The Poor Can't Save Money

And yet, all of you were up in arms when Klein proposed charging people for beds in homeless shelters, then giving them the money back when they leave the shelter; as savings.<p> Hmmmmm, pot, meet kettle.<p> <p>---<br>"History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme" Mark Twain

That is not a bad idea if they actually have the money in hand - what if they dont? do they get turned away for a cold nights sleep?

In Vancover - nobody on welfare could save money - at little over $500 per month allowed for a single person with no dependants there is nothing left after paying for some of the highest rents in Canada. So to me much of the article in question is rather moot.

---
If there was ever a time for Canadians to become pushy - now is the time - for time is running out on this nation called Canada.

I can't see how anyone on welfare could even survive, let alone save any money. $500 won't even get a lousy apartment, let alone food or utilities.<p> It just flames me how if I were to get laid off from my current job (which looks like a possibility) EI won't cover me enough to pay my mortgage or car payment, let alone food and utilities. The max I could claim would be like $350 or $400 a week, for 16 weeks, where I've been paying into it for more than 20 years. And yet, the EI system is always over budget. The liberals just scrape off the excess and put it into general revenues. Not reduce my paying into a system which I will never collect out of. Just another hidden tax, and more feed for the trough.<p> <p>---<br>"History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme" Mark Twain

Even in Toronto, Dr. Caleb, there are a FEW clean, affordable bachelor apartments for around 550 or so, but that is rare......you can get a bigger (2 or 3 bedrooms above a store, for example) shithole for 600 or 700, but an aprtment for 350 will be disgusting, unless you\'re lucky.

There`s just no way in hell that somebody on welfare can save money! And for Ralph`s plan, yeah, sure, homeless people have money to pay to stay? These people are on glue!

---
Dave Ruston

The homeless in Alberta are given money by Welfare, if they need it. They can also earn money from selling a local newspaper printed just for them to sell, that deals with homeless issues, instead of panhandling. They may not have enough for an apartment, but could afford $5 a night for a bed and a hot meal. And after a few weeks, they'd have enough for a deposit on an apartment when the money is returned. With an apartment, they have an address. With an address, it's easier to get a good job. With a job, they don't need social assistance. The cycle of poverty could end.<p> You would deny them the self dignity that comes from standing on your own two feet and not having to beg to stangers for their supper? And you hate Klein for proposing this? That's cold.<p> <p>---<br>"History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme" Mark Twain

And you hate Klein for proposing this? That\'s cold.

This statement is pretty strange, who said they hate Klein? Hating or great dislike for the impoverishing of people, or the actions of government and those in charge of looking after the public purse, that instead mismanage that money, is not the same as hating the person. I don\'t like what Klein is doing to the average person, to social systems or to hospitals, schools and his attempts to alienate Alberta from Canada while befriending the U.S. instead. I don\'t like his policies, but hate, no I can\'t hate someone I don\'t even know! But I sure can oppose his policies!

<i>This statement is pretty strange, who said they hate Klein?</i><p> Perhaps 'hate' is too strong a word. I'm under the impression that some on this site, being left wingers, have a distain for him, his government and his policies, and being left wingers - I can see that..<p> <i>I don't like what Klein is doing to the average person, to social systems or to hospitals, schools and his attempts to alienate Alberta from Canada while befriending the U.S. instead.</i><p> To get rid of the debt that Don Getty left behind, Ralph had to make som drastic cuts in every aspect of the government. It hurt, and many were affected by it. It sucks, but it had to be done. As for alienation, Ottawa did that, and has for many years. We're just tired of it. While Ralph has a big stick, he's going to use it to make our province better.<p> <i>But I sure can oppose his policies!</i><p> Realizing that not everyone here may get daily news from Alberta, one of my aims here is to dispell the rhetoric with facts. I pointed out in other articles how the Government has made more beds available for homeless, yesterday he announced more funding for education brought about by a recent report into defeciencies there. He's in Charlettown today with other premiers discussing how to get the feds to give some of the federal surplus to the provinces to implement the Romanow plan.<p> I don't expect everyone here to agree with me. Makes for boring discussions anyhow. But if you want to want to dislike the man, his government or the policies of the government, do it from a current persective. Not what had to happen over the last 10 years, because those days are over and things are changing.<p> <p>---<br>"History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme" Mark Twain

You already know that Klein will not take part in any sort of National Health council.

I think some have missed the original point of this article. I stated that the poor can\'t save, not because they are on welfare or disability, but because if they ever find themselves in a position to HAVE TO APPLY for benefits, they will be told to spend their savings first, then apply.

That is what I got from the article by Carol Goar.

It\'s not about saving money while on welfare, that\'s bloody impossible !!



---
"Arrogance in Politics is unacceptable"
Jim Callaghan
Minden, Ontario
705-286-1860
www.misterc.ca

I thought the government provided affordable apartments for those on welfare. I know of couples who are on welfare and are not homeless. Maybe if 2 or 3 people on welfare got together in one apartment they would not be homeless. These are just general comments about homelessness. Please correct me if I\'m wrong; I don\'t have great knowledge of these things.

In Alberta the government subsidizes rent in low income complexes, Calgary Housing Authority is one such complex, but there are very long waiting lists, and the number of people needing homes is growing, while the number of available units is not...the idea of sharing accomodations might work if you are single or adult couples, I wouldn\'t want to do that if I had little children, besides there are rules about how many bedrooms etc. required for children of opposite sex etc. So, hard to find that kind of accomodation for most people and many landlords\' don\'t want welfare tenants. Otherwise I have never heard of the gov providing any homes for welfare recipients, maybe someone else knows for sure.

Not much better here in Ontario thanks mostly to the previous government. The waiting lists for affordable housing grows, the number of people relying on food banks grows. (one has to check best before dates and anything frozen as it isn\'t uncommon to find food that has expired), People have to decide on whether they pay the rent or feed the kids. And lets not forget the CLAWBACK of the NCBS, (a mother of 2 loses $226.41 a month from the amount they receive from social assistance).
A lot of money that could be going towards constructing affordable housing is being wasted on administration and going to so called social agencies that are only in it for the money. As far as shelters, it is costing the taxpayers alot more to shelter someone in a shelter than what it would cost the taxpayers to increase the shelter costs

I have a friend who is a retired lawyer, and he made a comment one day that blew my socks off.

Consider that some social agencies are trying to do the right thing, help the homeless and the poor to keep a little dignity.

This may be slightly off-topic, but here goes:

A wealthy person passes away and leaves 20% of the estate to the housekeeper that looked after this person for many years, and left the remaining amount to one or more charities.

It seems that in his experience, the charities will do ANYTHING including challenge the will in the courts to keep any money from going to the housekeeper.

They are, according to him, barracudas when it comes to estates, they want it all.

This doesn\'t mean that there are not good-minded charities out there, but it does say that they want every penny for their own administration and will fight hard to get all of it.

Last year there were many charities that were being investigated for fraud, simply because some 80% to 100% of the money taken in was for administration, and very little, if any, got to its proper destination. The articles were done over a period of time and the controls on charities in Canada are very lax, and they should be tightened up.

Perhaps they are working on that as we speak.

I have a problem with food banks and charities, it\'s just too easy for the government to say that \"this is one more area we don\'t have to worry about, the volunteers are doing it for us\".

With the stroke of a pen, all levels of government could eliminate the need for food banks overnight. Of course, that would mean they would have to agree on something, and that\'s never going to happen.



---
"Arrogance in Politics is unacceptable"
Jim Callaghan
Minden, Ontario
705-286-1860
www.misterc.ca

should have said shelter allowance

In another matter (taken from the OW watch list):
I wonder if you\'d mind sharing a bit of expertise with me? Our agency is supporting a woman who\'s having a very rough time with EI. She is a single mother caring for a profoundly disabled 5 year old with Rett Syndrome. Her child has daycare, and she gets a little bit of money for respite care, but is otherwise doing 24/7 care on her own.

She is working part-time but EI is telling her that she MUST be looking for full-time work or they\'ll classify her as not \"ready, willing, and able\" for full-time work and thus deny her benefits.

She is not, obviously, able to work full-time and still provide the necessary care for her child. They have told her that is not their problem and she\'ll have to go on welfare in that case.

Welfare, however, tells her that because she qualifies for EI, she cannot receive benefits from them until her EI eligibility runs out. When she tells them what EI is saying to her, they inform her that they expect her to fight that out with EI and it isn\'t their problem.

She is at her wits end and really needs someone to stick up for her. Do you know what the actual rules are here, and can EI really force her to try to work full-time when there is no one else to care for her child? I\'m also wondering what the rules are re: caregivers qualifying to receive ODSP. I can find no information on that.