Google could help out criminals by getting Washington to give away each one a free Nexus 7, a $250 cash card, and $250 of cloud space on Google in exchange for remaining rehabilitated. They also will get six weeks of training in how to use the Nexus 7 in how to use Blogspot and Youtube to make a blog and to monetize it.
Any former criminal who sells their Nexus for drugs or uses the Nexus for illegal purposes is subject to a $250 fine and 1 year in jail with 3 years probation and banned from the Internet for five years.
Oh, and they don't get a new mini tablet when they get out. They get a used Nexus 4 smartphone and 6 months unlimited talk but have to pay for unlimited texting with a carrier of their choice (a $1000 value).
Basically the ex-con is given a $200 cash-card for this purpose. On this card is a chip in it that will be checked when the reformee sees his probation officer. If he sells it, then the information on the chip in the card will prevent use by another person because the pin number for it will be checked against the buyer's ID. Anyone caught selling their cards is subject to a $250 fine. A person who forgets his card's pin number will have to pay a $20 fee to get a replacement which will only have the balance remaining assigned to it.
This will prevent reformees from profiting from this "freebie".
When they get a full-time job, they have to pay back the Govt. at $20/mo for 5 year for a total of $1200. the money from this keeps the program going. Any default on this results in a year's time in jail, and rejection from future enrollment in this program.
This idea can also be used to get the intelligent people with good memories off welfare before the monotony of being on the dole leads to endless poverty i.e. for new people on welfare who are determines to make money off Blogspot and Youtube creating their own legal content.
Google, make this work for the good of America.
Original post: October 26, 2013 at 12:29 PM PDT
First repost: December 20, 2013 at 07:32 PM PST
Showing posts with label welfare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label welfare. Show all posts
20121016
Concerned Citizen Does the Right Thing for Bullied Student
A report from an Ontario doctor's wife comes from a currently undisclosed website in a comment thread about how to protect children from cyber-bullying.
She helped one of her patients, 14 year old girl who was bullied at school.
When she called the school, she got the run-around: the secretary said she didn't go there, after being asked three times to look for her.
When the doctor's wife talked to the principal in charge of the girl, the principal had never heard of her. The guidance counselor had sent her to a psychiatric community centre for counseling.
The girl's time at the centre got her into trouble - her words were used against her.
As a result, the mother nearly lost both her children to Children's Aid.
So the doctor's wife took her out of school since it was May. Then she filed a complaint against the unregistered mental health worker at CA.
As for the girl, she finished her school year at home.
Later, the woman's husband went with her to their MPP to protest the neglect going on in that girl's school and the use of entrapment to threaten the child's mother.
My guess is, the mother of the child was a single mother on welfare. Also it appears that in response to the bullying, the school's guidance counselor wrongly guessed the girl had a psychiatric problem.
It's more likely the school bullies had influential parents and that factored strongly on the outcome for this child.
She helped one of her patients, 14 year old girl who was bullied at school.
When she called the school, she got the run-around: the secretary said she didn't go there, after being asked three times to look for her.
When the doctor's wife talked to the principal in charge of the girl, the principal had never heard of her. The guidance counselor had sent her to a psychiatric community centre for counseling.
The girl's time at the centre got her into trouble - her words were used against her.
As a result, the mother nearly lost both her children to Children's Aid.
So the doctor's wife took her out of school since it was May. Then she filed a complaint against the unregistered mental health worker at CA.
As for the girl, she finished her school year at home.
Later, the woman's husband went with her to their MPP to protest the neglect going on in that girl's school and the use of entrapment to threaten the child's mother.
My guess is, the mother of the child was a single mother on welfare. Also it appears that in response to the bullying, the school's guidance counselor wrongly guessed the girl had a psychiatric problem.
It's more likely the school bullies had influential parents and that factored strongly on the outcome for this child.
20111107
Why the Poor Get Poorer: The Rich Got a Tax Break Stemming Back over 30 years
The reason why the poor get poorer is because the corporations and businesses owned by the the rich pay less taxes than they did 30 years ago.
Most of our current financial problems in Canada are attributed to NAFTA.
Signed in 1994 NAFTA was a response to the US recessions in the 1980s and 1990s, and was designed to eliminate trade barriers between the US's closest trade partners, Canada and Mexico.
The simple economic rule is:
Less taxes == less money to service the poor
Low taxes give the rich less of a tax burden, whilst placing an increasing burden on the rich. In response to tax breaks, corporations tend to hoard cash.
As well, the rich benefit from corporate welfare, which is more costly to taxpayers than public welfare because of the recent bailout of auto corporations and the Canadian government's propping up Canadian banks,
If the rich's Canadian tax burden was increased by 1 percent, then a few of the problems BC is undergoing would be reduced.
It would also revitalize the economy, resulting in more jobs with better wages.
Perhaps it's time for Canada's rich to pay their fare share.
For them to call a 1% tax increase unfair is laughable, as the corporate tax rate now is unfair to Canadian tax payers.
20090524
Today's Corporate Bailouts are a form of welfare fraud!
With the recent announcement that eBay will close its Vancouver office at the end of September 2009, what this actually means is the owner of the company realizes a lot of his investments went tits up during the mortgage fallout back in October 2008.
So he can't afford his lifestyle now, so he assumed western Canada does not need a call centre & that Salt Lake City is a better place for one.
Even so, that CEO didn't lower his income to a sane level... Noooo! Instead, he assumed employee wages are an expense he's better off without, just so he can afford his luxuries!!!
People think Amway is an MLM scam, but global corporate monoliths are the most humoungus of scams, mainly cos if the economy flounders, they can beg for welfare from the State.
Truth is, compared to people living on welfare, corporations get the biggest share of welfare in the form of bailouts from the State using our tax dollars.
Even the biggest welfare fraud artists gets chicken feed compared to the automakers and those banks!!!
SO THE BIGGEST WELFARE FRAUD IS DONE BY CORPORATIONS, AND THE ONGOING CORPORATE BAILOUTS MAKE THOSE CORPORATE ELITES HYPOCRITES WHEN THEY COMPLAIN ABOUT LITTLE FISH DEFRAUDING THE WELFARE OFFICE AGAIN!
BOTH THE BANKS AND THE AUTOMAKERS ARE DEFRAUDING THE TAXPAYERS, BECAUSE THIS RECESSION WAS MANUFACTURER BY BAD DECISIONS THEY MADE, AND WE HAVE TO FOOT THEIR BILL IN EXCHANGE FOR BANK FEES AND CARS WHICH ONLY PROMOTE GLOBAL WARMING.
Therefore, the rich should STFU about the handful of the poor and the homeless supposedly defrauding the government when white collar crime and corporate bailouts are an even bigger form of welfare fraud!
AND CORPORATE ELITES ELECTING TO DO SO - THIS INCLUDES CLOSING EBAY VANCOUVER - ARE THE BIGGEST WELFARE BUMS OF ALL!
FRAK THE RICH!
So he can't afford his lifestyle now, so he assumed western Canada does not need a call centre & that Salt Lake City is a better place for one.
Even so, that CEO didn't lower his income to a sane level... Noooo! Instead, he assumed employee wages are an expense he's better off without, just so he can afford his luxuries!!!
People think Amway is an MLM scam, but global corporate monoliths are the most humoungus of scams, mainly cos if the economy flounders, they can beg for welfare from the State.
Truth is, compared to people living on welfare, corporations get the biggest share of welfare in the form of bailouts from the State using our tax dollars.
Even the biggest welfare fraud artists gets chicken feed compared to the automakers and those banks!!!
SO THE BIGGEST WELFARE FRAUD IS DONE BY CORPORATIONS, AND THE ONGOING CORPORATE BAILOUTS MAKE THOSE CORPORATE ELITES HYPOCRITES WHEN THEY COMPLAIN ABOUT LITTLE FISH DEFRAUDING THE WELFARE OFFICE AGAIN!
BOTH THE BANKS AND THE AUTOMAKERS ARE DEFRAUDING THE TAXPAYERS, BECAUSE THIS RECESSION WAS MANUFACTURER BY BAD DECISIONS THEY MADE, AND WE HAVE TO FOOT THEIR BILL IN EXCHANGE FOR BANK FEES AND CARS WHICH ONLY PROMOTE GLOBAL WARMING.
Therefore, the rich should STFU about the handful of the poor and the homeless supposedly defrauding the government when white collar crime and corporate bailouts are an even bigger form of welfare fraud!
AND CORPORATE ELITES ELECTING TO DO SO - THIS INCLUDES CLOSING EBAY VANCOUVER - ARE THE BIGGEST WELFARE BUMS OF ALL!
FRAK THE RICH!
20071221
The Statistics of Crime Trends in BC: The facts
In BC, the popular myth is that crime is increasing dramaticly.
While crime overall has not fluctated widely over the last reported decade of 1996 to 2005, according to BC statistic on crime trends, crime rates have dropped overall with property crime dropping from 11 percent to 6.4 percent and violent crime dropping from 1.8 percent to 1.3 percent. Thus violent crime has been reduced by 0.5 percent points (28 percent) while crime against property dropped dramaticly by 4.6 percentage points (41 percent).
With overreporting in the papers, it appears that there is a crime wave of drug crime, and the statistics show that drug crime has risen from 0.5 percent to 0.6 percent, an increase of 20 percent. Quite possibly, the reason why violent crime and property crime rates fell during this period has to do with the rise in population, which supplied more potential drug addicts and even more manufacturers and traffickers, who probably rose out of poverty. As a result, drug criminals' growing affluence reduced both property crime and violence. During this same period, sangerous weapons offences increased by 35 percent from about 0.1 percent to 0.135 percent - which might indicate a rising sense of caution moderated by a 500 percent increase in gambling offences and 250 percent increase in prostitution — possibly in an effort to launder money, and more likely to show off such affluence.
Overall too, the number of youths being charges for all crime has dropped from 21 percent of all charges to 11 percent. This may reflect more the trend of the criminal population getting older rather than youth not getting into crime. The only crimes that are steadily rising are basically the moral ones, though, with petty crimes rising from 4.8 percent to 5 percent. Furthermore, in 1996, one in five persons would have been convicted of a crime while 10 years later, this decreased dramaticly to less than one person in seven. Where formerly out of 100 people, 20 would be criminals in 1996, by 2005 that dropped to about 15 people out of 100.
Over the same period of time, BC's population increased from 3,874,276 in 1996 to 4.260.246 in 2005. Quite possibly, the majority of the almost 400,000 new people in BC are too young to be committing crimes or are mainly law abiding.
Therefore, the truth is, despite — or maybe because of — the 20 percent in drug crime charges, there's been a record 25 percent reduction in overall crime.
IMHO, if the welfare rates were phased out in favour of a liberal Universal Basic Income and associated simple income tax with no caps on part-time income for UBI recipients in order to reduce poverty, then I'd bet drug crime offenses will become slightly reduced to about 0.45 percent and violent crime as well as property crime will reduce even further to just under 1 percent for the former and under 6 percent for the latter. However, I still feel that petty crime might stay level at 4.5 percent since there will always be a rising number of people falling into the underclass due to a dropout effect caused by compulsory public education and white collar predation.
While crime overall has not fluctated widely over the last reported decade of 1996 to 2005, according to BC statistic on crime trends, crime rates have dropped overall with property crime dropping from 11 percent to 6.4 percent and violent crime dropping from 1.8 percent to 1.3 percent. Thus violent crime has been reduced by 0.5 percent points (28 percent) while crime against property dropped dramaticly by 4.6 percentage points (41 percent).
With overreporting in the papers, it appears that there is a crime wave of drug crime, and the statistics show that drug crime has risen from 0.5 percent to 0.6 percent, an increase of 20 percent. Quite possibly, the reason why violent crime and property crime rates fell during this period has to do with the rise in population, which supplied more potential drug addicts and even more manufacturers and traffickers, who probably rose out of poverty. As a result, drug criminals' growing affluence reduced both property crime and violence. During this same period, sangerous weapons offences increased by 35 percent from about 0.1 percent to 0.135 percent - which might indicate a rising sense of caution moderated by a 500 percent increase in gambling offences and 250 percent increase in prostitution — possibly in an effort to launder money, and more likely to show off such affluence.
Overall too, the number of youths being charges for all crime has dropped from 21 percent of all charges to 11 percent. This may reflect more the trend of the criminal population getting older rather than youth not getting into crime. The only crimes that are steadily rising are basically the moral ones, though, with petty crimes rising from 4.8 percent to 5 percent. Furthermore, in 1996, one in five persons would have been convicted of a crime while 10 years later, this decreased dramaticly to less than one person in seven. Where formerly out of 100 people, 20 would be criminals in 1996, by 2005 that dropped to about 15 people out of 100.
Over the same period of time, BC's population increased from 3,874,276 in 1996 to 4.260.246 in 2005. Quite possibly, the majority of the almost 400,000 new people in BC are too young to be committing crimes or are mainly law abiding.
Therefore, the truth is, despite — or maybe because of — the 20 percent in drug crime charges, there's been a record 25 percent reduction in overall crime.
IMHO, if the welfare rates were phased out in favour of a liberal Universal Basic Income and associated simple income tax with no caps on part-time income for UBI recipients in order to reduce poverty, then I'd bet drug crime offenses will become slightly reduced to about 0.45 percent and violent crime as well as property crime will reduce even further to just under 1 percent for the former and under 6 percent for the latter. However, I still feel that petty crime might stay level at 4.5 percent since there will always be a rising number of people falling into the underclass due to a dropout effect caused by compulsory public education and white collar predation.
20071127
Suffering in Samsara Leads to Enlightenment in Nirvana
At the age of 29, the Buddha stopped praying to the gods to end his suffering and the suffering of others. He left his family and friends, went to the edge of the forest, took off all his clothes and jewelry, covered his naked body with rags of cloth, cut off his hair and started to meditate.
He became a mendicant, and it took him six years of hard work and much suffering, but in the end he was able to stop his suffering forever (Nirvana) and help others stop their suffering as well.
Kusala Bhikshu in Do Buddhists Believe in God?
What took the Buddha six years to achieve is still beyond me, even though I am now 49 years of age. Even so, it is easier to meditate than it used to be prior to July 13, 2004 when I suffered a concussion during an assault at work.
But this wasn't the case prior to October 2006.
While it took until about March 2006,to achieve stability, a year previous to that I had lost lots of sleep and was slowly breaking down.
Much of the rest of 2005 I felt anxious outside and nervous.
After April things started to progress, but my best friend died in May 2006. By June I needed help. So I had my current roommates move much of my stuff into storage.
As well, other friends moved out the heavier drawers and furniture.
Between July and August 2006 I improved rapidly, but the greatest changes occurred when my roomies and I moved to a new place in August. The greatest changes came when I first bought a camera this year around June 2007.
It's so easy to remain calm, and to meditate!
For I owe it all to the guy who assaulted me, thus making him, in a sense, my Buddha.
20071011
The Good and the Bad: Temp Agency Clerks and Social Workers
A few civil servants (temp agency clerks) are like the little stones which make you stumble when you walk bare-foot on the beach of hard knocks.
If you resist them, then they will assimilate you i.e. reduce your funding by misrepresenting your case to a case worker.
Today, most case workers are assigned a client by "alphabetic lottery", where the client's last name is matched up to the last name of a social worker.
However, this association of worker with client changes weekly in catchment areas where client to work ratios are high and monthly where they are low.
This is because workers tend to lose their objectivity when they listen to the client's life story, whether it is told by the client or by other workers who know of hir. As well, temporary stress leave is regularly assigned to busy social workers. This job is not for workaholics because it will burn you out.
However, new clients should never divulge their life story to a worker. If a worker cannot get a background report on a client from other workers or from the archives at the Victoria office, then it is better that way.
Woe to the worker who sympathizes!
If you resist them, then they will assimilate you i.e. reduce your funding by misrepresenting your case to a case worker.
Today, most case workers are assigned a client by "alphabetic lottery", where the client's last name is matched up to the last name of a social worker.
However, this association of worker with client changes weekly in catchment areas where client to work ratios are high and monthly where they are low.
This is because workers tend to lose their objectivity when they listen to the client's life story, whether it is told by the client or by other workers who know of hir. As well, temporary stress leave is regularly assigned to busy social workers. This job is not for workaholics because it will burn you out.
However, new clients should never divulge their life story to a worker. If a worker cannot get a background report on a client from other workers or from the archives at the Victoria office, then it is better that way.
Woe to the worker who sympathizes!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)