Saggy Pants on Yonge

                                    Image via Wikipedia

I saw a guy walking down Yonge Street the other day with some version of shorts half-way down his thighs. I mean, he was a walking, talking wonder of gravity-defiance. I figure the only thing keeping his pants up was his wide-stance way of walking -- he walked with his legs at least a foot or more apart.  Which perhaps explains this: "This week, a San Francisco high school teacher in the Sunset District called police to intervene in a dispute with a student, who "became belligerent and took a fighting stance" after he was told to pull up his pants."

He may have taken the fighting stance in order to keep his pants up.

At any rate, the guy on Yonge Street undoubtedly thinks he looks cool, but the word that came to mind as I looked at him from behind was "retarded". It was like he had a sign on his back saying, "I'm unemployable; nobody's gonna hire me, you might as well get used to the idea of cutting me welfare checks for the indefinite future".

Could someone please remind me why you and I are deemed responsible for keeping this guy via the social system rather than this guy taking some kind of responsibility for his own life? Leftists/liberals say "take care of the guy". Conservatives say, "pull up your pants and go out and find a job".

What do you say?

Ending Poverty: The Globe and Mail Jumps The Shark

"To end poverty, guarantee everyone in Canada $20,000 a year. But are you willing to trust the poor?"

In a word, no.

Unearned handouts, especially to the young and healthy, are de-moralizing. They do not end poverty; they institutionalize it; they turn poverty into a growth industry; they create a sub-class of citizens who are dis-incentivized to work unless "society" can offer them a job that pays significantly better than the 20K they're entitled to for merely breathing and taking up space. They make irresponsible and immoral behaviour a live lifestyle choice, which too many will take.

And, of course, the $20K a year, once established as an entitlement, will never be enough. It will be seen as a matter of simple justice to raise it to $22, $24, $26K a year.  Here's a thought -- why not raise it to $80K a year, and make everyone wealthy?

You can see the leftist bias of the reporter:  "It's a bold idea, and it runs counter to the paternal approach to poverty that polices what is done with “our” money and tries to strong-arm the poor into better lives."

Wow, what a load of emotive, biased words: bold idea vs. paternal approach, policing what is done with "our" money, and strong-arming the poor.

If it's not our money, just exactly whose does she think it is?

Welfare for the able-bodied should not be convenient and comfortable. It should be something you kick yourself for needing and do everything in your power to get out of. Your goal should be to get out of it and pay back society for its "loan".

As is invariably the case in articles such as this, the journalist fails to ask the basic questions:

1. Job losses? What job losses -- why were these jobs lost?

2. Where is the child's father and why isn't he shouldering his responsibilities?

3. Where are the young woman's parents, and why aren't they supporting their grandchild and their daughter's efforts?

4. Where is the extended family if the young woman's parents are unwilling or unable to help out?

5. How much has this case-study example cost tax-payers so far, and when is the end in sight?

Welfare begins with the immediate family, followed by the wider family circle. Only if these break down should governments step in.  The issue of personal, family, and extended-family responsibilities for dealing with poverty rarely if ever get a mention by Canadian journalists.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

(full article is below)

Related articles

• To end poverty, guarantee everyone in Canada $20,000 a year. (theglobeandmail.com)
• To end poverty, guarantee everyone in Canada $20,000 a year. But are you willing to trust the poor? (theglobeandmail.com)