Renegade

So err, Tell us all how you avoid ATMs because they too are job-stealers.

My mistake. I misunderstood what you said. However you seem to excuse personal responsibliy if the pregnancy was unplanned. Is that what you mean? Go start one. When you have no argument to make you resort to nonsense. Are you presenting an argument here? Again clearly you don't have one. Actually the analogy is akin to a radio. I can choose to buy it with the car, buy it aftermarket, or not buy it at all. Again you avoid the question of how welfare contributed to the money I earn, because you can't answer it. It's always clear when you have no argument to present as your tactic at that point is to resort to name calling. Go ahead. It doesn't bother me. So you practice what you preach? To be consistent in your philisophy you would need to basicly equalize income from yourself in lesser need to people in greater need. So are you saying you have no disposable income left over because you have given it all to people in greater need than you?

Yes, and perhaps you should load your purchases in your horse-drawn carriage because you know those new-fangled cars, they just steal jobs from the buggy makers.

It's unplanned. So what? Parents still bear the responsiblity once they decide to keep the child. And your saying the world would not be better off if it was substantially underpopulated? I certainly disagree with that. Much of the problems today is the unsustainability of the world's population. No I'n not for paying taxes for it. It should be funded by fees collected from the non-paying spouse (husband or wife as the case may be). We license driving without locking up anyone under 16. We do this by providing a deterrent for unlicensed drivers. I'm sure we can figure out a deterrent to unlicenced parenting I'm glad you acknowledge that "I earn". I earn therefore it is MY MONEY. If your point is that we ought to pay for the infrastructure we use.. I agree. My point is that we ought not to pay for that we don't use. Prove to me that welfare somehow allowed me to earn, because I don't see the connection, and you haven't made one. Huh ??? What I mean is that the government takes funding for me and uses it for a program I have no wish to contribute to. Hugo is correct in this. It is no different than the Mafia extorting money from you for protection. How witty of you, but also how ignorant. You have no idea how I would choose or not choose to use my money given the choice. Let me ask you. As you have discretionary funds (over and above what you need for bare sustenance), why are you not voluntarily giving it away to those who are in more need, since that is obviously your philosophy? To admit that you don't would only show your own hypocrisy.

Not any better or worse than it is now. It is just one line item on your tax return which would result in less taxes if you opt out. Your already required to prove you are part of the system now, by having to show your health card. It is easy enough to know if that card is valid or invalid. How is it (at least in Ontario) we can track choice of school to which we pay education taxes? So your saying we can't keep track of one binary choice to opt out of medicare? C'mon, a weak argument at best. Of course I'm aware that the people who supply the majority of funding for the system would opt out. It proves my point. They would opt out because they are better off without it. What your really saying is that medicare is better because it is yet another redistribution scheme from the wealthy to the poor. You have basicly admitted that the people who fund medicare are better off, in terms of the medical benefits they get, without it. (why else would they opt out?) It is only the people who don't provide much of the funding who are better off getting "free" healthcare. Thank-you for at least finally answering the question.

So then you'd agree with me that welfare is akin to a charity?

A couple of years ago the BC government introduced the concept of a 2-year time limit for welfare. They are the only province to do so. Before implementing they added so many exemptions that the time limit was pretty much toothless. However it did introduce an important concept to welfare: the notion that welfare is a temporary support measure, and recepients should not take for granted indefinate benefits. It also opens up the question on whether people have a right to welfare. Welfare advocates have also tried to interpret Section 7 of the Charter which guarantees everyone the rights to life, liberty and security of the person as justification that welfare should be a right. Minister defends welfare time limits

Unfortunately 2016 is too soon. There are still people alive who remember the last fiasco, but then again, they just finished paying off the 1976 Olympics, so they're used to it by now.

Actually it was Bob Rae's NDP who introduced the idea. They just happened to get tossed out before they had a chance to implement it. Prior it had NOT been a requirement for either welfare or EI. The requirement for EI was to be available, willing, and actively looking for employment. There was no forced labour in order to receive benefits. No doubt any change in policy will cause hardship on anyone who is used to receiving the benefits. When circumstances change, so do people. For example, there were quite a few welfare recepients who moved back with their parents when benefits were cut.

Actually while the the amount cannot be fixed. the obligation CAN be fixed, even while married. For example, is it unreasonable to state that a parent has an obligation to provide shelter to a certain standard for his child, is it unreasonable to state that a parent has a responsiblity to provide nutrition for his child? If stated as a parental obligation, the obligation continues after the marriage has dissolved. The only issue on divorce is costing the obligation. I would agree, and I am not advocating it be set by the parent. However I fail to see why it should be set based upon income. Surely a yearly figure based upon the cost of living on how much it takes to bring up a child is possible. It may be a societal benefit, but it is not soceity who funds the divorce settlement.

The law does not mandate that parents spend ANY fixed amount for their genetic or adopted children while a couple is married. Why then do so after a divorce? Let's take this example. A single mother wins a million dollar lottery, yet is still frugal and saves the money and doesn't spend it either on herself or her children. Are her minor children entitled to a share of the winnings? Can they sue her for it? If the answer is no, then why are the children entitled to a share of earnings of the non-custodial parent? I can see that there should be a set amount tied to the cost-of-living which EACH parent ough to contribute to the cost of the kids, but anything over and beyond that should be at the discretion of the parent.

** duplicate post ** (deleted)

If I remember correctly it was not Mike Harris who was "hoofed from office". If Ernie Eaves was more true to Harris' policies he might still be in office. Let me get one thing clear. I DO NOT believe everyone on welfare is lazy, I have no idea how you have come to that conclusion. Some are on welfare as a result of bad choices, others are there because of their circumstances, yet others while not lazy may not have any marketable skills. Regardless, in your scenario, where is th onus on the responsibility of the parent? Do they not have a responsiblity to be able to afford children prior to deciding to procreate? How can they be fit parents if they do not provide for their kids? In any case I believe there is a place for both state welfare and private charity. Hardship cases should fall to charities to provide for. I described???? where?? I'm all for FAIR support. If a husband has abandoned his kids, make him accountable for paying. I don't see why public funds should subsidize a spouse who is delinquent in payments. Since you keep bringing up parents with kids as hardship cases, and citing why intervention is necessary, perhaps you would support "licensing" parenting, so that parents would need to meet a mental, emotional, and financial criteria prior to being allowed to be a parent. Perhaps that woudl minimize the number of kids in hardships situations. I see you like to toss around "mean-spirited" towards me. I have refrained from responding in kind. But what would you call someone who freely likes to spend other peoples money? A thief perhaps? Frankly what I am for is individual choice. I want people to be able to choose where to best utilize THEIR funds. Welfare is nothing less than the state forcibly extorting funds and then using it for its own causes. I want a say!! If I want to donate to hardship cases as you have described, I am free to donate to a charity accordingly, and so are you.

What's your point? Mike Harris made no secret of his intentions. I fully support what Mike Harris did. So did Ontarians who elected him twice. Living on the public dole is humiliating, regardless of the amount of welfare. If someone was not self-sufficeint, and had to rely on public assistance, should they be embarrassed? Sure they should. It is one of the motivations to get off welfare. Sorry I just don't agree that taxpayers should be paying for anything above the bare minimium. I would say that any additional funding should go to programs aimed at getting people off the public purse. Working for welfare is one program that does that.

Based upon the current state of divorce laws, it does seem that the state has ignored any sense of fairness or equality. Despite the fact that divorces deemed "no-fault" it is the higher wage earner (usually the man) who is economically penalized upon divorce. If it is an obligation of the state to protect the incompetent, it should be protecting the higher wage earner, because that wage earner must truly be incompetent to agree to a marriage when the rules are so one-sided.

Its all relative. Perhaps I should have said "more efficient"

Let's be clear why Canada has an "efficient" healthcare system. 1. Lower administative costs as a result of the government being the single payer. 2. Controlling costs by being able to dictate payment terms to health care professionals 3. Rationing services resulting in long wait times, only covering certain services, and restricting use of the system. The public debate on multi-tier healthcare seems to be narrowly focused on either a public (ie the current) system or a private (ie a US style) system. There are many other options which seem to be ignored or overlooked. For example, why not retain the government as single payer but have it offer different levels of service. The basic service would be offered to everyone, however enhanced level are offered at a cost. This is similar to a single insurance company offering different levels of policy at correspondingly increased levels of premiums.

Sparhawk, I agree with you. Despite many people claiming otherwise, the law and courts are ridiciously one-sided against men. I doubt that when people get married, they really know what they are financially comitting themselves to. I for one am against government interference in almost everything, but in this case at the very least, the law should be amended to FORCE each party of the couples to mandatory separate pre-marital legal counseling prior to being issued a license. At least then they would have a better shot of walking in with their eyes open.

Divorce deals never final: court A recent ruling by the Ontario Court of Appeal seems to allow divorce settlements to be altered. Is this not going to cause a problem for all involved in a divorce?

RB, you are restating your opinion here, but you have yet to provide clear evidence of discrimmination or examples of what kind of discrimmination you mean. Are you saying that the tradeoffs that a woman makes is not a choice of her own free will? Is someone making her bear children? You have stated that "smart" women will put their career first. That is only true if you equate "smart" to putting financial considerations first. For many people of both genders, that is not necessarily the prime consideration. So you are arguing that there is some kind of consipircy by men "to keep women depressed and away from the workforce"? If that is your argument, it is nonsense. As I have said before there are differences in men and women that lead them to have different preferences and priorities, and the fact that they do is no evidence of discrimmination.

Actually my post above was not intended to establish my position on welfare, it was to indicate that there are reasons to reform welfare beyond trying to eliminate fraud, or being "mean-spiritied" to groups relying on the system There are actually economic reasons why welfare should be maintained. The justification for welfare put forth by others, seems to be a mix between "insurance" (ie I want it there if I need it) and "charity" (ie. let's help the less fortunate). The problem is that the welfare system is structured as neither. The welfare system as currently structured does not give recipients sufficent inducement to work. Do I fault them? No not reallly, since they are only looking to their own self interest. However looking to the funding public's interest, means structuring welfare low enough so that there is still an inducement to work (even at minimium wage jobs) while still making sure the economic reasons for welfare are retained. Policies such as requiring welfare recipients who can work, to do so, helps achieve that aim.

I see. So by your argument they shouldn't be free to leave the country and go to the US either. What do you propose? Why not shackle them so they don't escape?

Nope. The reason I would remove public welfare is because it is just another word for charity, and as a charity it should be funded by voluntary donations. Each taxpayer earns his income and that taxpayer should be the one to decide where it is spent. Call me all the names you want. It doesn't bother me in the least. It seems to be a pattern when you lack a cohesive argument

Yet another statement thrown out without any proof or even any evidence.

Here's how Wikipedia defines it: two-tier healthcare Hmm...doesn't it sound just like this??: