Industry Minister James Moore Shows his Inner Scrooge

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

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.

Well, I'm rich and never been hungry for longer than a few hours, so, ####'em, I want a tax rebate.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Muta

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.

So you don't have symphathy for the parents of those kids. Good for you. How is that relevant to the discussion of child poverty then? You yourself said that the kids should not be punished. It's just a little venting on your part? Those lazy, no good people that make bad decisions by having too many kids!

Strip it all away and it looks like another sociopathic attempt to wring ones hands of having anything to do to help the problem so long as that 'problem' isn't theirs. "Pay for it with taxes?! Hell no! I'm not the ones making bad decisions here, make those peoples' kids pay."

The more mature and thoughtful response would be: "Hmm, we're going to have to pay for child poverty either way. If it's through remedial measures to help them get a good footing of if it's after we've let them fall through the cracks of a bad education, underemployment, bad health, crime and shockingly, repeating the mistakes of their parents by having more kids than they can support."

But that nuance is lost on James Moore and people such as yourself who would support that stance. You've "earned" what you've gotten. As a young child you made choices to be born to affluent parents, or to just decent parents that fed you and looked out for you. You deliberately made use of the priviledge provided you and made sure not to engage in risky behaviour during your teenage years that could have lead to unwanted kids or issues of addiction. To that extent you've "won" the game of life through scrupulous and wise decision making for factors that were all immediately within your control. Good job!

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

So you don't have symphathy for the parents of those kids. Good for you. How is that relevant to the discussion of child poverty then? You yourself said that the kids should not be punished. It's just a little venting on your part? Those lazy, no good people that make bad decisions by having too many kids!

Yeah! Increase all the populations at all costs!

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Strip it all away and it looks like another sociopathic attempt to wring ones hands of having anything to do to help the problem so long as that 'problem' isn't theirs. "Pay for it with taxes?! Hell no! I'm not the ones making bad decisions here, make those peoples' kids pay."

Well, I'm probably more liberal than most on this board; I actually don't mind paying for the appropriate government programs that support kids. But hey, keep jumping to conclusions! You reach for the rainbow, you can do it!

Originally Posted by Tinordi

The more mature and thoughtful response would be: "Hmm, we're going to have to pay for child poverty either way. If it's through remedial measures to help them get a good footing of if it's after we've let them fall through the cracks of a bad education, underemployment, bad health, crime and shockingly, repeating the mistakes of their parents by having more kids than they can support."

Nah. If you don't understand the consequences of having sex, don't get mad when you have a child because of it. Doing it multiple times is even more telling. But again, those kids are more than welcome to use the services our government provides. It would be cruel not to help the children, and I feel like you're suggesting that.

Originally Posted by Tinordi

But that nuance is lost on James Moore and people such as yourself who would support that stance. You've "earned" what you've gotten. As a young child you made choices to be born to affluent parents, or to just decent parents that fed you and looked out for you. You deliberately made use of the priviledge provided you and made sure not to engage in risky behaviour during your teenage years that could have lead to unwanted kids or issues of addiction. To that extent you've "won" the game of life through scrupulous and wise decision making for factors that were all immediately within your control. Good job!

Thanks!

[Parallex]

Ultimately the story is less what Moore said but how he said it... if Moore had simply stated that he thinks child poverty is a shame but that he believed that child poverty is a problem rooted at the provincial level of jurisdiction (dispite having put his 2 cents in on other area's of provincial jurisdiction like K-12 education) he'd have come off fine, instead he expressed it in a manner that displayed a shocking lack of empathy/sympathy... he was literally laughing about child poverty.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Muta

Yeah! Increase all the populations at all costs!

The assertion that reduced levels of poverty correlates to an increase in population speaks volumes about your political and economic knowledge.

[Ozy_Flame]

People should not be pro-creating if they can't support a child, or bring it into a world where they can be guaranteed decent parenting. However, that is the Catch 22 - you can never solve that problem.

That said, our system should be able to meet the demand of children in need. If we're at capacity, I believe the Province should step in. Health, education and social support should all be engaged where possible to get them off the street and food in their stomachs. I don't think the Feds should be managing that though.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Muta

Nah. If you don't understand the consequences of having sex, don't get mad when you have a child because of it. Doing it multiple times is even more telling.

Yeah and damn those idiots who can't foresee all of their health and economic events somewhere over a twenty year span.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by rubecube

The assertion that reduced levels of poverty correlates to an increase in population speaks volumes about your political and economic knowledge.

That's not what he said at all . . . . Check the gauge on your sarcasm meter.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by rubecube

The assertion that reduced levels of poverty correlates to an increase in population speaks volumes about your political and economic knowledge.

Oh, completely agree. You're preachin' to the choir, son!

[Muta]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yeah and damn those idiots who can't foresee all of their health and economic events somewhere over a twenty year span.

Are you justifying having children because you might be able to support them one day in the future?

Wow.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

That's not what he said at all . . . . Check the gauge on your sarcasm meter.

Hangovers and reading comprehension do not go well together.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Muta

Are you justifying having children because you might be able to support them one day in the future?

Wow.

No, I'm saying people can make the decision to have children when their current situation may show ideal conditions to do so, but that those conditions can change at any moment without warning.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Ultimately the story is less what Moore said but how he said it... if Moore had simply stated that he thinks child poverty is a shame but that he believed that child poverty is a problem rooted at the provincial level of jurisdiction...

Oh, I think the story is about what he said. It goes right to the core of their philosophy. It is the Conservative mantra that we as individuals are responsible for ourselves and our own. Personal responsibility is the answer to all problems, not compassion.

When I saw a discussion of James's quote on another forum, someone posted something pretty humorous. The party most linked with small-c conservative christian values seems act more like Scrooge than Jesus. Can you imagine Jesus saying "Is it my job to feed the poor children?!? I don't think so!!"

[Muta]

Originally Posted by rubecube

No, I'm saying people can make the decision to have children when their current situation may show ideal conditions to do so

So... we completely agree then.

What just happened??

[CaptainYooh]

The level of any society's civility is measured by how they take care of their most vulnerable members, which are defined as people that cannot take care of themselves. This group includes in the order of priority: severely disabled (mentally and physically), moderately disabled and children. Those who belong in this group did not choose to be vulnerable. The next group includes people that did something by choice to become vulnerable. Again, they can be blamed for their choices but in a more civilized society, they are helped. Neither group contributes much to the political equilibrium; thus, they are not politically profitable to support by any party. Therefore, the level of society's support is defined entirely by the civility of its leaders and, in general, by its people and how kind or greedy they are, as support costs money.

To the case here; I think what the Minister wanted to say was that the Province of BC is not doing a good job in supporting its children in poverty, when it is their mandate to do so; instead, he said something insensitive. I don't see this as a political proclamation; just a gaffe.

[Rutuu]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

I disagree with your "everyone's" response.

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?

If your neighbor can't feed their child*, perhaps the neighbor shouldn't have had the child in the first place.


* I'm not talking about short-term money problems, where a family is in need of food assistance for a few months because a parent got injured or laid off and the parent is scrambling to get a job; I'm referring to where a family has more offspring than they can reasonably afford to manage or where a family essentially uses government support as their job.

While I fully agree with the principle of what you are saying; I still prefer to pay a minimum amout through taxes so that the same child doesn't stab me when they enter the dangerous years between 15-25yrs old.

The choice comes down to paying higher taxes (Canada) or building bigger walls/arming ourselves (USA). In the end it doesn't really bother me too much that 50% of a paycheck goes to help.

[firebug]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

No.


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).

Exactly... think of all the cushy government jobs that can be created by creating a bureaucracy to identify and punish all of those people! Certainly where we should be focusing our taxpayer dollars.

PS. There already is a way to punish people for their bad decisions. We call it children.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by Muta

So... we completely agree then.

What just happened??

I feel you missed his original point though. Perhaps you didn't and I just misunderstood. You say you have no sympathy for people who can't afford children, but there are so many things that can lead a financially secure couple who has children into financial turmoil. Layoffs, work injuries, mental illness... this is much more complicated than trying to keep poor people from boning.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Russic

I feel you missed his original point though. Perhaps you didn't and I just misunderstood. You say you have no sympathy for people who can't afford children, but there are so many things that can lead a financially secure couple who has children into financial turmoil. Layoffs, work injuries, mental illness... this is much more complicated than trying to keep poor people from boning.

No, I said I have no sympathy for people who decide to have children when they don't have the adequate resources to support them. I never said I have no sympathy for people who can't afford them.

Big, big difference.

[krynski]

Originally Posted by Muta

No, I said I have no sympathy for people who decide to have children when they don't have the adequate resources to support them. I never said I have no sympathy for people who can't afford them.

Big, big difference.

Those two groups can be one in the same. I hope you realize that you can't differentiate between them with ease.

Okay, so if you have a problem with your tax dollars going to these people, how about you devise a plan to differentiate the poor-but have kids and poor-but wern't before decided to have kids groups? People who undergo unfortunate circumstances like accidentally having a kid or somehow unfortunate monetary circumstances? You can't differentiate it.

A poor kid is a poor kid. You can't pick and choose which one deserves funding and which one doesn't.