jack

This is bits and pieces that we have gathered to show people the trash they try to sell to us and the money they generate and the suffering they create for our people. The foot soldiers or front line workers are really the ones who should be working with us cuz at the present moment they are considered expendable by the government In addition, held in utter contempt by our people… they are the ones who have nowhere to turn and are in continuous flight mode. There is plenty of money to make life comfortable for all people but in order for the corporate elites to maintain power and control over people the method or weapon of choice is to keep people in flight or fight and diverted from looking up at the problem and they are the problem. On average people are conditioned to look down not up This is passed on from generation to generation. Reflect on this comment for a moment …look at those poor people starving in other countries we are so lucky …propaganda at it’s finest…or look at that lazy no good welfare bum….how bout look at the CEO or that person sitting on that corporate board where policy is made to benefit their people …why do people overlook them…they are responsible with their ten year plans to create havoc on our environment and keep the money at the top and maintain their position and wealth. We are creatures of instinct and have the ability to work within the abstract to manipulate the environment around us we are always back and forth…but most of us are unaware….and not taught about instinct and knowledge is withheld from us in a feeble attempt to control the masses known as civil society and rule of law which really only works if people believe and we no longer believe. Collective thought is a slow process but once its set in motion it cannot be stopped… Everything is based on economics and knowledge an artificial reality that people have been conditioned to believe and accept. Without economics /money you can’t access higher education, healthcare, proper food, nice place to live etc….A lot of solutions are available but that would mean the powers that be would lose their status and they aren’t about to give that up…….unless forced too! A system based on reward and punishment will after time implode. Reward the rich and punish the poor for their inability to compete within the capitalist system. After a period of time, it breeds hatred and contempt and has been the downfall of many great civilizations. “A person cannot love two masters” is a good parable as it was a way of educating the people according to their culture. Government politicians are currently punishing children who are born into poor families. The clawback of the child tax is a prime example….this could create conflict within the family unit but most of us and our young are hip to this and it no longer works and this thoughtless shit about a separate benefit is further shit shovelled our way cuz if the parent is in economic crisis so is the child but to think it will erode our family and divide and conquer…un no way think again all it’s doing is creating fight mode and the human desire or instinct has become tightly honed …. think on this a child from 1999-2006 has been robbed of $10164.00 X that by the number of children in this community = 23377200 and it has been sanctioned by the personal preference of politicians and the people in our society … now consider inflation and 21.6% in cuts…. hmm ….it leaves us scratching our heads and these people actually believe they are good people… PUNISHMENT METHOD NO LONGER GENERATES FEAR AND IS NO LONGER EFFECTIVE OUR COLLECTIVE THOUGHT IS WORKING TO COUNTER THIS PROPAGANDA SHIT! So ELECTED OFFICIALS AND John Stapleton and Daily Bread Food Bank take your “SHIT” and SHOVEL IT IN YOUR Own YARD….WE HAVE STUDIED YOU WATCHED YOU AND KNOW WHERE YOUR HEADED AND OUR COLLECTIVE THOUGHTS ARE VASTLY DIFFERENT THIS IS NO SOULTION AND NOT ACCEPTABLE TO US AS A PEOPLE NOR OUR YOUNG! Look at this for example Hon. Member I am emailing for clarification it is my understanding that the province mandates policy and expects the municipal government to enforce such acts. MONEY TO DO WHAT? FOR WHAT? Guelph: $ 22,000 London: $ 367,000 Ottawa: $1,000,000 Peel: $ 144,000 Toronto: $5,890,000 Windsor: $ 187,000 The Club of Canada's Ontario Chapter and the City of Toronto are working together. Information is available on the Club’s web site at Something was really messed in this program We will be discussing various kinds of advocacy and ways of pushing for change, evaluating the Coalition’s work in the past year, and setting our priorities for the coming year. We will also have workshops on the November 1 changes to earnings and employment rules, and the latest developments related to Special Diet. Changes effective November 1, 2006: 3. Work Related Benefit – New • S44 (1)6.2 Regulation 222/98 New "Transportation Expense" of $100/month for each recipient, spouse and dependent adult not in full time school, who reports: Earnings from employment or a training program Positive income from self-employment Benefit is automatic and not pro-rated with level of income or related to actual costs • Although not indicated in the new regulation, Ministry policy states that this new benefit is intended to cover all employment related expenses, not just transportation costs. Does not replace medical transportation costs, which will still be available as a separate benefit (see s. 44(1)1iii.1 of regulation 222/98) Informal Child Care Deduction - Improved to match OW deduction S. 38 (2) (ii) of Regulation 222/98 • Maximum deduction from earned income increased from $390 to $600 • Deduction, up to the new maximum, applies to net employment earnings, training allowance or business income • Brings ODSP in line with OW changes made in May 2005 • There is no change in the treatment of licensed childcare where actual costs are already deducted from net earnings, unless they are reimbursed through some other program. Maximum start-up benefits available in any 12-month period increased from $253 to $500 • Available to any recipient, spouse or dependent adult not in full-time school for actual costs such as work wear, tools and equipment, grooming costs, licensing fees, drive-clean tests, etc. • Eligible activities expanded to include any employment-related activity approved by the Director, in addition to commencement of employment • Definition of employment-related activities includes, but is not limited to: • Job search activities • Job preparation activities • Volunteer positions that will prepare a recipient for employment • Amount of benefit matches OW Full-Time Employment Start Up Benefit, but unlike the OW benefit, ODSP recipients do not have to be engaged in full-time employment related activities to qualify for the ESUB • Not available when a recipient leaves ODSP for employment (see Employment Transitional Benefit) • Increased amount may not be issued retroactively for expenses incurred before November 1, 2006 7. Upfront Child Care Benefit - • S. 44(1)7 of regulation 222/98 • Maximum payment available to cover upfront informal childcare expenses increased from $390 to $600 per child per month • Can be provided in any 12-month period to cover commencement of any employment- related activity approved by the Director (See ESUB for approved activities), in addition to start of employment. • Applies to start of work-related activities for a recipient or eligible members of the benefit unit. • In the first month of training, recipients who have received the upfront childcare benefit can also use the Child Care deduction • Increased amount not available retroactively to cover childcare costs incurred before November 1, 2006 Informal childcare means a relative, a friend, or a neighbour is looking after your child while you work. If you earn $1,000 in a month and you pay your neighbour $700 a month to look after your child, OW will deduct $600 and only consider your employment income to be $400 for that month. If you earn $1,000 in a month and pay your neighbour $500 a month to look after your child, OW will deduct $500 and only consider your employment income to be $500 for that month. How much money you can earn each month and still qualify for OW depends on how much you receive from OW. For example, if you are single and getting $536 each month from OW, you will be able to have an employment income of $1,072 in a month before you no longer qualify for OW. If you are a single parent with two children, under 13 years and getting $1,119 from OW each month, you will be able to have employment income of $2,238 in a month before you no longer qualify for OW. Review of Social Union Framework Agreement In February 1999, the Prime Minister of Canada and provincial/territorial Premiers (excluding the Premier of Quebec) signed on to the Social Union Framework Agreement, an agreement intended to guide intergovernmental cooperation on social policy in Canada. However, no low-income person could get a copy of this agreement it came into existence when Canada Assistance Plan was ended. Now we basically have mini countries, as the downloading of programs was/is left up to the municipalities a centralized strong united country no longer exists, overthrow/defeat one and they all fall. The Federal/Provincial/Territorial Council on Social Policy Renewal is now in the process of conducting a review of the agreement and its implementation. The Social Union Framework, established in 1996 was set up to develop federal/provincial programs following the disintegration of the Canada Assistance Plan, which provided consistent national standards for cost shared social programs. From the beginning, there have been a variety of concerns about the transparency and accountability of the process. The principles which serve as guidelines for the agreement are non-specific and unenforceable, falling far short of setting out standards which would provide accountability, especially to those directly affected by the decisions made by the ministers and premiers who engage in the process. The Canada Assistance Plan set out conditions for Federal contribution, which served to protect the most vulnerable to poverty from destitution and exploitation. Since the elimination of CAP, there are no protections whatsoever. For example, one of the few programs resulting directly from the social union process was the National Child Benefit program. It has come under criticism across the country for allowing provinces to claw back the benefit from the most vulnerable groups receiving it, parents who are in receipt of social assistance. Though the funds gained through the clawback are supposed to be applied to programs, which benefit this group, this is not the case in Ontario where the funds are primarily used for those parents with workforce attachment. The clawback is the subject of a Charter challenge soon to be filed because many believe it is discriminatory. In 1998, the UN committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights concluded that the cancellation of national standards for social programs had given the provinces the flexibility to violate ESC rights without penalty. The Committee found that the current process was regressive and insufficient to meet Canada's obligations to the ESCR treaty ratified in 1976. The Committee also concluded that changes to social program legislation and massive cuts to funding had caused considerable damage to vulnerable groups and could not be justified in the context of a wealthy nation by the presence of a budgetary deficit. There has been no attempt to address these criticisms or improve the performance of the many social programs now failing to meet the needs of vulnerable groups. The findings of the UN committee mirror what many in Canada now believe, that there is a growing social deficit most dramatically illustrated by rising homelessness and increasing numbers of people with no form of income. In our opinion, this is in part due to a vacuum of accountability to principles set out in the Charter, and international human rights obligations about the rights and dignity of low-income people and vulnerable groups. ISAC suggests that the SUFA is a major factor in the continuing absence of accountability mechanisms and could have prevented or been used to repair serious flaws in the design of income security programs. Indeed the current agreement has failed in every way to protect or improve equality of access, adequacy of benefits and fairness in delivery in cost shared income security programs. The original agreement included a clause declaring that in February of the year 2002 there would be a comprehensive public review with opportunities for non-government organizations and the public to participate. The review, which finally did take place this fall, was hasty, exclusive, and virtually invisible to the public. This in our view reinforces the perspective that SUFA fails to meet the conditions of transparency and accountability set out in the agreement. This may in part reflect the trend towards greater autonomy for provincial jurisdiction. We object to the way this review was carried out, and protest the notion that it will suffice as feedback from Canadians as to the efficacy of SUFA. There must be a more comprehensive and inclusive process to examine SUFA and the state of social programs in Canada, perhaps for example, a national summit on the eradication of poverty, as promised by Canada at the 1995 World Summit on Social Development in Copenhagen. In any case, governments in Canada have failed in their duty to uphold and respect the human rights of Canadians (as agreed in 1993 at the Vienna conference on Human Rights) by setting up and then failing to properly review SUFA. We strongly suggest that the parties involved revisit the SUFA process and implement a meaningful review that allows broad participation and an honest analysis of the efficacy and value of the current agreement. Who we are The Income Security advocacy Centre is a test case legal clinic funded by Legal aid Ontario to develop test cases and work on law reform to improve access delivery and accountability of income security programs for the people of Ontario. Income Security Advocacy Centre The Income Security Advocacy Centre works with and on behalf of low-income communities in Ontario to address issues of income security and poverty. The Centre initiates and conducts test case and Charter litigation, law reform and community development related to federal and provincial income security programs such as Ontario Works, the Ontario Disability Support Program, Employment Insurance, and the Canada Pension Plan. Who controls the money? Whose Club is it? Check Out the board Ask questions Check the links? Why does a business board is paid and the non-profits and charity boards don’t? Corporate Accountability Social Movements and Grassroots Groups The conference will present an unprecedented opportunity for eminent world leaders, jurists, federal and state policymakers; civil society organizations, the media, representatives of marginalized local groups and communities, and other key stakeholders to develop shared goals and make commitments to advance economic, social, and cultural rights (ESC rights) in Nigeria man what about poverty in Canada? These are the types of diversionary tactics government uses and hind behind. The two-day event seeks to raise the profile of ESC rights in Nigeria and to inspire the government and civil society institutions to adopt measures, and take immediate concrete steps, to implement Nigeria’s ESC rights obligations.Shit they can’t get the US or Canada to ensure such rights for all people how the hell and what makes them think they can do it in Nigeria???More money for the elite on the backs of the poor and sell people the program…conditioning is what they do well. So be aware and don’t be a part of this..Crap. It seeks to show that implementing ESC rights is not only a matter of legal obligation, but that it is also fashionable, cost-effective and socially, economically and politically advantageous to the club keeps the money floating among their club. It is sponsored by the Social and Economic Rights Action Center (SERAC) in close collaboration with the Ford Foundation Canada’s New Government Continues to Deliver on Its Tax Relief Plan Frequently Asked Questions about Poverty Who was poor in 2004? Poverty Thresholds and Poverty Guidelines How will we know if welfare reform is successful? British rule had workhouses kids sold off by poor parents to labour in factories many kids died or became maimed and injured so How strong is your will instinct to survive? University students are taught to believe in anti-capitalist and sell the myth to us and yet we are living in a capitals society which really means having the ability to compete for wealth…so truly to be an anti capitalist one would have to be completely independent in all areas and that is not the reality of our society today…and in the end the very people spouting this become acclimatized into the capitalist system anyway…….. What to do? Dozens of steps can be taken, and the best of them should be tailored to low income earners. Low-income areas should be saturated with healthier foods at better prices, perhaps requiring, at least initially, public subsidies and close government collaboration with the private sector. Poor parents need encouragement to make healthier food and lifestyle choices for their kids and themselves. Physical education options in school are not a luxury; they are essential, and, besides, they make school more fun. Neighbourhood safety -- the top priority -- is essential too, so residents can spend more time burning calories and enjoying life outdoors. Obesity kills more people prematurely than AIDS and numerous other high-profile diseases combined, but you don't hear about bike rides or walks to fight it. Tsk-tsking isn't any help at all. If we're going to melt the fat, we need to put the issue on a stick and turn the heat way, way up again this propaganda is sold to the people School Pics the cost factor and for six bucks extra we can make your kid look perfect is again geared towards those with money economics unfortunately is key…….so we must learn to either become totally self sufficient or learn how to become completive within the current economic system Of course, with environmental toxins, the science as to what is dangerous isn’t black and white, or clear-cut. But children’s development experts are always the proponents of a precautionary principle: when there’s doubt, protect children. We may not have all of the answers – but we cannot sacrifice our children’s health while we gather them. And, there is a lot that we do know – for example, the effects of smog on the respiratory system and on lung development – so we must act now. Hormone disrupters And we must not neglect marginalized youth and their particular set of issues. Again, we need to start with them to figure out solutions and engage them throughout the whole process. Did you know the popular Grow-A-Row program was born?