The Shotgun Blog
« This is What We Have to Deal With | Main | Judicial Arrogance: Gomery Whines about Mandatory Minimums »
Monday, November 26, 2007
Liberalism leads to poverty?!?
What's going on? All I hear here and there is that Liberals have made us poorer over the years and I'm really surprised. I basically thought Liberalism/Socialism could lead us to more prosperity and wealth. Seems those who wanted us to believe so were wrong again. A new report appeared today says that one in three Toronto families lives in poverty:
"Almost one in three families in Toronto is living in poverty, a "deeply troubling" statistic that makes the city the poverty capital of Canada, according to a new report."
Good to remember that the province of Ontario and specifically the city of Toronto have been run by the Liberals for a long long time.
Posted by Winston on November 26, 2007 in Canadian Provincial Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54fa1fc0b8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Liberalism leads to poverty?!?:
Comments
Eastern Europe was run by Leftoids for decades after WWII. It is only now that they are emerging from severe poverty.
And in Venezuela today, there are shortages of eggs, milk, meat & bread since guess who took over the reins of power with his socialist agenda - despite all that oil revenue pouring in with these high prices on crude.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-26 5:44:49 PM
This is impossible. Poverty cannot exist in Toronto or anywhere in Ontario for that matter. If they cannot make ends meet, it is because they are, like all Ontarians, lazy, idle, spoiled and stupid. Do not believe the lies spread by the corporations of Toronto.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-26 5:47:45 PM
I grew up in poverty in Toronto. The key to getting out of it is smarts and hard work. Too bad so many lazy idiots live there.
Posted by: dewp | 2007-11-26 5:49:21 PM
And the results of Chavez' socialism are starting to be seen:
"Man shot dead at anti-Chavez protest"
A man has been shot and killed during a protest against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's plan to scrap term limits, the military said, in the first death of a sometimes violent campaign before Sunday's referendum. Jose Oliveros, 19, was shot in the forearm and in the back after he tried to drive his truck through an area blocked by anti-Chavez demonstrators in the central state of Carabobo, General Cliver Alcala said.
BECAUSE THE man was shot at an anti-Chavez protest, they will use this as an excuse to crack down even more on such protests. So who do you think might have actually done the shooting? Hmmm?
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-26 5:57:01 PM
What?
Zebulon Pike has shown up and not told us that only non-whites in TO live in poverty and that TO is the slave capital of Canada?
He hasn't even added that nobody in Ontario cares that the poor non-whites shoot and kill each other with guns.
Seriously, it's all Zeb comes to this blog for other than to support Canada's military, it's past and present glories.
Zeb is like DJ who only shows up to flog DJ's opposite racist angle but Zeb and DJ never argue with each other or have a flame war.
Maybe this thread will set a precedent.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-11-26 6:03:58 PM
>"So who do you think might have actually done the shooting? Hmmm?"
Posted by: obc | 26-Nov-07 5:57:01 PM
A visiting RCMP constable who didn't have a taser handy?
Posted by: Speller | 2007-11-26 6:06:21 PM
I'm shocked, I really am.
Toronto?
But I fully expect that the Liberal wimp Mayor of Hogtown will easily find a way to blame that cheap CPC fed govt of PM Harper for this disturbing fact.
Posted by: rockyt | 2007-11-26 6:13:43 PM
Any system that does not promote a rate of production of economic wealth that keeps pace with or exceeds that of one's competition will eventually lead the adherents of that system to become poorer than the competition.
The realities of the economic world are that we are in compeition with most or all countries of the world. As Canada's economic engine once shifted from Halifax to Montreal, and then from Montreal to Toronto, it is now shifting from Toronto to a Western base of Vancouver/Calgary/Edmonton.
As the population base follows the economic shift, the political power will be transferred as well.
There are some benefits for Alberta in having a Liberal/NDP provincial government in Ontario.
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-11-26 6:29:39 PM
First of all, poverty is in the eyes of the beholder. Just beacaue some goofy group declares 1/3 of Toronto lives in poverty does not make it so.
I watched the CBC news this morning. (I know I know)They started off with the story of Harper aid to poor African nation and had the audacity to follow with canadian poverty story (highlighting Toronto).
I'm guessing that poverty in Toronto is due partly to high rates of immigrants who speak little to no English. Still many probably have colored TV and cable. Poor in Canada does not equal real poverty!
Posted by: Markalta | 2007-11-26 6:50:07 PM
Speller: the difference between white and non-white in Ontario is that non-whites have an ounce of pride.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-26 6:53:10 PM
The reason why Toronto has the level of "poverty" it does is because of the current and past members of socialist City Hall. Every year they raise all sorts of taxes/fees. And because people and businesses are sick and tired of these raised taxes and fees they are fleeing to the prospering 905 area of the city to get away from this spendaholic city. Every time a taxpaying person or businesss leaves the city of Toronto the city loses more tax revenue thereby having the city continuosly raise taxes again to re-coup the lost revenue. I too am moving out of the city this January. I will still work in Toronto, but I refuse to live there any longer. Toronto sucks.
Posted by: john davis | 2007-11-26 7:25:40 PM
now McChavez and its minions can look forward to endless crowd control in ole Onthetakio.
Posted by: reg dunlop | 2007-11-26 7:28:11 PM
These statisticians say that 1 in 3 Ontarians lives in poverty. I wonder how many of them know it, or would even admit to it.
Ontario should receive no help or consideration until their Apartheid is abandoned once and for all, and those who sought such a mad idea are put behind bars or exiled for life.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-26 7:42:17 PM
Winston - Good to remember that the province of Ontario and specifically the city of Toronto have been run by the Liberals for a long long time.
What a load of BS. Ontario has been ruled by the Conservatives for 50 of the last 65 years. And when you talk about Toronto today that was a creation of Mike Harris in 1998. In fact all the Toronto amalgamations were put in place by Conservative governments, 1954 and 1967. You might know something about Iran but you sure don't know anything about this country.
Posted by: O'REILLY | 2007-11-26 7:50:07 PM
"Zeb is like DJ who only shows up to flog DJ's opposite racist angle but Zeb and DJ never argue with each other or have a flame war."
It's not like the offer hasn't been made. Poor Speller sounds jealous otherwise why does he care? Of course Speller has to believe that Toronto's poverty has nothing to do with mass third world immigration, even though countless studies show a direct correlation, because he is a man of God, and a Christian God must ignore the facts, no matter how obvious, because we're all equal in "HIS" eyes. :)
Poverty by Postal Code anyone?
Posted by: DJ | 2007-11-26 7:56:40 PM
Zebulon Pike - These statisticians say that 1 in 3 Ontarians lives in poverty. I wonder how many of them know it, or would even admit to it.
According to the US Census Bureau Alabama has an average poverty rate statewide of 16%, with blacks in the state having a poverty rate of 31%. Odd isn't it that with all the money spent in Alabama alleviating poverty over the last 40 years that black poverty is double that of whites.
Posted by: O'REILLY | 2007-11-26 8:07:13 PM
O'Gotcha is back! HURRAY!
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-26 8:08:34 PM
Ya mon, dey have an onze of pride (or two)ah wa di Rassclot,Pussyclot,Bumboclot ah Gwaan...Jahmaycon pride and dey put it in der pipe and smoooooke kit.
Irie mon.
Posted by: DJ | 2007-11-26 8:13:02 PM
obc - O'Gotcha is back! HURRAY!
I'm glad that my return has given you some meaning to your otherwise miserable existence. You can now press the reload button twice as often, starting.......... now.
Posted by: O'REILLY | 2007-11-26 8:16:24 PM
O'Gotcha -
And you can continue using your right hand as before! :)
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-26 8:22:20 PM
OReilly,
Bill Davis was a Liberal. The tory machine in Toronto worked for the Liberals all the way for decades. It was Harris who tried to turn things around, but reality was too much for the wimps in Ontario to deal with so they are back to the Commies and faggots.
Posted by: John | 2007-11-26 8:28:23 PM
"In Detroit, nearly 82 percent of the population is African-American and the unemployment rate is 7.7 percent. At the end of 2005, more than one-third of Detroit residents lived below the poverty line.
The demographics in other cities ranked “dangerous” reflect circumstances that might predict crime.
St. Louis – where more than half the population is black – in recent years has lost several corporate pillars. Many of St. Louis' north neighborhoods suffer from poverty, unemployment and dilapidated housing.
In Flint, Mich., about one of every four people lives below the poverty line, the unemployment rate is 8.3 percent and more than half the population is African-American. The public school system has come under fire for high truancy and dropout rates.
In Camden, N.J., – No. 5 on the “dangerous” list – one of every three residents lives below the poverty line and more than half the population is black. City leaders have blamed poverty for the persistently high crime rate."
Posted by: DJ | 2007-11-26 8:36:16 PM
All Leftoid-run cities, bigot.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-26 8:38:03 PM
Since when did this discussion become a debate over race and poverty? One has nothing to do with the other - there are plenty of poor white people in North America. I certainly didn't start this.
If poverty exists in Ontario, and I deny that it does or even could, then it is because of excessive greed and avarice on the part of the people living there.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-26 8:39:06 PM
Zebulon Pike - Ontario should receive no help or consideration until their Apartheid is abandoned once and for all,
Zebulon Pike - Since when did this discussion become a debate over race and poverty?
Nice try.
Posted by: O'REILLY | 2007-11-26 8:49:14 PM
They're the ones who raised it. End Ontario's bigotry now!
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-26 8:51:42 PM
...Sweden,Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Luxembourg etc.etc.etc. all with much lower poverty rates than the US's African American cities.
All Leftoid-run countries, racist.
Posted by: DJ | 2007-11-26 8:52:59 PM
"End Ontario's bigotry now!"
Indeed, stop blaming whites for vismin poverty in Toronto or Alabama or Detroit or St. Louis...and on and on and on...
Posted by: DJ | 2007-11-26 8:56:34 PM
DJ may have racist views, but that doesn't make him wrong. If White Toronto could care about non-whites even for a second, the overall poverty issue in Toronto (however questionable) would be resolved with dispatch.
But, as was proven beyond the slightest doubt in the Jane Creba Murder in 2005, White Toronto doesn't care. That's why their city is dying - apathy.
To be honest, I don't blame those who want to segregate themselves from White Toronto. I don't want to be around those people either! They're like King Midas in reverse - everything they touch turns to crap. They should stay out of Alberta from now on, and other provinces and states should be encouraged to do the same.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-26 9:04:46 PM
You people are morons...
nice little circle jerk you have going on
Posted by: Paul | 2007-11-26 10:47:02 PM
>"So who do you think might have actually done the shooting? Hmmm?"
Posted by: obc | 26-Nov-07 5:57:01 PM
A visiting RCMP constable who didn't have a taser handy?
Posted by: Speller | 26-Nov-07 6:06:21 PM
Good one!
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-26 10:50:04 PM
It is pretty pathetic seeing our Left still pushing the socialist idea of economics when even the communists in China understand it does not work. Even in places where the economy was good once the socialist/communist model was imposed, the result is always poverty.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-11-26 11:39:54 PM
What's all this talk about poverty in Toronto, anyway. Last time I checked, Canada had no official way to measure poverty and Stats Canada was specifically telling people not to use the LICO (low income cutoff) as a poverty line.
One of the next things the Conservatives should do is to commission Stats Canada to start compiling a true, objective poverty line. Until then, all discussion on improving poverty in Canada is little more than speculation.
Posted by: pete e | 2007-11-27 2:47:00 AM
Unfortunately, pete e, regardless of any logical and sensible parameters set to define a true poverty line with the Conservatives in government will be villified. All the while the "poor" in Toronto (and elsewhere in Canada) will continue to listen to their $200 Ipods (plus $0.99 per downloaded song) while text messaging on their cell phones at ridiculous rates in their $150 running shoes and $180 jeans. But what do I know?
Posted by: john davis | 2007-11-27 8:16:24 AM
John - have fun paying taxes in the 905, you may want to check into it, as the 905 has higher residential taxes than Toronto ... and you also have to pay for more services. Have fun with your commute and added expenses!
Posted by: john's lost | 2007-11-28 8:33:08 AM
John's lost - I am moving into a 3 bedroom house with a garage and a backyard with a deck and grass. We bought the house for $216,000. In Toronto the only property I can buy for $216,000, as well as being in a neighbourhood that is desirable, would be a 1 maybe 2 bedroom condo. A condo where not only would I would pay residential taxes, I would also have to pay condo fees. I work mostly in the evenings, so I'll avoid traffic during my commute. But thanks for your concern.
Posted by: john davis | 2007-11-28 10:50:22 AM
pete e,
That is not possible, because what is enough in one jurisdiction is not enough in another.
What is relevant is genionalization--meaning each region has to have knowledge on what the very basics cost, and go by what is relevant there. Clearly, what is necessary to pay for rent, basic clothing and food in Toronto is not the same for Prince George. If a person had the same amount of money in Prince George as they had in Toronto, they would own their own house and car, whereas in TO, they would be lucky to rent a bachelor apartment and take public transportation. What is poverty in TO is wealth in the boonies.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-28 11:39:38 AM
Wow what a typo: genionalization shoud read regionalization. That was even a bad typo from my point of view.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-28 11:41:16 AM
The problem, of course, is the LICO measurement.
Since LICO divides Canadians into those who make more than the average income as rich and those below the average income as poor, it brings to mind one famous quote.
The poor will always be among us.
In the US, 97% of families defined as poor by a similar flawed system have colour TV's.
I can attest that we finally got a small B/W TV when I was 13 and our toilet facilities consisted of an outhouse until I moved out at the age of 18.
My story is not an isolated one among my peers, but it would be though impossible by today's parasite class of social workers, whose compassion can be bought and sold.
Posted by: set you free | 2007-11-28 11:55:45 AM
Yes, but the ancient definition of poor has changed. Poor used to be, those who were incapable of earning a living.
And once upon a time that would have meant they could not sharpen their tools, have tools, make tools, and till the land--or hunt.
Today's poor may or may not be capable, and we know they are never the same people--depending on the economy. So today's poor are a combination of the former and the new poor who have issues accessing jobs or the means or whatever that entails. It does not mean that when a person is unemployed that they are really poor.
In ancient times economy was what? Ceasar's coins? Did they really need Ceasar's coins to live? Or a Shekel? Or a good trade? Your mellons for my pheasants?
And yes, there is some relative position on what constitutes poverty and what is poor in today's terms--and yet people who do not have enough to buy a TV are not required to sell the one they have, as the standards of what consitutes the norm has changed. In fact most people do not mind people with houses being able to keep their houses, when they encounter temporary economic hardship, because that could really happen to just about anybody.
If people are expected to be able to access the Internet to get a job, and do a real jobsearch, then they have to have access a computer more than a half hour a day and develop their computer user skills. This takes time, and as you may well have discovered, it does not take much time to fall behind given the rapid rate of technological changes. One month--tech-wizzard, the next month--tech-dinosaur.
And so poor and poverty are not interchangeable terms--at least not these days.
Your neighbors probably had an outhouse as well, so it was normal and no one thought it any different or that you were poor. And if everyone had a phone, that was considered normal--and yet at one time having a phone was something only rich people had--let alone contacting people across the Atlantic or Pacific.
So, my point is that we should not confuse access to technological advances as being the measure of poverty and poorness so to speak. The person who lives in the country may have wealth beyond measure, and little money in their bank account, and yet still be able to put lots of food on the table, have a phone, a colour TV, a car or truck and live off of half the amount of money that a person in a big City needs just to get by, have a bachelor pad and use the public transportation system--and therefore the country bumpkin may be living off the fat of the land and not poor at all, no matter what the application of equality might suggest.
What is at issue is that these measures are not taken into account in relation to stats Canada where the cut off is the same across the nation. So, it is actually an indicator of today's statistical dinosaur, as there are ways with our current technology where regional measures could be taken into account. And I am willing to suggest that if they were, that we would find out that many of those people who we assume are poor, are not in the least poor, whereas some of those people who fall, even $10,000 over the current measure, are really having a hard time putting food on the table, and keeping milk and juice in the fridge. Once a person falls below the line--it takes significant effort in some areas of Canada, to pull back above that line--whereas in other areas, it simply means taking your chainsaw out and applying axe to log--so to speak.
Although I understand where you are coming from, I need to say that it is simply not as simple as that.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-28 12:22:44 PM
Bottom-line, compassion used to be viewed as a duty for every human being, according to traditional values.
Now, it is defined and administered to by the state at much greater expense.
Posted by: set you free | 2007-11-28 1:20:56 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.