John Kane wrote:
> On Sep 14, 4:13 pm, "Nancy Young" > wrote:

>> You really seem to like the welfare solution. I wonder why.
>
> I don't but even less do I like the simplistic "cut them off'" ideas
> etc.

As I've said, there is more to it than just cut them off.
Training, exemptions for some, etc. Other benefits that
are not cut off, for lack of a better term.

> I have actually seen some of these people in real life. A lot of
> them have minor little problems like serious physical disabilities
> that the provinical government won't acknowledge so they cannot get a
> disbility pension, instead they are on welfare.

I understand. Despite what you or others might think, I am not
against welfare and I do understand that there are people who
cannot support themselves for one reason or another.

> Others are not mentally stable enought to work regularly or suffer
> from serioius learning disabilities that make holding a job
> difficult.
>
> Others are too old, or too young.

I understand more than you know.

>> I said it was a simple overview. The plan is not a simplistic
>> as you have latched onto.
>
> Well it certainly sounded that way.

I said it was a simple overview, in those exact words. Meaning
there is more to it than my little blurb to Wayne about how they
are trying to stop the cycle of welfare dependence that runs in
families.

>>> Drug dealing is always an attractive option particularly if it is
>>> combined with membership in a elite gang with cool colours.
>>
>> You're right. Welfare is the cure for drug dealing.

> Well, it may not cure it but it cuts down on the desperate competition
> that leads to drive-by shooting etc.

This is why I was sarcastic, because there is welfare and there
has been drug dealing, drive bys, gang violence for *years* ...
so when there is welfare, there is that activity, but take away
welfare, we'll have that activity. That argument makes no sense
to me.

> No welfare, no poor kid
> graduates from Gr. 8 let alone high school. It builds a permanent
> underclass, which I guess the USA has already admitted that it has.

Again, welfare has built a permanent underclass? I happen to
think that has a grain of truth. And welfare or no, people are
required to send their children to school through a certain age.
Or school them, themselves. School is the part everyone pays
for, welfare or not. Separate from welfare is what I'm getting at.

Regardless, this subject has been beaten to death here, and
nothing has been solved. Surprising!

nancy