How is that going to work for the Olympics are they just going to pick them up by the truckloads and take them else where until its over? Its what they did in China during its Olympics. The streets are already bad enough with people's bodies laying on the cold damp streets as the streets become a public toilet spreading infectious diseases. We already have a whole new bunch of diseases thanks to the problems of people being on the streets. And with so many business going under and people losing their jobs its going to be a whole lot worst than the advocates predict. During a global crisis people don't do alot of traveling or going to high priced events like the Olympics so wonder how thats going to work for Vancouver as the world stays home? What will you do with all that debt and where will you find the money to finish projects as economy continues to slide? Kwan has a plan that puts people into homes by 2015 as she plans on building social slums. However I don't know if she is aware the streets are a death sentence along with her housing plan as people are unable to repair or mend or move on with their lives as they find themselves hungry and cold and on the streets in the number one city in the world. And we here in BC continues to win first place for our ill treatment of BC'S babies, tots, and kids who often go to bed hungry cold and abused and alone.
Vancouver's homeless said to triple by 2010
We have the highest rate of poverty with are kids and that was supposed to be eliminated by 2000 not tripled by Liberals as they have their hands in the pockets of wee ones. And although some may compare it to stealing candy from a baby no thats what the Liberals are busy selling the wee ones at Quest as many are guareented serious health problems.
Hey you don't want to be homeless here's an idea!
Get a job, get off drugs, get off booze, go back to your reseravtion, stop begging, get a job, get a better job, stay in school, look for a hand up rather then a hand out, stop having childern you can afford or raise, ..clean yourself up and be a human being not a dirty burden on Canada!
$0.02 Buffa
Mr. buffa has left the building.
One word solution-Surrey.
Oh that's right they already have their own homeless but WTH it's a big place lotsa room yet.
It is typically harder for homeless and semi-itinerant people to survive in suburbs and outlying areas than in central urban areas. They don't have the support network they need to be able to even hope to survive.
Give them all the free drugs they want....overdose them all to Hell. Scum of the earth anyone who will not help themself! Either work or die!
Your life on this site will end very soon.
It is typically harder for homeless and semi-itinerant people to survive in suburbs and outlying areas than in central urban areas. They don't have the support network they need to be able to even hope to survive.
Yes I know-and so does the Campbell Govt.
http://www.timescolonist.com/Homelessness+issue+Victoria+mayor/1025381/story.html
Homelessness is at the top of Victoria Mayor Dean Fortin's agenda as he takes control of city hall.
Fortin promised to work with the Coalition to End Homelessness and other municipalities in the Capital Regional District on the issue. He also said he would ask city staff to identify additional public properties that could be considered for public housing.
Coun. Chris Coleman said the speech was long on direction and short on specifics.
Much of the homeless problem in BC is the result of good-intentioned deinstitutionalization of mentally ill people.
Mental hospitals were often cruel and dehumanizing, but simply sending mentally ill people out to the street created worse problems. Many of the "drug addicts" and other homeless are actually mentally ill people who are self-medicating and trying to survive.
Homelessness is at the top of Victoria Mayor Dean Fortin's agenda as he takes control of city hall.
Cities have neither the resources nor the mandate to solve homelessness. It is a mental health and social assistance issue and these are responsibilities of the provincial government as they are for any other people in need.
The provincial government should not be getting away with unloading these responsibilies onto a few municipalities.
Cities have neither the resources nor the mandate to solve homelessness. It is a mental health and social assistance issue and these are responsibilities of the provincial government as they are for any other people in need.
Well it lets the feds off the hook. That way they can distribute blame across provinces while shrugging their shoulders in Ottawa. Canada has become a rightwing libertarian dream of loosely affiliated provinces and territories all run by bribed hirelings of the corporatocracy and guided politically by the rightwing Vancouver make believe think tank bending the ears of an unelected senate. Beautiful.
Why don't we take the homeless and offer them employment?
We could figure out some jobs in which homeless peoples could be employed into.We could even take some time and train them up for specific more technical jobs. From security to first aiders to cleaners to even building or construction jobs.
Make a sort of job fair atmosphere.
The military is sending soldiers there to act as security. We could have the military set up a "tent city" for the homeless. Maybe a kitchen and medical services etc..
Much of the homeless problem in BC is the result of good-intentioned deinstitutionalization of mentally ill people.
But imprisoning people for having an illness is not the answer. We need to build on the supports. The silly part is that it is usually cheaper to provide adequate supports than to deal with the issues that arise due to the lack of support.
Why don't we take the homeless and offer them employment?
Unfortunetly the solutin isn't as easy as give them a job. In most cases there are alot of issues why someone is homeless. One huge one was noted above with mental illness being a big barrier to employment. Another is that the system is set up to actually make people into victims with learned helplessness and self fulfilling prophecies. A lot of people who are homeless need a comprehensive plan which includes having their mental health needs addressed and unfortunately with our current system sometimes it harms and pushes people farther into the hole rather than helping develop them to independence.
They have to know they are important to us as individuals and not just a number and they aren't expected to be perfect or go back in the gutter.
Mind you I think that everyone in the world should experience that as well but unfortuntely not many people in the world do.
There is a good discussion about the issues of homelessness in this thread.
Much of the homeless problem in BC is the result of good-intentioned deinstitutionalization of mentally ill people.Mental hospitals were often cruel and dehumanizing, but simply sending mentally ill people out to the street created worse problems.
They didn't send them out into the streets, independant living programs were initiated. Unfortunately, there were many failures. These programs were exploiited by many NPO groups and they failed the community they were being paid to support and provide programs for was primary. Then came the BC Liberal. government.
Having said that, there is a successful org in PG, that does independant living with moderate success. Aimhi.
___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"
Wow Refuge that reply blew my idea out of the water.
It makes 100% sense though you're right. It's more than just giving them a job, thank you very much for explaining that to me and the manner in which you did.
Oh for pete's sake realigned, refuge said nothing new, this has been discussed over and over again here. Some here are even working to bring about concrete changes, and have been doing so long before refuge posted her post of this morning. Where is that rolleyes smilie when you need it?
Perhaps it was a new revelation to you though, so your overblown rhetoric might not be as falsely cheerleading as it appears to be.
___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"
Hey you don't want to be homeless here's an idea!
Get a job, get off drugs, get off booze, go back to your reseravtion, stop begging, get a job, get a better job, stay in school, look for a hand up rather then a hand out, stop having childern you can afford or raise, ..clean yourself up and be a human being not a dirty burden on Canada!
$0.02 Buffa
Give them all the free drugs they want....overdose them all to Hell. Scum of the earth anyone who will not help themself! Either work or die!
Well, some novel and unique ideas here. However, not feasable. Work or death, what about those unable (key word here) to work, or the elderly, or etc etc. I'm not going to waste the sarcasm on it. Eh, why not, It may stimulate some discussion.
They do bring up some points though, well one of them at least.
Lets start with Buffa.
" Get a job, get off drugs, get off booze"
Easier said than done. For many reasons. Addictions aren't easy to beat, nor is getting a job.
"go back to your reseravtion"
Time for an internal passport system then? Not all homeless people are First Nations. However, I will give you credit for a unique idea. Reason being, quite simple, well two reasons. We could be encouraging First Nations people to go to places where there is social support as well as a sense of family and community, In order to deal with addictions issues, mental health issues, other issues? (I don't think Economic issues would be covered under this though?) (Ideally the reservation is their own Band / Nation / Group /Community (Unsure of the terminology here?), Problem with this being of course obvious, there is a lack of funding and programming now, so really it isn't a solution (Correct me if I'm wrong on this one, but It could work right?) (Also, I am not advocating in any way a forced transfer of people based on ethnic grounds), I am just recommending that we work hand in hand with First Nations communities in order to deal with the problems of Homelessness with regards to First Nations. T
"stop begging"
Kind of hard when you don't have any other sort of income or means to provide for yourself.
"get a job, get a better job, stay in school,"
Now you're just repeating yourself. Higher education alone does not mean that you are not going to end up homeless.
"look for a hand up rather then a hand out"
Define hand up vice hand out. Some people confuse the two. Not all programmes work for all people.
"stop having childern you can afford or raise"
Minimum income requirements for children, what happens if your income suddenly falls? The government takes your kids or somthing here?Its rather an incomplete statement. That is not to say that there shouldn't be some responsibility when parenting, however that is just me sitting on my high horse here and simplyifying it for the sake of arguement. We can't blame it all on children, there is many other factors at stake.
"clean yourself up and be a human being not a dirty burden on Canada!"
So everyone else is off the hook? Dirty burden, in the grand scheme of things we have plenty of other dirty things we sweep under the rug.
Now layton sucks;
Give them all the free drugs they want....overdose them all to Hell.
That could work. Actually wait, no. We can shut down needle exchanges, drugs are still illegal, or are controlled, and there's moral and ethical consequences. Also, hell is other people, don't you know? Perhaps your house would be a good place to start sending them. (I was just digging a bit deep there, no offense or nothing, again, Sarcasm.)
Free drugs, perscription or illicit. Perscription means that it would have to be issued by a medical practicioner, which means that the doctor would have to know that the person is commiting harm.
Illicit, well we are just breaking our own laws there aren't we?
Not to mention, there would have to be a programmed designed, as well as a controlled setting in order to make sure that some sly operators don't figure, hey, they just gave me x amount of free drugs, if I take y amount for myself and sell z amount then I make a profit and still recieve the benefits of having the drugs. Thus we are essentially legalizing the sale of drugs. The issue of legalizing drugs however is a straw man as well as a red herring and doesn't work here.
Scum of the earth anyone who will not help themself!
I would be hard pressed to hear that 100% of homeless don't try in some way to help improve their situations. Care to back it up?
Okay, now that I'm done with my little hole poking session.
Now I'm guessing both of those users are banned or somthing, however I think we need to discuss some of their points in a way. They make a very mainstream view of the homeless, they hold the perception that homeless are minorties, are addicts, are lazy. Now, all of us here can agree that is not true.
The million dollar question is this. Why is the homeless population of Vancouver tripling by 2010? Does anyone have an answer to that? I think before we discuss any sort of poverty reduction strategy we need to find out why poverty is increasing. I heard somewhere that it was partially due to climate, a lot of transient and homeless people making their way towards the Pacific Coast. Which makes sense, and there isn't as much we can do about it, however there has to be somthing deeper than that.
The next question is a more broad topic we need to address, is the amount of homeless increasing across Canada? Do we have any historical data on the figures of homeless in population centers Nation wide? Do we have any statistical research on it, or any data at all, or is it all snapshotted?
I mean yeah okay, I'm saying we need to gather information, and I probably sound like some sort of hack for saying, however I am hard pressed to see what sort of utility more shelter beds, or increased welfare payments makes. Now, I'll go put on my nomex suit for that comment, but its true. We could have 35,000,000 shelter beds in this country, within 5 minutes walk of a person, but will it reduce homelessness? We could also increase welfare payments to a living level, and would it reduce homelessness?
I think the idea most people have is that we must bring them into the workforce, force them to conform, and that fixes the problems. I have yet to see a long term, comprehensive, economically and socially viable plan to fix homelessness. Everything feels to be adhoc, locally and focused on one particular issue / item.
So, lets get started from word go,
Lets discuss the following ideas;
1 - Why are people homeless - Obviously this has to be scientifcally done, with peer review, how could we do this?
2 - Who is homeless by choice - Again, I'll put on the nomex for this one, I understand that some people are homeless by choice and choose to stay that way. True, false, overstated, understated is not my goal here. My goal here is to respect their rights as well as help them.
3 - What do homeless people want, what services would they like to have? Ideally this goes hand in hand with number one, they live the life, they know what they want.
4 - How do we measure success? Well, how do we do it?
5 - How do we approach it, is it a comprehensive social policy the government must work with themselves, or is there a role for the nonprofit and private sector as well? Let us discuss ideas from both angles, I can think of some ways the private sector could help out.
Again, I'm just trying to stimulate discussion here, possibly get a feel for the homeless situation. However, let us remember the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
[url=http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Court+ruling+opens+parks+campers/12302... Victoria bylaw against daytime camping in city parks cannot be enforced against homeless people with temporary shelters[/url]
A provincial court ruling has opened Victoria's parks for daytime camping, creating a situation called historic by a homeless activist but unmanageable by Mayor Dean Fortin.Judge Brian MacKenzie declared Kristen Woodruff, David Johnston and Tavis Dodds not guilty yesterday of violating a city bylaw that banned public camping from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. ...
MacKenzie suggested city council could pass an amendment to its bylaws if it wants to continue to enforce the 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. ban on public camping. That ban was in response to an Oct. 14 Supreme Court ruling that said it was unconstitutional for the City of Victoria to prevent homeless people from erecting shelters to protect themselves from the elements in the absence of sufficient shelter beds.
Outside court yesterday, lawyer Irene Faulkner, who acted on behalf of the homeless campers in their Supreme Court challenge, said the judge had accepted her argument that the city imposed an enforcement policy on a bylaw that no longer exists. ...
In court, MacKenzie said the bylaw cannot be enforced when it applies to homeless people whose shelter is temporary. The judge concluded that all three accused were in fact homeless and their tents were temporary shelters.
Vancouver is planning to sweep the streets of homeless people by forcing them against their will to go to shelters - and this is what has some people up in arms?
Okay, yes, it's a fat-phobic comment, and I'm the last person to appreciate that sort of thing. So no, I'm not impressed - she could have found a better way of making her point. But geez. I hope the people who are expressing outrage at this are expressing 100 times the outrage at the way the civil liberties of the homeless are going to be violated during the Olympics.
Much of the homeless problem in BC is the result of good-intentioned deinstitutionalization of mentally ill people.
But imprisoning people for having an illness is not the answer. We need to build on the supports. The silly part is that it is usually cheaper to provide adequate supports than to deal with the issues that arise due to the lack of support.
"Imprisoning" is not an accurate way to look at this issue, that's the way of thinking that got us in this mess from the get go, having visited an old school friend many years ago at a facility for the mentally ill, I witnessed a safe place for many folks who would either find it next to impossible to live any kind of decent life or would simply die outside of it, this facility was eventually closed and I've never seen my friend since, not having any hard numbers but the street scene as far as homeless are concerned back then seemed like a small fraction of todays,I know this is an understatement, whomever thought shutting these places down and throwing people out on the street back then was a good idea, fucked up big time.
Vancouver is planning to sweep the streets of homeless people by forcing them against their will to go to shelters - and this is what has some people up in arms?Okay, yes, it's a fat-phobic comment, and I'm the last person to appreciate that sort of thing. So no, I'm not impressed - she could have found a better way of making her point. But geez. I hope the people who are expressing outrage at this are expressing 100 times the outrage at the way the civil liberties of the homeless are going to be violated during the Olympics.
No....Vancouver is not planning to sweep the streets, Victoria is planning to sweep Vancouver streets. And that is what Reimer's comments were directed at...
Reimer explains her remarks as a reaction to new proposed legislation to get the homeless off the street during extreme weather. She now says she "regrets" making the comment and will contact the Minister.
Personally, although a tacky remark, it might actually draw more attention to what Gordo and boyzzzz are trying to do with Vancouver's homeless.
Could not get better PR to shove it into the public's attention actually, so thanks for that Andrea, good work....and frankly what Gordo, Coleman Falcon et al are doing to BC people, by far outweighs a crass quip.
I find it funny when these kind of quotes get publicity, certain people love to jump all over them and make out like the target of the remark is some kind of angel? Andrea made a mistake politically, she's aware of that, I will also say that she understands the dynamics of homelessness better than most politicians in this province,when an issue is close to you and you see it being handled poorly your emotions can take over,that's human, oh that's right! we the voters don't want that in office.
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2009/10/26/MairMentalIllnessCuts/index.html
There is a misconception about people who are mentally ill needing hospital residency. In some extreme cases they do, but the grand majority do not. What they do need is a mix of supports within the community. The man who wrote that article looks like he probably comes from the middle class so doesn't drop into destitution if he has an episode. People working for minimum wage in low skilled jobs lose their employment and sometimes end up evicted. If they don't have a family doctor to steer them into the system they don't get treatment. As they face lack of treatment and homelessness they spiral down.
Although I don't have a link I read of a successful program that deals with independent housing first rather than tackling alcohol and drug addiction beforehand. While not a cure, the simple act of giving people the dignity of a place to call home, a door to lock, went a long way to helping them deal with their other issues including joblessness.
Some may need more support, a visiting social worker or nurse to make sure they are keeping up with their medication paying their rent and bills. For others an adult group home is a better fit. The grand majority do not need institutionalization.
Deinstitutionalization was a good thing. The bad part is that it was used to cut costs so supports within the community were not provided which would have still saved money.
I think it's called in laymens terms "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" did "deinstitutionalization" really cut costs in the larger picture? I agree not every case needs a hospital res. but as you say no one in power seemed to have foresight in what the negative impacts would be.
It doesn't matter if it cut costs!!! It is simply not acceptable to lock up innocent people and force drug and electroshock them.
"Imprisoning" is not an accurate way to look at this issue
So I suppose you prefer the blander term "involuntary hospitalization." Call it whatever you want, if people are prevented from leaving, then they're incarcerated or imprisoned.
I know this is an understatement, whomever thought shutting these places down and throwing people out on the street back then was a good idea, fucked up big time.
The fucked up idea was not providing support for people who in many cases spent years or decades within a rigid setting. When Riverview (in Coquitlam) was radically downsized, I know at least one patient who committed suicide as a result.
If I were in charge of these things, Riverview would be fully reopened on a voluntary basis. It's a beautiful setting that should be recreated as a supported living environment for those who struggle with mental disorders.
Our mental health system is a disaster. We have people stacked deep in our emergency rooms desperately wanting treatment while at the same time we have the bin filled with people who are not allowed out but are trapped in power struggles with their captors.
It doesn't matter if it cut costs!!! It is simply not acceptable to lock up innocent people and force drug and electroshock them.
I think your missing my point, some of these innocent people are a danger to themselves and to the public, many can function within our society with some form of monitoring or program, and the costs are enormous for dealing with homeless and mentally ill, was it not a better idea to look at programs for these people instead of casting them aside? I'm in agreement with you on what our system is today and what some of the options could be, my friend tried to commit suicide in Riverview as well but had people that knew how to deal with it nearby to save his life, that wouldn't have happened in an alley downtown.
As I have mentioned for years here, I worked with some in the first wave of deinstitutionalized in BC, by way of creating independant living plans and teaching basic life skills.
There were many mistakes made that have lead to this point, deinstitutionalization itself is not one though.
I think your missing my point, some of these innocent people are a danger to themselves
As opposed to those who smoke, drink, eat poorly, do drugs? Why is it only the crazies that aren't allowed to endanger themselves?
and to the public
As demonstrated how? Usually the spectre of "danger to the public" rests solely on a psychiatric diagnosis. A civilized society doesn't deal in pre-crimes.
many can function within our society with some form of monitoring or program
And lots of us do just fine without monitoring or programs.
the costs are enormous for dealing with homeless and mentally ill, was it not a better idea to look at programs for these people instead of casting them aside?
Certainly. But locking them back up is not a worthwhile program.
I'm in agreement with you on what our system is today and what some of the options could be, my friend tried to commit suicide in Riverview as well but had people that knew how to deal with it nearby to save his life, that wouldn't have happened in an alley downtown.
That's awesome that your friend was saved. My concern is for those who were destroyed.
It is typically harder for homeless and semi-itinerant people to survive in suburbs and outlying areas than in central urban areas. They don't have the support network they need to be able to even hope to survive.
A contrary view is that people recover better if they are surrounded by natural supports (community, friends, family that know them). These supports disappear once the person leaves their community of origin for the subsistence supports offered by the downtown core social agencies.
The issue is that every client is different and needs personal attention. Richmond doesn't have a proper shelter, but during last years winter a local church provided a cold-wet shelter. During that time volunteers connected with clients (for lack of a better word) and now a year later a number have changed their life course. While I am not a frontline worker, I know of four that went through programs and three of them have left the street (the fourth is in jail).
On top of the benefits to the individuals, there are important macro issues. If we allow the Dowtown Eastside to vacuum up the homeless it becomes 'their' problem. If however every community takes responsibility for their own homeless then it is 'our' problem. It puts it on the communities agenda. It means that the city plans include caring for the homeless. It raises the importance of dealing with homelessness during elections. It makes sense on so many levels.
Every time I have heard of someone who is mentally ill commiting a horrendous crime there has been a failure of the system to provide sought for treatment.
The issue isn't that mentally ill people that should be incarcerated aren't, it's that mentally ill people are being denied much less expensive treatments and support measures.
Every time I have heard of someone who is mentally ill commiting a horrendous crime there has been a failure of the system to provide sought for treatment.
So true, Infosat. The Andrew Goldstein case (which was the impetus for "Kendra's Law" in New York) is especially sad.
The issue isn't that mentally ill people that should be incarcerated aren't, it's that mentally ill people are being denied much less expensive treatments and support measures.
And, on a related point, if you're unwell and you calmly request help, you tend to be ignored. Once the situation has escalated, we always find the resources to treat someone like a terrorist. So why isn't help available in the first place before things get out of hand?
I think it's called in laymens terms "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" did "deinstitutionalization" really cut costs in the larger picture?
[url=http://www.chra-achru.ca/CMFiles/CHRA_Homelessness_Polcy42HBA-3272009-96...(pdf)
Every year in Canada, millions of dollars are spent on homeless people for interventions that support them while they are homeless. National and local responses to homelessness have typically focused on investments in emergency supports such as shelters, drop-ins and soup kitchens. This is what is referred to as "managing" homelessness. Shifting that money to actions that prevent and end homelessness makes sense - socially and economically. A 2006 study done for Metro Halifax found that investments in supportive housing could generate cost savings of up to 41%, when compared to per person costs for six key services typically used by homeless people (eg. - hospitals, shelters)2 . Similarly, studies conducted in other cities in Canada (Calgary, Ottawa, Vancouver and Torontofor example) also demonstrate that managing homelessness is an expensive strain on a number of other systems (e.g. police, ambulance, hospitals, jails) and that a focus on ending homelessness is advantageous. . .[/quote]Homelessness in Canada is connected to a shrinking supply of affordable housing. Federal, and in many cases, provincial governments' withdrawal from housing during the 1990s account for much of this shortfall. At the same time, governments were cutting back on supporting social and health services - further undermining the ability of vulnerable and poor populations to seek and maintain housing. Changes in income assistance and eligibility have also had an impact.
[url=http://www.chumirethicsfoundation.ca/main/page.php?page_id=119]The true cost of homelessness[/url] TorStar 2007
This nation's decade of relative inaction on homelessness, from 1993 to 2004, cost Canadian taxpayers an estimated $49.5 billion, across all services and jurisdictions.
Our fiscal Frankensteins in Ottawa have made a real mess of Canada since the 1990's.
I think one of the most effective things progressives can do is find a way to communicate in sound-bites and short arguments connected to hard facts, not my strength. 
I think many people believe the following:
A) If services improve for the poor that more people will be attracted to just living of public money instead of working.
B) Any city that offers a more attractive solution will be swarmed by outsiders from other towns, cities and provinces.
C) Improved services cost more money.
So reform ends with "yes we should do more and it's wrong that it's happening but I can't afford to pay the astronomical amount of money it would cost".
Right. All the more reason to deal in facts and not bullshit.
Every time I have heard of someone who is mentally ill commiting a horrendous crime there has been a failure of the system to provide sought for treatment.
The issue isn't that mentally ill people that should be incarcerated aren't, it's that mentally ill people are being denied much less expensive treatments and support measures.
That and the fact that social problems are treated as medical problems (which serves a pretty clear ideological purpose).
[url=http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/main_nowayhome_cost.html]The High Cost of Homelessness: Fifth Estate[/url] 2004
EMERGENCY SHELTERS ARE EXPENSIVE
It costs $60-80 to house someone in an emergency shelter and less than $35 in supportive housing
Canada's fiscal Frankensteins are brain dead zombies when it comes to doing arithmetic.
Cost effective? and a better alternative?
I've seen similar arguments as far as the costs re: homelessness and you just want to bang your head on a wall when these reports come out!
We need an icon for that!
So I guess the question is: Who is benefitting from the status quo?
Cost effective? and a better alternative?
I've seen similar arguments as far as the costs re: homelessness and you just want to bang your head on a wall when these reports come out!
So I guess the question is: Who is benefitting from the status quo?
I think the feds have been fiscal Frankensteins for a purpose. The whole idea is to throw the country down a debt hole in the same way they did between the years 1975 and 2000. Our two old line parties are not so much stupid as they are crazy like foxes. It's deliberate. There is a method to their madness always. Public debt is considered highest quality debt among financial capitalists. And Canada has 33 million co-signers. They know we're not going anywhere - we're good for it unlike the bleak economic system they've foisted on us over the last 30 years and falling apart at the seams today.
So I guess the question is: Who is benefitting from the status quo?
We all lose, it's always a long haul to clean up a big mess, I can remember when Jenny Kwan went apeshit in the 77-2 ledgistlature over some major cuts in children and family services, over time generally people forgot about those kinds of outbursts but it was possibly the begining or a seed planted on a road to more social problems followed by a band aid here and band aid there, if we where lucky, guys like Oppal only reacted when things got hot as far as gang activity etc, many of these gang members where kids back then, a typical reap what you sow thing, it's a mess that needs rational and long term planning,it's very hard to collect accurate statistics on how cuts affect certain people eg. whether you end up in a life of crime or homeless etc. It needs to be a forefront issue withthe next government because this one has failed miserably.
I don't think this is a question of anyone benefitting, but rather ideology trumping common sense. The answer if government funded housing which runs counter to reducing the size of government mood.
I don't think this is a question of anyone benefitting, but rather ideology trumping common sense. The answer if government funded housing which runs counter to reducing the size of government mood.
Could be, Pogo. Their laissez-faire attitude could just be leftover ideology. And part of that leftover ideology is a general plan to follow through with their unwritten guidelines for planned and enforced impotence. As Karl Polanyi once said about it, "...laissez-faire was planned, planning was not"
One way or another we are going to pay for it - so, what kind of Canada do we want?
Update: Want a profitable new job? Try politician.
From
http://www.londontopic.ca/article.php?artid=16826
'Just imagine. A "gold-plated" pension every hardworking Canadian deserves and dares to dream about.
Are you sold yet?
As an example, Liberal politician Pierre Pettigrew bought into the political sales pitch after he only served his constituents from 1996 to 2006, and he was substantially rewarded.
"Pettigrew's total take from a decade in public service? Between salary, pension and benefits, the equivalent of at least $3 million," said an article published by Canadian Business Online on Friday (Oct. 30).
An MP only has to serve for six years to qualify for a pension. Six years – now that's amazing. This statement alone should motive the most apathetic, however; likely hard-working, taxpaying Canadian drone to really start demanding regulations on MPs' pensions – or you might just as well join them.
A Million Dollar Journey article published on Oct. 5 states, "A backbencher with six years on the job who retired at the end of this year would receive an annual pension of $27,213 once he or she turns 55, which is then adjusted for inflation every year. If the MP sticks around for another four years, his or her pension hits $43,355 a year."
People, this is your hard-earned money and politicians are happily pocketing it right out from underneath those of us who slave each day with no raise, likely little to no benefits, no sick days, capped holiday time, an untrustworthy pension plan -- if you even have one -- and with the likely-hood of working well past the age of 65.'
So, who are the real beggars?
Think locally, bleep olympally.