The purpose of democracy and freedom of choice Food for thought

What is the essence of sovereign government?
Ultimately, is government something done for us, or done to us? The whole discussion turns on this. In the final analysis, is government to serve or impose?
Social and economic programs, for example, ostensibly represent governments acting “for” us -- whether as an innovative private company or as an indulgent uncle it is never clear.
On the other hand, policing – taxation – licensing of cars, dogs, restaurants and guns – and everything down to standard weights and measures, are typically done to us, or to someone else. They regiment what we all must do and must not do.
Any of these impositions may be absolutely necessary for public order, or may be utterly stupid; but either way, it’s what sets governments apart – their power to impose.
The purpose of democracy
Efficiency is the concern of supermarkets and car dealers. Maximum sale for minimum investment. They have competitors. They must be imaginative and efficient, or perish.
But governments don't. No organization that can compel the entire population to pay for its own overstaffing, irresponsible mistakes and occasional blatant injustices will be creative and efficient, except at imposing its will, because that is its business.

It is a fundamental error to see governments merely as administrative services, like the sales and accounting staff at Walmart. Walmart can't force ypou to surrender 40% of your income for products you can't get and probably don't want.
For this reason, it's best to give the most powerful government as little responsibility as possible, and favour less powerful, more controllable orders of government with more. For the lower and closer sovereignty lies to you and me, the easier we find it to control. But this been said often enough.
Given Ottawa’s usurpation of social sovereignty over the past 50 years – from the unemployment insurance revenue grab in 1940, to the ponzi-scheme Canada Pension Plan in the 1960s, to the straitjacket Canada Health Act in the 1980s – it is surely time to bring the democratic reins back closer to hand and back to the provinces (or the grass roots citizens and taxpayers) where it originated.

Normal people donotmake thatmuch / MSN Finance - Surprise! We don't make that much money

Take this incontext of the rapidly expanding 100,000 $ club of government employees.PR

Savings & Debt John Caspar - Sympatico / MSN Finance - Surprise! We don't make that much money: "Surprise! We don't make that much money
advertisement

By John Caspar
April 04, 2007
Last week, I regaled you with some interesting data from the good folks at Statistics Canada regarding retirement savings. That was all about what we save. This week, let's talk a little bit about what we make. Specifically, how much money are people making out there, and where do you stack up?
All the data here is for the 2004 calendar year, which is the most recent income data available.
Just so you can brace yourself, we'll start with median total income. The median is the mid-point, where half the included population is higher, and half is lower. “Total income” in this case includes income from employment, investment, government transfers, private pensions, registered retirement savings plans and other income. You know. Total. And the median total income for Canadians with an income was…$24,400. If you made more than $24,400 in 2004, congratulations, you were in the top half of income earners.
Now, before you calculate that fully half of Canadians work for less than $12.20 an hour, bear in mind that “total income” will capture part-time employees, after-school student jobs, etc. Those people will pull down the average with a low income that may not be representative of hardship. That being said, the bottom half of total income earners is also populated by people who are out of the work force and living on low incomes provided by pensions and government benefits. Many of those people do indeed have financial hardship.
The median employment income for Canadians in 2004 was $25,400. That's just counting the working folks.

Now, before you calculate that fully half of Canadians work for less than $12.20 an hour, bear in mind that “total income” will capture part-time employees, after-school student jobs, etc. Those people will pull down the average with a low income that may not be representative of hardship. That being said, the bottom half of total income earners is also populated by people who are out of the work force and living on low incomes provided by pensions and government benefits. Many of those people do indeed have financial hardship.
The median employment income for Canadians in 2004 was $25,400. That's just counting the working folks. The highest median employment income by province was the Northwest Territories by a wide margin ($35,400), followed by the Yukon ($28,300), Ontario ($27,900) and Alberta ($27,500). Newfoundland was the lowest at $17,000.
But let's move back to total income for Canadians, and climb further up the scale to see where the meat is. Let's move all the way up to where about 2/3rds of individuals have lower incomes. In 2004, you were in the top third of incomes if you made more than…are you ready? $35,000.
I know what you're saying. Let's go higher! Okay, let's move up to the top quintile line. At this level of income, 80 percent of people made less than you. The number? Only 19.8 percent of Canadians with an income made $50,000 or more in 2004.
Now, although a bit over 12 percent of individuals had incomes between $50,000 and $75,000, the atmosphere thins out pretty quickly above that. Only 7.6 percent of people had incomes of $75,000 or more in 2004. Only 3.4 percent made $100,000 or more. And by the time we get to the $150,000 or more category, we're down to just 1.3 percent of income recipients.
People with 2004 incomes of $200,000 or more were a rounding error: only 0.7 percent made $200,000 or more. And you can be 99.5 percent sure that any randomly selected Canadian earned less than $250,000.

Those are the stats for individuals. The nice folks at Stats Canada also track the incomes of various family groupings, so we can get an idea of where entire households compare by income. “Couple families” are couples (married or common-law, including same-sex couples) living at the same address, with or without children. No singles or lone parents are included. The median total income from all sources for all members of such families in 2004 was $64,800. Less than a quarter of such households had total incomes of $100,000 or more. And just over 8 percent had incomes of $150,000 or greater.
So, there are the stats, and that's what we make. Now, consider some of the implications of this information. If there were folks who made $50,000 a year and didn't feel like they were making enough to get by (and there are), it would be useful for them to consider that based on 2004 figures, 80 percent of Canadians with an income make less. If their individual income was close to $65,000, that would be enough to push them into the top ten percent of incomes received by Canadians just two years ago. Ninety percent of the 23.4 million people with an income in Canada made less. If they felt they weren't getting by at an income level that's higher than that of the vast majority of the people in one of the richest countries in the history of the world, do they have an income problem? Or is it a problem related to something else, like choices or expectations?
Looking at the statistics of what we all make, it looks like it couldn't just be the money.
Th"

Food banks -the reality

This is really disturbing particularly when the story of the government 100,000 dollars club of publically funded civil servants is growing disproportionately. How long will the " let them eat cake" attitude of getting more forproducing less attitude prevail . Wake up, people and start righting this imbalance of your funds.

Osprey Media. - Brantford Expositor: "Thousands rely on Brantford Food Bank

By Michelle Ruby, Expositor Staff
Local News - Monday, April 09, 2007 Updated @ 9:16:00 PM

A box of crackers, a bag of pasta, a bag of lentils, a box of cereal, one kilogram of peanut butter, three cans of vegetables, two cans of fruit, four cans of soup, and one can of beans.

Throw in a few loaves of bread and a litre of milk and that's what the Brantford Food Bank is able to give a family of four once a month.

The offering, put together based on nutrition and portion recommendations in the Canada Food Guide, is meant to be an emergency supply intended to last a family two or three days.

But Catherine Lawrence, director of development for Community Resource Service which operates the food bank, admits that concocting meals from the medley of foodstuff can be a challenge.

On a recent weekday, some 20 people sat in the lobby waiting to register for their grocery boxes. At this time of year, about 30 people a day come into the food bank. At other times, that number swells to 80 a day.

Those who came in last week were lucky. With Easter, public donations are generous. Recipients might walk away with a bit of meat or some snack foods.

In 2006, the Brantford Food Bank gave away 521,000 pounds of food. About 127,000 pounds of that went to community organizations that prepare meals for those in need. Local residents can get a free meal pretty much every day of the year at various churches and from other charitable groups.


Tammy Masters, 24, has been coming into the food bank once a month for about two years. The single mother of a five-year-old recently lost her job at a local sub shop where she earned minimu"