Surprise, global warming = governments telling people how to live,stop "overshopping"

Said1 said:
I was wrong about the amount, it's $1500. Not bad though.



More here: http://www.toronto.ca/socialservices/Policy/csumb.htm

Having worked with lots people on social assistance, moving isn't a requirement for receiving cash when in need of the above. One girl had a dog that ate her furniture - cha, ching.
Click to expand...



I don't see anything in here about simply forking over 2 grand every two years. There are very specific criteria that have to be met. All of which pertain to eviction, financial distress, or the health and welfare of the house occupants.

Like Darla said, I frankly think that stable housing for working single Moms is in society's interest, and in the interests of children and single moms. This is a much better use of public money than war, excessive defense spending, tobacco subsidies, or a host of other things. .
 
Darla said:
So a maximum of 1,500 dollars every two years to either help someone relocate, or, help someone keep their current residence if they have received an eviction notice.

I've heard of worse ways of spending that kind of money, and most of those have been legislated into law....or into the military budget.

Sounds good! I'd say we can learn something from Canada, after all.
Click to expand...

In a nutshell yes. And, if, after two yrs, you have start up funds left , you can purchase furniture after your boyfriend (who 'isn't' living with you), dumps paint all over it.

Phew. Not a good topic for me today.....bows out. :)
 
Cypress said:
I don't see anything in here about simply forking over 2 grand every two years. There are very specific criteria that have to be met. All of which pertain to eviction, financial distress, or the health and welfare of the house occupants.

Like Darla said, I frankly think that stable housing for working single Moms is in society's interest, and in the interests of children and single moms. This is a much better use of public money than war, excessive defense spending, tobacco subsidies, or a host of other things.
Click to expand...

The criteria may seem very specific, but more discretion could be used when cutting checks from this fund. A furniture ruining dog or boyfriend IS not emergency.
 
Said1 said:
In a nutshell yes. And, if, after two yrs, you have start up funds left , you can purchase furniture after your boyfriend (who 'isn't' living with you), dumps paint all over it.

Phew. Not a good topic for me today.....bows out. :)
Click to expand...

Well, that sounds like more of a boyfriend emergency than a financial one really, and who amoung us hasn't had one of those? I wonder if they list boyfriends on craigslist, where you can unload yours and pick up somebody's elses. But then that would probably end the same way that old anecodote about problems does; if you put your boyfriend into a big bag with everyone else's boyfriend, and shook it up, you'd find you'd actually want your own boyfriend back.

But...maybe not. It's worth trying.
 
Said1 said:
The criteria may seem very specific, but more discretion could be used when cutting checks from this fund. A furniture ruining dog or boyfriend IS not emergency.
Click to expand...

So your problem is with the implementation of the program. Not the policy itself, or the concept.

Fine with me. I'm totally willing to pay government auditors, to weed out fraud. Nobody likes fraud.

I'm with you however, that working single moms who truly meet the criteria of eviction, financial hardship, or health and welfare criteria, should be helped with the program. Stable housing for working single moms and their children is most certainly a priority for society.
 
Darla said:
Well, that sounds like more of a boyfriend emergency than a financial one really, and who amoung us hasn't had one of those? I wonder if they list boyfriends on craigslist, where you can unload yours and pick up somebody's elses. But then that would probably end the same way that old anecodote about problems does; if you put your boyfriend into a big bag with everyone else's boyfriend, and shook it up, you'd find you'd actually want your own boyfriend back.

But...maybe not. It's worth trying.
Click to expand...

We might realize that we had found the right type of abuse, specific to our own persoanl issues. Almost like they were custom made for us. You know what they say about boyfriends being a reflection of our self-image - or whatever. :)
 
Cypress said:
So your problem is with the implementation of the program. Not the policy itself, or the concept.

Fine with me. I'm totally willing to pay government auditors, to weed out fraud. Nobody likes fraud.

I'm with you however, that working single moms who truly meet the criteria of eviction, financial hardship, or health and welfare criteria, should be helped with the program. Stable housing for working single moms and their children is most certainly a priority for society.
Click to expand...

Yes. I suppose the way in which the program is implemented is somewhat irksome to me - only because of the abuse I've seen by those on welfare.

How is it fraud when these women are telling their workers exactly what happened? Who's committing fraud? Is it possible that Family and Social Services are operating under what can losely be defined as a 'use it or lose it ' policy - meaning that if the funds aren't used, they will lose them?

Believe it or not, what I posted in this thread is what's left after severe cutbacks. At one time, someone on mother's allowance could get their animals fixed and priemium dental care that included caps and crowns for their missing or rotten teeth.
 
Said1 said:
Yes. I suppose the way in which the program is implemented is somewhat irksome to me - only because of the abuse I've seen by those on welfare.

How is it fraud when these women are telling their workers exactly what happened? Who's committing fraud? Is it possible that Family and Social Services are operating under what can losely be defined as a 'use it or lose it ' policy - meaning that if the funds aren't used, they will lose them?

Believe it or not, what I posted in this thread is what's left after severe cutbacks. At one time, someone on mother's allowance could get their animals fixed and priemium dental care that included caps and crowns for their missing or rotten teeth.
Click to expand...


Said,

If what you say is true, I don't know what kind of clowns are auditing and providing oversight for this program.

My Mom is on several forms public assistance, and in every case she had to jump through many hoops, and provide multiple sources of verifiable documentation to get assistance. Its not a cakewalk to get these forms of public assistance.

I suspect the oversight and audits for the programs she's on, far exceeds the oversights and audits that Blackwater and Halliburton have to jump through for their Iraq contracts.
 
Cypress said:
Said,

If what you say is true, I don't know what kind of clowns are auditing and providing oversight for this program.

My Mom is on several forms public assistance, and in every case she had to jump through many hoops, and provide multiple sources of verifiable documentation to get assistance. Its not a cakewalk to get these forms of public assistance.

I suspect the oversight and audits for the programs she's on, far exceeds the oversights and audits that Blackwater and Halliburton have to jump through for their Iraq contracts.
Click to expand...

I would guess disability assistance is a lot harder to get than regular assistance. I had some health problems myself, where I attempted to get some temp assistance - it's not cake walk.

The critera for general welfare is not as strict. Simple things like rent recipts, work termination papers, leases, banking info, sin card, birth certs for kids and self are all that's needed. . Basic stuff. With a few exceptions, they'll even give you upto six months do get some of the missing documents and pay for them too!

What's your mother's story?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top