There was an article in the newspaper the other day that made me wince. A couple from Myanmar had immigrated to Canada a few years ago and were collecting welfare. No surprise here but as I got further into the article I discovered that the father was 39 years old, his wife a few years younger, and they had a 12 year old and 14 year old child. Still no surprise. The parents were capable of holding a job to support themselves but so are most people on welfare.
Then I read the true reason for the article. This family receives over $1200 per month thanks to the hard working tax payers but they have to pay out around $650 to rent their townhouse and, because of the rent cost, are unable to save any money. I was always under the assumption that welfare was given to pay for your essentials and not so that you could build up a bank account at the expense of the tax payers.
This is one of the things that are destroying our country. Welfare recipients can't or won't work but they have the time and energy to travel to Parliament Hill to demand higher payouts. Now they want enough free money so that they can have savings? Am I the only person in town who finds this insulting? Obviously my local newspaper editor and the reporter who wrote the above article sees nothing wrong with the scenario.
My grandparents and my mother worked hard at low paying jobs all their lives and weren't able to save a dime. My husband and I had to reach middle age before we were able to start saving a few dollars. Can someone please explain to me why a welfare recipient who doesn't work should receive enough free money each month that allows them to bank part of it?
Sometimes I laugh at bleeding heart liberals and sometimes I cry.
No comments:
Post a Comment