Renegade

Personally I am in favour of forcing company to fund a pension plan so that it is adequately funded to meet its obligations. This is an only an issue for Defined Benefit plans. The problems happen because there is not complete predictability on how much is required. Some companies will take advantage of this by being overly optimistic on assumptions so as to minimize their funding obligations. To a certain extent employeers SHOULD be "risk-takers" afterall it is the company which takes the risk of flucatating interest rates and rates of return in order to gurantee employees a certain level of defined benefits. The likely outcome of forcing a higher level of funding for defined benefit pension plans is that companies will hasten their move toward defined contribution plans. I expect that defined benefits will soon die out (except for the generous government pensions). This is likely to happen anyway regardless of legislation. In our economy today, companies have judged that the risk is just not worth it and by moving to defined contribution plans, the employees carry both upside and downside risk to their pensions.

Look, I understand your position on welfare, but everything you have stated about having a welfare system that is able to help the poor can equally be directed at a national level. Consider this: 1. The Canadian population is extremely well off relative to other countries. 2. Many other countries have extreme poverty. Some of their population is so poor that their survivability is at risk. 3. The standard of living of many parts of the population is well below ANY welfare reciepient in Canada (even with lower welfare levels) You claim that Canada has "limited resources" (despite the fact that it is relatively well-off) and that it should help those at home before helping others. Frankly I don't know anyone who would characterize themselves as having unlimited resources. You espouse a welfare system, yet you sound positively right-wing in defending Canada's position. I would certainly advocate reforming the welfare system, however increased funding is not a position I would advocate.

Does it not make logical sense to you that if you have a position that Canada helps Canadians first, that you should also logically support that Ontario should put Ontarions first, and that each should put his family first? If you agree that that is your position, why is is a stretch for you to understand that the government forcing an individual to contribute to welfare is taking away the individual's ability to choose to spend those funds on his family first? If you don't understand that, I'm pretty sure I know where the stupidity lies... I have trouble telling if you are the flies or the sh?? Of course there is no such comphrensive program. There is no need for it today. The government already supplies generous welfare benefits, so there is no need for a charity to step in.

Society is structured around the balance of power. Unions are part of that balance. For some people they offer the benefits of increased earnings through collective barganing. What I am advocating, is that the power of unions should not be based upon depriving other of rights or by violence or threats of violence. Every individual should have the right to choose if he wants to be represnted by the union or he wants to represents himself in negotiations with employers. Every employer should have the right to employ who they wish, just as every employee has the right to choose their employer. There was a time when employers would use violience and threats of violence, and blacklists against unions. While that may still exist in isolated incidents, that era is largely gone. However the use of union violence and other intimidation tactics still persist today. I agree that unions are in a downward spiral. IMV this is as a result of a pendulum swing in attitudes on unions, and the pendulum has further yet to swing.

err, are you blind to the fact that you are arguing contradictory positions. On one hand you are arguing that the "system attempts to ensure that all those who need help can get it", yet in the same breath you argue and defend that at the macro level, it is "natural" that Canada put its own needs first ahead of others. See the contradiction yet? you couldn't really help yourself and take another shot at me even when we are discussing a hypothetical behaviour, can you? I had so hoped at some point you would outgrow this childish behaviour, but it is probably too much to ask of you. What I meant is that a substantial portion of funds collected are siphoned off to cover overhead costs instead of going to intended recipients. Your statement above, assumes that the limit of charities' reach is its own neighbourhood. This is untrue. Many charities reach span both national and international borders in reaching those in need. There will be a small percentage of people who are housebound. Even for those there are volunteer organizations which help by running errands. Being in a wheelchair restrict the mobility options but does not immobilize one. Even the public transit caters for wheelchair access. In any case I am not suggesting that food banks are the only way to deliver assistance to those who need it. They are one way, and so far they have proved effective.

What has Argus got to do with it? So your argument is that I should take care of the needs of my family first and once I am satisified I have taken care of my family then I can decide to take care of others???? I agree. Funny then, that the government does not permit me to decide to use my funds to take care of my family but instead forcibly takes away my power to decide by confiscating income to fund general welfare. (ie the government decides that I must put the welfare of strangers before my family). Let me give you an example. Let say my sister is in dire need, and I want to help her because she is family. I would like to dontate that part of my income which would normally go to pay for welfare, go to her instead. I don't really have that choice do I? What is aggravating you is that I am pointing out your own duplicity in position. You are talkiing out of both sides of your mouth. Greg once said "Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent ". You prove his point over and over. Keep'em coming. Actually I would contend that a charity system can be more efficient as a distribution mechanism then a govenmental system. A government incurs considerable overhead (even more so than a charity) which dilutes the funds distributed. What are you saying, that someone in a wheelchair or dependants can't make it to a foodbank? If so, how do they make it to the supermarket? Yeah, they gave Rae the boot after only one term. So you claim but have not proven. Interesting. I was thinking just the same thing about you.

A university degree is not a guarantee of a job. The funds spent on education is an investment which both increases the students chances of getting a job and betters their chance of getting higher wages. Further, not all graduates are in equal demand in the employment market. Part of the responsibility in choosing the right course of study is the onus to choose one for which there is a demand in the job market.

That is true, the government did make that promise. It is no different that half the other unachievable promises they make. Isn't "concerned citizens trying to prevent actual starvation" a demonstration of charity?

Really? Care to elaborate?

err, you've proven over and over that when you can't address an argument you resort to insults and supposition. Its quite in character for you. Interesting argument you make. So its ok and "natural" for Canada to be selfish and only look to helping those at home when CANADA determines it has limited resources? So why is it that what applies on a macro scale would not apply on a micro scale? Again no logical argument from you, just insults. That #2. You don't address the point. Leaving aside that we disagree on why the public voted the PC out of power, the public DID help the poor via charity. Why is that any worse a way to help? How so have they demonstrated that? Because you say so? I have told you why the public voted the way they did, yet you refuse to accept it. I can equally well as you presuppose that the public was sick of spending on social programs and that was the reason they voted Bob Rae out of office. Not everyone benefits from it and not eveyone pays for it. By definition those who benefit most are the ones who don't pay for it at all. By definition those who benefit from it the least are the ones who pay the most.

Interestingly enough, our SOCIETY extension of fairness, seems to stop at Canadian borders. Their is no public will to bring the poor and unfortunate of the rest of the world to the same standard as the Canadian population. To extend that "fairness" to the rest of the world would mean a tremendous cost to Canada and would likely lower the Canadian standard of living. Do you think that is something which is palatable to the Canadian population? Is a different definition of fairness applicable outside Canadian borders, or is it as a SOCIETY we can have a blatant double-standard when comes to our own self interest? Whenever government has pulled back its benefits it has offered to the poorer, charity has stepped in. This is demonstrated when Mike Harris cut welfare benefits, the number of food banks skyrocketed. I agree that the majority of Canadians want to help the unfortunate. What I disagree with is that it is the government's duty to do so. If as we both agree, that the majority want to help the poorer, let them do so willingly and voluntarily through charity. And for those who do not, that is a choice of their own conscience.

If labour unions don't have very good bargaining power without being able to prevent replacement workers, it would demonstrate that the labour that they supply has very little additional value beyond what the employer can get in the marketplace. If the labour a union supplies is a commodity, why should they be able to hold an employer hostage by preventing other willing workers to do what the union workers refuse to do? In your analogy, there is mutual reciprocation of obligations (i.e. despite the dispute, both partners have agreed not to bring an outside party as a replacement). To transfer that analogy to company-union relations, if you prevented a company from hiring replacement workers, you should also prevent striking workers from working elsewhere to supplement their income during a strike. As you may be aware, it is very common that during prolonged disputes, strikers will take up other jobs until the strike is over.

No a union should not have the right to prevent "scabs" from replacing them. The point of a strike is to withhold employment services, in the same way a consumer would boycott a merchant by refusing to shop at an establishment. In a similar anaolgy do you think that if a consumer has a dispute with a merchant that they have the right to prevent all other consumers from shopping at that merchant?

Government doesn't come to "realizations" of its responsibility on its own. We define the purpose and responsibilites of government. It is up to us via our votes to choose where we want government to focus. There is no entitlement to welfare. We implemnet welfare because it serves our purposes to do so. There is no universal definition of fairness and what is "fair" is subject to interpretation. Why should we consider it fair to subsidize a segment of the population who doesn't contribute to it? Policing is necessary to curtail violent responses. Despite the fact that people will agree that they live in a democracy, there are some who will resort to violence if the will of the majority doesn't suit their interests.

This whole situation reminds me of what is most despicable about union/company confrontations. Unions should have the right to strike should they not agree with the employment offer of a company. They should not have the right to resort to violence, either by blocking a company from employing replacement workers or vandalizing company property. Yet this is common behaviour of many unions. Unions should not have the right to block free access of anyone or any goods to the company. Their only right is to withhold their employment services. Moreover unions should not have the right to compel workers to join the union. Joining the union should be voluntary on the part of the employee. Companies have the right to employ replacement workers, but they do not have the right to employ goons to intimidate strikers. Violence should NEVER be part of this negotiation process, unfortunately it usually is.

For centuries it was not govenrment who funded welfare, it was the church. Did that make them any less a society? So as you point out, what we are doing when we choose the level of funding for welfare, is making a trade-off between spending it on welfare payments as an alternative to increased policing cost to quell violence. From an economic perspective, the right level is one at which the welfare cost is less than the increased policing costs. Again from an economic perspective, if the level of welfare funding is too high, it makes more sense to spend those funds on policing costs rather than welfare. I would then argue that Mike Harris was following an economically efficient policy, in that he was able to reduce the welfare costs with minimal increase in violence and thus policing costs.

People's mindsets are not static. They chose Mike Harris as a reaction to the disasterous policies of Bob Rae. The best best thing about Rae's government was that it reminded the population what government would be like under the NDP. It certainly ensured that there won't be another NDP government in Ontario for a while. It is hard to predict what Ontario voters would do for the future. Given a choice of a decisive leader like Harris (who wasn't afraid to piss some people off) and a leader who straddles the soft middle ground, I would choose Harris any day. I expect, so would most Ontario voters. Ontario elected Mike Harris to do the job which he did. You can fool yourself if you wish that Mike Harris came into power by some fluke and lies, but the truth is Ontario voters chose him TWICE. Even eureka concedes that society chooses the level of funding. You somehow think you speak for the values of most Canadians. Who made you our spokesman? In my view, Ontario voters are not looking to create a welfare state. They consider welfare at best a temporary measure. Mike Harris' actions in his first term are what defined his positions. You would think that after one term the voting population would have a good idea on what he and his party stood for, and indeed they did. So knowing this they re-elected him. You paint the Ontario voters as a gullible and naive and easily fooled. You only do so because you are unable to face the fact that Ontario voters who voted for Mike Harris deliberately chose him and supported his policies. Fool yourself all you want. Most people who voted for Mike Harris before, would do so again.

Yes, you are still here, but so is everyone who voted Mike Harris in for two terms. You can delude yourself if you wish into thinking that their mindset has changed, however given the right leader, the same choices will be made again. So assuming that this is the best answer you can give, the key word is "chooses". That means the amount society gives to welfare is up to the choice and whim of society. If it so chooses, it can decide that welfare is less of a priority than another program. There is no entitlement for welfare or other reason we as must fund welfare other than it is our choice as a society. It is then equally valid a choice to decide to fund another social program or cut taxes. What I'm saying is that paying $535/month for welfare is neither right nor wrong. It is simply a choice of what level society chooses to fund it. Socieity is equally right if it decided to fund it to $200/month or $0/month. Society expresses its choices by electing a government which has a policy most aligned with its wishes. Mike Harris government never hid what they intended to do, yet they were elected to successive governments. He was a proxy for society's wishes that welfare elegibility had gotten too lax and had to be tightned. There are some who advocate for the taxpayer funding higher welfare benefits. Their argument is frequently that someone can't live on $535/month. In my view, I don't see why the taxpayer should be the sole finanical supporter of the welfare recepient. Welfare reciepients themselves should be able to supplement any taxpayer funded payment by either working (even if it is less than minimimium wage), relying on friends & family for handouts, and charities. Mike Harris' government was focused in his mission in his first term, and was rewarded for it by a second term. The public knew full well what they were re-electing. Unfortunately his government lost some of the same zeal in implementing the original Common Sense Revolution policies in the second term. Under Ernie Eves' tenure, the government further lost its focus and started diluting its original policies. The reasons the Conservatives lost the election was because of they lost their original vision and thus their execution suffered. It was not because people decided that their policies were incorrect. Many of the people who despised Harris, never voted for him, and were never going to.

gee. It was SOCIETY that chose Mike Harris's government. That same government you hate so much. I guess it was SOCIETY'S way of telling guys like you to piss off!! Frankly its YOU we won't miss. Based on how much you yelp and complain about the "pain" that you suffer from having to contribute to our society, I could just imagine if someone stepped on your big toe..... so by your logic, if a rape victim complained about being raped, you could conclude that they were a complainer and would complain regardless of whether it was justified or not? Call all the spades you like, you still don't address the question asked. Yes I question why, and don't take it as an assumption. You have failed to answer why it should be a governmental responsibility instead of any of the other groups I mentioned, because I suspect it is a question you can't answer. You can bet all you want. You have no idea where I have lived or where I would choose to live in future. You do nothing but assume and presuppose without providing any fact or evidence or logical argument. It would appear that you are either stupid or resort to the same tired rethorical whining, or more likely some of each.

I have already answered this before. I'm not going to waste my time and answer it again. because he doesn't want to admit that there's a great big hole in his argument... No hole. I apply same consistant standard to myself as I do to others. If there is a flaw in my logic, care to point it out? Again, this is consistent with what I have stated, you want to force group benefits on everyone, regardless of whether they want it or not, or value it or not. Furthermore, you advocate forcing everyone in the group to pay for these benefits regardless of if they want it or not. I would say your mentalitiy would fit communisim quite well. Maybe you can answer how you can presume to know how I would "yelp louder than anyone" if I needed help? Or is this again one of your conjectures? Question answered? Really? where? The only thing which has been stated is that if I am against taxpayer-funded welfare, then I must be one of the "uncaring cheap bastards". Resorting to name calling is not an answer and is not an argument based either upon logic or fact. It is certainly presumptious of you to assume you speak for what "our society" wants. Certainly it was "our society" who chose Mike Harris for two terms, and Harris never hid what he intended to do.

I have already answered this before. I'm not going to waste my time and answer it again. I understand that you are happy paying taxes to save people's lives, just don't presume what others want to do with THEIR taxes. It does seem that it not sufficient for you where your taxes are spent. If the government didn't tax you, you can easily choose to donate it to charities which would also save lives. The issue at hand is you want the government to, by force. also spend other peoples taxes on the same causes you value. I'm not presuming to delegate to "other people". We are the "other people". I have a family, and feel an obligation toward the welfare of my relatives. If the only reason for welfare is for "the capability to be charitable", then I would argue that that is best left to charities, whose mandate is, by definition, "the capability to be charitable" BTW save your pity and focus on addressing the question I asked as neither of you have as yet.

err, please don't make up statements I didn't state. If I have said that it is " it's the governments responsibility to ensure that corporate Canada has a reasonable standard of living.... The government should provide for business... ", then show me where I have said it. Otherwise there is no reason to presuppose what my opinion is, and stop sticking words in my mouth, I can speak for myself. In any case the topic we are discussing is not corporate Canada but rather, governmental responsibilty to provide welfare. I you have something relevant to contribute to the topic please do, but I have not seen any such contribution from you yet. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> so yet again err, you have chosen not to respond to this and change the topic? pretty characteristic.

I am in complete agreement. The only addition I would make is 'the church' (whatever religion one may belong to), but that would probably be a subsection of 'charity'. If there is to be any sort of 'welfare system', there should be a caveat that one has to work for it. Even the 'disabled' look for jobs, if they can. If they can't, there are services, beyond those above, for them also. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> theloniusfleabag, thank-you. Yes I would agree, I pretty much lump churches and religious organizations with charity. I also like the work for welfare principle. It implys a exchange of one value for another instead of a simple handout because of entitlement.

err, please don't make up statements I didn't state. If I have said that it is " it's the governments responsibility to ensure that corporate Canada has a reasonable standard of living.... The government should provide for business... ", then show me where I have said it. Otherwise there is no reason to presuppose what my opinion is, and stop sticking words in my mouth, I can speak for myself. In any case the topic we are discussing is not corporate Canada but rather, governmental responsibilty to provide welfare. I you have something relevant to contribute to the topic please do, but I have not seen any such contribution from you yet.

The obligation and responsibility of people is to provide for themselves. They also have an obligation to provide a contingency for when they incur a financial setback. They fact that they can turn to the government for assistance is incentive for them not to provide any contingency funds of their own. There is no indication one way or another that people have turned to their family for help and your supposition that they have "already tried this possibility" is nothing but conjecture. It's true that some families are abusers and molesters, but then your outrage should be directed at them for shirking their obligation. But that is not where your outrage is directed, is it? You fail to address the point. In many societies it has been the role of charities and churches to care for those who needed the help. You fail to provide any reason why charities and churches shouldn't fill that same role today. Now that I have answered your question, perhaps you would have the courtesy to answer mine: Why do you presume it is a governmental responsibility to provide a guaranteed standard of living?