shift workers. It is a self-sustaining industry.

We now also have privately owned employment agencies who give business funding breaks when they hire the 'unhireable'. There used to be back to work training programs with funded daycare and clothing allowances. Amongst many other such proverty diminishing services. These types of things like you mention need to come back, and people need to know that  we the people use to have them, and there was much less poverty back then as opposed to now, as really I do not think people know that there used to be such.

Under the BC Liberals the businesses get funding  for hiring those deemed "unemployable" and the employees get hired for 3-6 months until the program runs out. Combine these barrierers with minimal day care subsidy and it becomes generational underemployment and minimum wage living struggles.

Not so sure there would be lost revenue at those income non-taxable levels. Spending power goes up and thus the main bulk of the lost income tax income is made back through the other consumption taxes. And the rest is made up of savings from the decreasing need for social support services and thus the expenditures on them.

BC was much better off financially when we had strong social service support networks. As they have declined, the overall income across the province has declined for everyone, except the top 2%, or so.

Not going to go into small business credit lines at the moment, as I am not sure that credit is the way to go and am going to think about it further.

There is no need for anyone around the world to live in abject poverty, not just Canada. However, when sociopathic pinkie and the brains run everything, this is what we get.

Guess what I am saying is, people need to be reminded and educated on the reality of what was and what could be again, which to me is what the CCPA is trying to do. we have to start somewhere and IMV everything even this small discussion you and I are having plays a part in getting the strangle hold of the sociopaths off of us all.

But when you have a segment of the population believing that those social programs are what is causing the decline of our social construct, as opposed to realizing it is the unmitigated greed of the few. and the lax middle class, there will continue to be an erosion of public services until they are faced with the truth, as society has done in the past.  Only then will change occur.

In that respect I would like to see fully funded FAMILY CARE, not just daycare for children. Have now lived long enough that I have experienced both ends of the family care contiuum.

However, for me, in looking back over my life experience as a mental health worker, occupational therapy and home care nurse, I would like to see life skills programs put in place. Take the children out of the fostercare system by educating their parents prior to any incidence levels occuring. And have schools meals, as you perceive too, it would also assist in evaluating at risk parents and children, as well.

Plus universal basic dentistry accompanying our health care system.

Not much for free municipal transportation, think it should be means tested. Those who can afford to pay should.

Oh and get rid of crown corporations by returning them to the public sector oversight. The outrageous wage and retirement pension gotten by BC Ferries President is a great example of how corrupt crown corporations are, say nothing of ICBC.

I did some work back in the early 90s (just for myself nobody else) on the issue of public transit. I was shocked to discover how inefficient fare collection actually is whether it is rolling coin, fare box technology, ticket production, security of fare boxes and security to make sure people paid. Shockingly it was not as expensive as I thought to abandon the whole thing to free transit.

If you means test for transit it will get even more inefficient. Free transit for everyone is a good idea. It is also a very important environmental policy. You see they constantly compare transit costs with running a car and tell us it is so much cheaper to take transit after you have the car purchased, maintained, plated and then gas etc. But for those people who want a car what then? So now you have a car in the driveway, is it worth using transit at least some of the time? At $3.50 a trip not really. But free it would be great idea. Then consider the fewer cars on the roads, savings to healthcare, road construction. Public transit can be more efficiently paid for by taxes than by ridership. For those without a car or poorer people it is a plus. For local business it is also very important -- move those tourists around more as well. For the environment and to allow a cleaner less costly in infrastructure city another big plus.

I'd place transit at the top of my list and have done so on similar lists here for years.

Northern-- I think there is a lot of room for peaceful action  that is true. I do believe that we can go a lot further with public policy to address those things but we cannot have those policies without a more involved and aware electorate. I don't like sending messages that are not accurate or are misleading just because they may be received a little better-- and that is only a "may" in any case.

I don't accept that it is productive to list the costs of poverty like this including crime.I think we need to approach poverty partly from a practical point of view yes, but also a moral one and one that attacks greed rather than tries to use it as motivation

Not sure why you are so angry about the stance I am taking. You seem to be very upset that I disagree with you on this but I can't see why you should expect my automatic agreement or even if you don't agree with me why you can't at least understand the perspective I am coming from and hold back on the sarcasm accordingly. You have attacked me in this thread with the same level of venom I would have thought would have been reserved for those who wanted the poverty to remain rather than someone who only disagrees in method when it comes to removal.

I am asking you again to step back from your personalization of this particular debate. If you continue I can make it as nasty as you want it to be but I really don't get what you gain here.

Remind,

In fact you are quite right the train is exactly where public transit should go in many rural areas.

It is also environmentally friendly and I suspect once initial investments made quite affordable.

I would seriously consider two additional policies for rural areas-- the first is public transit extensions and the second -- I realize this may be controversial -- but the removal of gas taxes in places not served by public transit.

I dopn't disagree with universal family care either-- this is as essential as transit. In fact the two together would have enormous impact on poverty.

AS well-- the extension of high speed internet to rural areas is another key need allowing more work from home and home based business in rural areas.

I'll tell you what Sean save your venom for our enemies and leave the vitriolic excesses out of your condemnation of our allies.

Read above what you wrote. The parts that say you hate the video were fair comment the parts that use terms like poor bashing, pandering and the notion that it was deliberately attempting to present a false idea was not fair comment.

In BC we have a din of media and only the CCPA get any coverage from the left perspective.  I get worked up when I see intelligent people who share many of my political views start to attack other people aiming for the same goals.

I think your post was not constructive criticism it was back biting of the worst kind.  I think that kind of internal warfare is destructive and ends up serving the right wing agenda.

So people think that we can convince the average car driving voter that transit should be free at the same time as we have increasing levels of gas taxes?  I think free transit makes a lot of sense but it is a sure path to political suicide for any party that proposes it. If the NDP was to run on free transit then Crusty Clarke would get elected.

I will try if you will live up to the standard you want me to reach.

spam

Aha! Any relation to Tory BURCH shoes, Ken? Come on now, fess up.