Industry Minister James Moore Shows his Inner Scrooge

[Locke]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

That's all well and good, but are you willing to let children starve?

As long as I dont have to watch.....

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Muta

Give the kid an IQ test at 5 years old, before he can locate his dongo. If he's under a certain score, snip him.

Sooo.....1930s-1950s style eugenics then?

[Tinordi]

Getting children out off poverty through direct program spending actually saves money for the self admitted sociopaths like Muta who have no sympathy.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Locke

Sooo.....1930s-1950s style eugenics then?

Didn't the Canadian taxpayer shell out a hefty sum of money to all the "undesirable" people sterilized during the 50s and 60s?

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Getting children out off poverty through direct program spending actually saves money for the self admitted sociopaths like Muta who have no sympathy.

They always ignore the facts that don't fit into their very narrow viewpoint

[GGG]

I believe under the current constitution that this falls under health care and therefore is the provinces responsibility. I think that is what the industry minister is refering do. The closer programs are to the actual users of the program the better they are. Having some unwieldy federal anti-poverty plan would just be a waste of money.

Ideally the provinces would enhance funding for school lunch programs that would ensure that kids get two healthy meals a day and that food banks would be given more funding by the province as well. Target funding at front line delivery and have that funding done by those closest to the situation.

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Children should know better than to be born to parents that can't afford em.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Getting children out off poverty through direct program spending actually saves money for the self admitted sociopaths like Muta who have no sympathy.

That's a little harsh. So I don't have sympathy for people who have more kids than they can support... what's the problem with that? I never, at all, said don't help the kid. Not once. Kids in need should be helped.

But, as usual, you don't bother to read or ask me directly about it. You just twist my words. Not surprising.

[opendoor]

Based on what I hear from friends who are teachers, it's not even necessarily just an issue of poverty but outright laziness and neglect by parents. There are kids whose parents aren't anywhere near the poverty line who get sent to school with basically nothing to eat.

And most of the kids that do get lunches are just given junk to eat. I suppose Lunchables are better than nothing, but not by much.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I think you would be surprised. As friend of ours volunteers at our kids school. They have a breakfast/lunch program, and it is beyond capacity.

Is that program a needs-based program? I just know that if you offered my kids food for breakfast at the school they would eat.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

So in the situation you describe above, we let the kids go hungry?

No.

The government and society cuts off any assistance to the parent(s), but continues to provide funds to the child(ren). If the parent(s) co-opts the child(ren)'s funds, then perhaps removal of the child(ren) from the purview of the parents should be considered.

There needs to be a way to penalize people for their bad decisions, without penalizing those who are innocent and who are a consequence of the bad decision(s).

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GGG

I believe under the current constitution that this falls under health care and therefore is the provinces responsibility. I think that is what the industry minister is refering do. The closer programs are to the actual users of the program the better they are. Having some unwieldy federal anti-poverty plan would just be a waste of money.

Ideally the provinces would enhance funding for school lunch programs that would ensure that kids get two healthy meals a day and that food banks would be given more funding by the province as well. Target funding at front line delivery and have that funding done by those closest to the situation.

All of the jokes and and hyperbole aside, thats what hes saying.

All he has said is that this is Provincial Jurisdiction and that the Federal Government isnt going to intercede.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Slava

Is that program a needs-based program? I just know that if you offered my kids food for breakfast at the school they would eat.

I don't believe it is a 100% needs-based. But it is a needs targeted program. There are only 3 elementary schools in town, it is not hard to know who "needs" it.

For example, my son shows up there some mornings, cuz he (like you kids) likes to eat. I have to our friend to nicely punt him, and we had spoken to him about it.

The flip side is our friend's response was that they will turn no kid away. She said that one reason is they don't want the ones that need it to feel ostracized.

So in hindsight it might not be the best measure....

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Locke

All of the jokes and and hyperbole aside, thats what hes saying.

All he has said is that this is Provincial Jurisdiction and that the Federal Government isnt going to intercede.

Then he should have been more clear in his comments.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Having a child is a personal choice. Why should I, or you, or anyone else, be obligated to expend our own funds and efforts to care for someone that we had no choice in creating?

Because the alternative is to allow a child to starve to death or live malnorished. I'm not going to speak for anyone else but a society that effectively says "screw you" to it's own unfed children isn't a society that I care to call myself a part of.

In related news any hope James Moore had of one day being Prime Minister probably just evaporated.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I don't believe it is a 100% needs-based. But it is a needs targeted program. There are only 3 elementary schools in town, it is not hard to know who "needs" it.

For example, my son shows up there some mornings, cuz he (like you kids) likes to eat. I have to our friend to nicely punt him, and we had spoken to him about it.

The flip side is out friend's response was that they will turn no kid away. She said that one reason is they don't want the ones that need it to feel ostracized.

So in hindsight it might not be the best measure....

Its just such a fine line because my kids would almost certainly eat, and you might think they've never seen food before! I can assure you though that we are nowhere near the poverty line, and in fact those kids might have eaten mere minutes before you offered them food!

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

How does a child go hungry in Canada? Aren't there enough social safety nets to ensure this doesn't happen?

I think you mean "entitlements", which should be drastically cut in order to balance the budget.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Slava

Its just such a fine line because my kids would almost certainly eat, and you might think they've never seen food before! I can assure you though that we are nowhere near the poverty line, and in fact those kids might have eaten mere minutes before you offered them food!

True, but I think you can agree that it is sad that there is even this need for these types of programs.


Much wiser minds than me can turn their intelect to fixing the problems/causes.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Locke

All of the jokes and and hyperbole aside, thats what hes saying.

All he has said is that this is Provincial Jurisdiction and that the Federal Government isnt going to intercede.

He was very clear in his apology that he agrees that both the provincial AND federal governments have a role to play in fighting child poverty.

If he had cut off after saying it was a provincial problem, there would only be half the controversy that there is. I disagree wholeheartedly that child poverty is a provincial responsibility only, but we can have a separate debate on that.

But it is the lines that he followed up with that has people up in arms. Suggesting that we, as society, should not care about the plight of other people's children, even if they are going to school hungry... that's just cold hearted and cruel. But certainly not unexpected from a Conservative MP.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I think you mean "entitlements", which should be drastically cut in order to balance the budget.

I don't think we should cut entitlements drastically to balance the budget. I'd rather pay high taxes to live in a civil society than have desperate people out there stealing or robbing to get by.