Welfare should be elmiinated

[Argus]

Olden days.

Old lady Smith lives alone in her home. She has a lot of aches and pains and isn't really capable of taking care of herself very well. But she has a little money, and hires a local woman, Edith Jones - to come in for a few hours each day cook and clean for her. Edith is glad of the money as it helps her poor family a lot.

Now

Old lady Smith lives alone in her home. She has a lot of aches and pains and isn't really capable of taking care of herself very well. She tries to find someone to come over for a few hours each day but the minimum home care workers will charge is $25hr, and even then she gets a surly, resentful woman who does as little as she can get away with. Edith Jones is at home on welfare and can't work extra or they take it out of her government cheque anyway.

Old lady Smith can't afford even the surly home care so goes to live in a government subsidized home for the elderly. It has to be a government subsidized home because seniors homes are incredibly expensive (since all the workers are so expensive).

Now Both old lady Smith and Edith Jones are living off the taxpayers where they would have once provided for themselves. And is either of them actually better off?

[BubberMiley]

Your whole premise is based on the idea that most people on welfare are capable of working.

Your fictionalized, anecdotal, long-winded case studies don't represent most of the people who live on welfare.

[Pliny]

Our society frowns on work. Children cannot work even if they want to they must be denied. Welfare recipients must not work because that is slavery. It is a real inconvenience to work for minimum wage so all jobs need to be paid as though they are careers.

Certainly, our standard of living is high. It isn't because we work hard though it is because our parents worked hard and weren't afraid of work nor disdained work like we do. what they got they appreciated and had every right to it. Being benevolent and creating all that wealth they decided they should look after the less fortunate too and they enlisted the helping hand of government to take care of that for them. Many philosophers had propounded that government was the best agency to help the less fortunate and spread the wealth around. It seemed like a good plan and some even advocated the government look after all of society's needs ensuring that those that were in need received and those that were able provided. This essentially killed the necessity to work.

[Guest American Woman]

Frankly, minding kids is not a job which requires a heavy skill-set. Just about any idiot can and does do it quite succesfully. Vacuuming rugs and washing floors are likewise not overly complex tasks. But let us look at what welfare combined with pogey (often abused as a second welfare) and minimum wage laws have wrought.

I suppose it depends on one's definition of "minding." If you're ok with someone just physically being there, plopping your kids in front of the tv, if you don't require that your kids learn and thrive all day, if you don't care what they eat and do as long as they are in one piece when you get home, then yeah. Any idiot can do it, as long as your definition of "successfully" requires no more than the kid still breathing at the end of the day.

I have to pay my cleaning lady $20hr - just to clean floors, cupboards, toilets, etc. This is absurd, on the face of it.

Would you do the work that she does?

The guy who cuts my grass (and does a lousy job of it) raised his rate to $400 for the season this year - after which I fired him. He thought he was being generous since some other guy charges $500. This is for pushing a gas-powered lawn mower around and doing nothing else. He doesn't even trim the edges.

So quite complaining and get off your butt and do it yourself. How difficult can it be for you to push a gas-powered lawn mower around and do nothing else, no trimming even? Seriously.

In winter, kids sometimes stop by and offer to shovel my walk for $20. I decline since I pay another guy $350 to take care of that, though I expect him to try and raise his rate again this year.

It's your choice not to hire the kids, so if you don't want to get your butt out there and do it, either hire the kids or quit complaining about the rates the guy you choose to do it charges.

This spring I started looking around for someone to build me a small pond in the back yard. This requires digging a hole, laying out a rubbery membrane, then laying rocks around. Essentially. I called a place that specializes in doing this. They charge $60hr per man, in labour.

If you think building a pond is just "digging a hole, laying out a rubbery membrane, then laying rocks around," I suggest you do it yourself.

All of the above completely unskilled labour.

It can be "unskilled" if you don't care what kind of job is done, but "all of the above" is definitely not "unskilled."

The only reason people who do it can demand ludicrously high wages is because most of the completely unskilled people who would otherwise be willing to do it are being supported or subsidized by ME in the form of my taxes, and so aren't much inclined to get off their asses and do some physical labour.

Why don't you get off your ass and do physical labor if it's so easy and pays so well?

And so, all across the country, busy people and seniors who should be able to have someone else take care of these little things in exchange for reasonable payments are doing it themselves because the payments are artificially raised beyond their means.

So let them do it themselves. It's their kids. Their house. Their yard. Their sidewalk. Seems to me you want a lot of things without having to lift a finger, and you want it basically handed to you at a cheap price. Quite frankly, you sound like a lazy, spoiled brat. Where's your pride, as you talk about others not having any? I take pride in my house and yard, and that means putting some effort into it myself.

Meanwhile all those unskilled people who ought to be earning their money with hard work are sitting around watching soap operas and reality tv shows, playing video games and getting drunk.

Yep. That's what they're all doing. They're not doing all the things you hire other people out to do. Oh, no. That's all doing itself as their kids raise themselves.

This is the thing. You seem to think you have too much to do on top of your job, yet you think people who have no job do nothing. It's completely and utterly contradictory.

I know I'm not the only one who thinks there's something bizarre about that.

I'm sure you're not. There are all kinds of nuts in this world.

Edited November 1, 2009 by American Woman

[Argus]

Your whole premise is based on the idea that most people on welfare are capable of working.

Not only are many of them capable of working, but the existence of welfare and minimum wage laws vastly overprice low skilled labour to the point that most people will not make use of it at all. Instead of hiring someone to fix his patio or mow his lawn your average middle class person does it himself, whether he has the time or not.

[Guest American Woman]

QUOTE=American Woman: So where are all the single fathers who made babies with all those single mothers?

Who would want to live with those irresponsible jerks?

The single mothers don't have to live with the "irresponsible jerks," but that doesn't mean they can't be there for the kids, helping single mothers stay off of welfare.

Is this the price of sexual freedom and the independently minded woman? Who could have forecast this?

Not sure what you're getting at since it also takes a man to create a child, yet you refer only to "independently minded women." Could you elaborate/clarify?

Edited November 1, 2009 by American Woman

[Argus]

I suppose it depends on one's definition of "minding." If you're ok with someone just physically being there, plopping your kids in front of the tv, if you don't require that your kids learn and thrive all day,

Learn and thrive all day? That's psychobabble bullshit. Kids will thrive on their own. They don't need an expensive early childhood eductator to help them. By coincidence, from today's paper.

Mr. Bruer also debunks the idea that enriched environments are necessary for optimal development. In fact, in the early years any old environment (apart from severe deprivation) will do. Children's brains get all the stimulus they need from normal daily life. As one neuroscientist put it, “Don't raise your children in a closet, starve them, or hit them in the head with a frying pan.”

Globe and Mail

Fact is, most of us had babysitters and minders who did nothing to try and inspire and educate us. They were there to make sure we didn't burn the house down and that was pretty much it.

Would you do the work that she does?

What kind of a question is that? Yes, I have done cleaning. It's not terribly difficult, just time consuming. But I have skills which can have me doing something more valuable. She does not.

So quite complaining and get off your butt and do it yourself. How difficult can it be for you to push a gas-powered lawn mower around and do nothing else, no trimming even? Seriously.

I would rather be writing, for which I get money, than doing manual labour type work.

It can be "unskilled" if you don't care what kind of job is done, but "all of the above" is definitely not "unskilled."

Perhaps you simply don't understand the concept of "skilled". Allow me to define it for you. If you can do the work after five minutes of instruction then the work cannot be described as "skilled". Okay?

This is the thing. You seem to think you have too much to do on top of your job, yet you think people who have no job do nothing. It's completely and utterly contradictory.

No, I never said that. I did say that many people work so hard that it would be nice if they could pay others to do some of these little things, but that government intervention has driven the cost of unskilled labour up to ridiculous heights so that people cannot afford it any more.

[Hydraboss]

So let them do it themselves. It's their kids. Their house. Their yard. Their sidewalk. Seems to me you want a lot of things without having to lift a finger, and you want it basically handed to you at a cheap price. Quite frankly, you sound like a lazy, spoiled brat. Where's your pride, as you talk about others not having any? I take pride in my house and yard, and that means putting some effort into it myself.

Wow. You make Argus out to sound like someone on welfare. "Want a lot of things without having to lift a finger." - just like a welfare recipient. "you want it basically handed to you" - just like a welfare recipient. "you sound like a lazy, spoiled brat." - just like a welfare recipient.

Argus is making a point that because he works, he can afford to hire unskilled labor to do some things for him. And this is wrong why? If it weren't for that type of opportunity, where would these people find work?

Oh, that's right. They'd just stay on welfare.

[Guest American Woman]

Learn and thrive all day? That's psychobabble bullshit. Kids will thrive on their own. They don't need an expensive early childhood eductator to help them. By coincidence, from today's paper.

Mr. Bruer also debunks the idea that enriched environments are necessary for optimal development. In fact, in the early years any old environment (apart from severe deprivation) will do. Children's brains get all the stimulus they need from normal daily life. As one neuroscientist put it, “Don't raise your children in a closet, starve them, or hit them in the head with a frying pan.”

Globe and Mail

Well, then. I guess that settles it. If Mr. Bruer, whomever he may be, says so, I'm convinced.

Fact is, most of us had babysitters and minders who did nothing to try and inspire and educate us. They were there to make sure we didn't burn the house down and that was pretty much it.

I didn't. My kids didn't.

What kind of a question is that? Yes, I have done cleaning. It's not terribly difficult, just time consuming. But I have skills which can have me doing something more valuable. She does not.

The kind of question that makes you defensive, evidently.

Furthermore, you may think your skills make you more valuable than a cleaning person's, but when I have to use a public restroom, for instance, the cleaning person's job is more valuable to me than you and your job are. It's all a matter of perspective.

I would rather be writing, for which I get money, than doing manual labour type work.

Exactly. Manual labor isn't something you would chose to do yourself, in fact, I'm guessing they couldn't pay you enough to do it, yet you expect others to do it for 'peanuts.'

Here's something you may not realize --- tedious jobs, jobs that people don't want to do, pay more for that reason. So you're doing what you chose to do as you complain that others won't do for peanuts what you wouldn't do.

Perhaps you simply don't understand the concept of "skilled". Allow me to define it for you. If you can do the work after five minutes of instruction then the work cannot be described as "skilled". Okay?

Perhaps you don't understand that the jobs you described couldn't all be done "after five minutes of instruction."

QUOTE=American Woman: This is the thing. You seem to think you have too much to do on top of your job, yet you think people who have no job do nothing. It's completely and utterly contradictory.

No, I never said that. I did say that many people work so hard that it would be nice if they could pay others to do some of these little things, but that government intervention has driven the cost of unskilled labour up to ridiculous heights so that people cannot afford it any more.

That's true. You didn't say they just do nothing. You said "all those unskilled people who ought to be earning their money with hard work are sitting around watching soap operas and reality tv shows, playing video games and getting drunk." So they aren't doing "nothing," they are sitting around watching watching soap operas and reality tv shows, playing video games and getting drunk.

Like I said, it's completely contradictory for you to complain about all you have to do outside of work as you accuse those who don't work of doing nothing other than watching tv, playing games, and getting drunk.

Edited November 1, 2009 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

Wow. You make Argus out to sound like someone on welfare. "Want a lot of things without having to lift a finger." - just like a welfare recipient. "you want it basically handed to you" - just like a welfare recipient. "you sound like a lazy, spoiled brat." - just like a welfare recipient.

As he complains about welfare recipients not working. And you don't see the irony in that? Like I pointed out to him, his comments are completely contradictory.

Argus is making a point that because he works, he can afford to hire unskilled labor to do some things for him.

And here I thought his point was that he couldn't afford to hire labor to do some things for him; or that he was complaining because they charge too much.

If he can afford to hire the people to do the jobs he doesn't want to do, at the prices they charge, then fine. What's he got to complain about?

And this is wrong why? If it weren't for that type of opportunity, where would these people find work?

Evidently they are finding work; Argus just seems to think they should be working for less money. I'm guessing that, ironically, they think he gets paid too much, too.

[Argus]

Evidently they are finding work; Argus just seems to think they should be working for less money. I'm guessing that, ironically, they think he gets paid too much, too.

Argus has more money than his neighbor - his former neighbour. Her name was Gabrielle. She's now in a seniors home because she wasn't healthy enough to live alone and couldn't afford the high rates of anyone who might come by to help her out.

That's funny too, right? Laugh away.

[Argus]

Well, then. I guess that settles it. If Mr. Bruer, whomever he may be, says so, I'm convinced.

I didn't. My kids didn't.

And yet, despite that, I thrived, and became more succesful than you. How about that? Funny how life works, eh?

The kind of question that makes you defensive, evidently.

Don't mistake contempt for defensiveness.

Exactly. Manual labor isn't something you would chose to do yourself, in fact, I'm guessing they couldn't pay you enough to do it, yet you expect others to do it for 'peanuts.'

Manual labour isn't something I would chose for myself. No doubt what I do is not something others would choose for themselves either. So what? The difference is I am a skilled and educated employee able to command higher wages. They have no skills to speak of, but their wages are raised by artificial means.

Here's something you may not realize --- tedious jobs, jobs that people don't want to do, pay more for that reason. So you're doing what you chose to do as you complain that others won't do for peanuts what you wouldn't do.

Here's something you don't seem to realize. The only reason you can expect higher wages for a tedious job is that there is a shortage of people willing to do it. The only reason there is a shortage is because of the availability of welfare/pogey and other government subsidies.

Perhaps you don't understand that the jobs you described couldn't all be done "after five minutes of instruction."

Guess what? You are - AGAIN - wrong. They can all be done with virtually no instruction.

Like I said, it's completely contradictory for you to complain about all you have to do outside of work as you accuse those who don't work of doing nothing other than watching tv, playing games, and getting drunk.

Logic is just not your strong point is it? Let's examine this in a way even you might be capable of understanding. A person who works 9 hrs a day, and then spends 2 hours to and from worki has 11 fewer hours in which to do chores than a person on welfare. Are those numbers too complex? Do I need to spend more than 5 minutes explaining them to you?

[BubberMiley]

Not only are many of them capable of working, but the existence of welfare and minimum wage laws vastly overprice low skilled labour to the point that most people will not make use of it at all.

How many is "many?" 20-20%? The majority? When making such statements, it's customary to provide citation. The correct APA in this instance would be: (Argus' ass, 2009).

[Guest American Woman]

Argus has more money than his neighbor - his former neighbour. Her name was Gabrielle. She's now in a seniors home because she wasn't healthy enough to live alone and couldn't afford the high rates of anyone who might come by to help her out.

That's funny too, right? Laugh away.

I will laugh away at what I found humorous, in spite of your lame attempt to make it seem as if I'm laughing at something else.

Because here's the thing that you just don't seem to get, even though I've already brought this issue up. The answer isn't for hard-working people doing physical labor to make less money, it's for people who are retired and not getting enough social security to get more money. It's for people who aren't making enough money to live on working, to make more.

The people doing physical labor aren't under any more of an obligation to lower their rates so Gabrielle can afford them than you are obligated to offer to do the work for her, being healthy and younger yourself, or for you to pay someone to do it for her, since you are so highly skilled and deserving of so much more money yourself. They have as much a right to work for the wages they require as you do. They have as much a right to want to live a decent life as you do.

You're complaining about the wrong thing; and while you're doing it, you're putting yourself in the same category as Gabrielle, who isn't physically capable of doing the work herself much less pay for it, as you complain about how you can't afford help for all the things you desire, including 'extras.' That just makes you look, well, not so good.

[Machjo]

So what? The Pentagon serves at the pleasure of the President and Congress. Canada's CF-18's have also not deployed to Afghanistan.

FDR would disagree with you, as would John Keynes.

Yes...I am. So called legal barriers to employment are just another set of excuses. Turns out that the biggest practical barrier to employment is reliable transportation.

I beg to differ. A person with a low level of education is legally prohibited from offering his services at below minimum wage. So unless the government is prepared to pay to further his education, it forfeits the moral right to impose a minimum wage on him.

Likewise, if a person lacking experience should offer to volunteer at a company, or work at low wage to start, as a means of getting his foot in the door, again, that is not allowed. The employer is responsible for his safety unless he's on a co-op programme with a school, in which case the school pays for the insurance during the time of the co-op. Even if he is of legal age and puts in writing that he takes all responsibilities for his own safety at that place of work, that doesn't count in law, and so the employer would not even allow that.

There are various other labour laws too designed not to help the unemployed find work, but rather to help the employed keep their jobs. Certainly you're not going to deny that these laws do make it more difficult for a person to find work, obstacles that did not exist years ago.

So certainly, if you want to remove welfare, you have to remove these other obstacles too to be fair.

As for your comment on transportation, if the government stopped spending so much money on road construction, that would automatically not only save the government and taxpayers money on road construction, but would also encourage higher population density in cities, thus making cities geographically smaller and thus more accessible to those without their own means of transportation.

Historically, with fewer people owning cars, more people lived near tram lines, subway stations, and bus routes, or near work. This resulted in a higher population density in our cities, thus making it much easier for the poor to get around. With the advent of the car, the suburb was born, spreading cities out and making transportation for the poor an ever growing problem.

Again, I don't believe the answer is more welfare or more government spending on public transit. I believe rather that the opposite is the solution. Cut spending on welfare, but only after removing all the legal obstacles to employment that did not exist before. Cut spending on public transit, but only after cutting spending on excessive road construction. The higher population density that would follow would naturally benefit public transit through the free market itself owing to people trying to find ways around the increased traffic. Either that, or more people would move closer to work or more companies move closer to residential neighbourhoods.

[Argus]

How many is "many?" 20-20%? The majority? When making such statements, it's customary to provide citation. The correct APA in this instance would be: (Argus' ass, 2009).

Citations are not required for obvious information. The law of supply and demand is fairly commonly understood and accepted. The number of people who will hire a cleaning lady at $20hr is far less than the number who will hire one at $10hr. Likewise, the number of people who will be both willing and able to accept a job at $10hr is far lower than it would be if there weren't government programs like welfare and pogey.

These are undeniable facts only a moron would argue against.

[Argus]

Because here's the thing that you just don't seem to get, even though I've already brought this issue up. The answer isn't for hard-working people doing physical labor to make less money, it's for people who are retired and not getting enough social security to get more money. It's for people who aren't making enough money to live on working, to make more.

The difference being that under the old system Gabrielle would have been able to use her own money to pay for someone, and that this someone would be able to earn her own money.

Under your system, both would simply get money from the taxpayer, who you seem to regard as this faceless wealthy entity which has so much money it doesn't know what to do with it. Have you ever paid taxes, by chance? Perhaps if you had that would give you a clue as to the difference between the two systems.

Under your system, which is what we have now, the couple I'm speaking of pay vast amounts of taxes in order to ensure people on welfare can loaf about, while at the same time paying for Gabrielle to be subsidised in her seniors housing. This leaves them working long hours, unable to afford the expensive extra help, and getting little sleep.

[Smallc]

Citations are not required for obvious information.

It isn't obvious information outside of Argus World.

[Mr.Canada]

100% tax, yes I believe that the left would love that. I have sold off most of financial holdings and have invested in gold and some silver because I don't trust the way the world is going right now.

I have done this so that if I need to I can simply take my precious metals and relocate someplace else and we have enough to start over again if we need to. At some point the left is going to make a grab to control the banks and in it, our money so they can redistribute it to people who didn't work for it. When that happens I'm out, many people are prepared to do the same thing. If there's a civil war I'd stay and fight the communists otherwise I'd just relocate my family to a different country altogether.

This is the same reason the left wants us unarmed as so we'll be easier to take over. That's the only reason. If they take away our guns we'll have no way to fight them when they come to take over our banks and our houses and give them to people who didn't work for them.

Edited November 1, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[Argus]

It isn't obvious information outside of Argus World.

Ahh, I forgot about you.

I suppose I should have said it's obvious to anyone with even a modicum of education, knowledge or even common sense.

[Guest American Woman]

And yet, despite that, I thrived, and became more succesful than you. How about that? Funny how life works, eh?

And you think that, why?

Don't mistake contempt for defensiveness.

Ohhh. "Contempt." I guess the question hit even more of a nerve than I originally thought.

Manual labour isn't something I would chose for myself. No doubt what I do is not something others would choose for themselves either. So what? The difference is I am a skilled and educated employee able to command higher wages. They have no skills to speak of, but their wages are raised by artificial means.

The difference, as I see it, is that you're whining about the wages they charge. Why would they want to work hard all day for peanuts and then go home and do all the work there themselves that you don't want to go home and do yourself? -- because there's no way in hell they can afford someone to help out making "peanuts" all day, is there? I would imagine they may be a little tired, too, after doing physical labor all day.

But here's the thing. They can, and evidently are, "commanding" higher wages too. Higher than you think they should be getting, higher than you want to pay. That comes under the category of 'too bad for you.'

Here's something you don't seem to realize. The only reason you can expect higher wages for a tedious job is that there is a shortage of people willing to do it. The only reason there is a shortage is because of the availability of welfare/pogey and other government subsidies.

I'm not the one expecting higher wages for a tedious job. I'm the one pointing out to you that those doing tedious jobs can demand more because so many people don't want to do it. I include myself, but you don't see me whining about the wages that others get, do you?

Furthermore, as has been pointed out, if people aren't paid enough, they can't live on their salary. So they quit and go on welfare. Yet your answer is to pay more people less, and that's your answer to the welfare problem. Yep. That makes a lot of sense.

Guess what? You are - AGAIN - wrong. They can all be done with virtually no instruction.

Guess what? No matter how many times you repeat it, you are still wrong.

Logic is just not your strong point is it?

Ummm, yeah. It is. But I guess it's understandable that someone who can't understand logic them self wouldn't recognize it in others.

Let's examine this in a way even you might be capable of understanding.

Ohhhh, let's. I can hardly wait.

A person who works 9 hrs a day, and then spends 2 hours to and from worki has 11 fewer hours in which to do chores than a person on welfare. Are those numbers too complex? Do I need to spend more than 5 minutes explaining them to you?

What a joke. This latest scenario of yours was never brought up. You were never making that claim. The claim you were making is that people on welfare were spending all their time watching tv, playing video games, and getting drunk. I see you've now gone from that to 'having more time to do their chores than you do.' You're now recognizing that they do actually do something. Good for you. You're making progress ... there's hope for you yet.

[Guest American Woman]

The difference being that under the old system Gabrielle would have been able to use her own money to pay for someone, and that this someone would be able to earn her own money.

And the facts being that the person earning "her" own money wouldn't be making enough to live on. Why does that keep escaping you? Why do you think it's ok for others to make less money than they can?

Under your system, both would simply get money from the taxpayer, who you seem to regard as this faceless wealthy entity which has so much money it doesn't know what to do with it. Have you ever paid taxes, by chance? Perhaps if you had that would give you a clue as to the difference between the two systems.

Duh. No. I've never paid taxes. What's that like?

Under my system, if people are making higher wages, they are paying more into social security. If Social Security has more money coming in, more money can go out to people like Gabrielle.

Under your system, which is what we have now, the couple I'm speaking of pay vast amounts of taxes in order to ensure people on welfare can loaf about, while at the same time paying for Gabrielle to be subsidised in her seniors housing. This leaves them working long hours, unable to afford the expensive extra help, and getting little sleep.

I see the people on welfare are now "loafing about." I guess that's an improvement over watching soaps, playing video games, and getting drunk.

Here's the thing. If all of those people you are talking about are all holding down full time jobs, THEY would want to hire extra help, too. But working for peanuts, they couldn't do that, could they? So why do you think some should be able to afford that 'luxury' while others can't, by the very fact that you think they should be working for low wages? Wages that you can afford?

Under "my system," everyone would get a fair wage, and everyone would benefit.

[DogOnPorch]

Around these parts, the day after Welfare Wednesday is called Millionaire Thursday. By Friday, it's back to returning the empties for smoke money.

None-the-less...welfare is bad for moral of working folk and aggravating to a self-employed fellow like myself. Welfare should be only for the most extreme cases but it seems what is 'extreme' these days means too lazy to find work. Some neighborhoods I work in are almost entirely on welfare...only seeming to come to life around noonish when the ciggies and beer run out.

[DogOnPorch]

To add though...no doubt...the bloated Ministry of Housing and Social Development section of the BC government (PC speak for welfare) relies on there being a good chunk of people on the dole to justify their own miserable existences.

[madmax]

Well, I thought I was being fairly obviously facetious in my OP but apparently not obvious enough.

That's not to say there wasn't any seriousness in the post. The situation as described is real. And we do have a lot of wasted resources sitting around sucking up government money while doing nothing.

The Federal public sector, union protected employee, is pointing fingers.

But there's no question there are a multitude of quite healthy, energetic people on government assistance accomplishing absolutely nothing of substance for themselves or anyone else - essentially warehoused by a system which not only provides a disincentive to work - for them, but also drives up the cost of unskilled labour for anyone who might wish to hire (as do minimum wage rules).

A Public sector union keeps your wages high. Regardless, if I had to take "welfare" away from the mulitudes of people you claim to be "healthy, Energetic, and remove them from the safety net. I can assure you that many of those energetic people may not have reached the heights of success in their careers today. Some of the first people to go on welfare are University grads, broke, not enough work experience to qualify for EI, and quite frankly no employment in their fields, sometimes for many months and sometimes for longer then a year. If I had to take away the welfare from, a young woman of 18 years of age, and prevent her from going to highshool, (As happened in the Harris regime, shortly after this event), this woman would not have went on to University along with OSAP Grants, Loans, and Burseries. She would not have went on to law school, and if I could take this part back I would, gone onto mergers and aquisitions in the corporate world to be one of the most significant global trotting pirates of today. Regardless, this person is looked upon as a huge success story, amongst her family, a family that saw her younger siblings not receive the same benefits as she did, only a few years afterwards. They went on to great careers in criminal activity, and learned the ins and outs of petty theft from other well trained criminals. A different form of energy expenditure, if you will.

I know many skilled people, how when out of school and in and out of their apprenticeships had to resort to welfare as an income support. No, its never talked about. But its true. Construction workers are often in and out of the welfare ranks, as they are sub contractors. When its good its good, and when its bad its very bad.

When I was a construction worker, I saw many people in and out of difficulties and aided by the safety net. Today some are owners of some very powerful companies. But you would never know their backgrounds unless you worked with them in the past.

So what to do about it? The law of the jungle is a harsh one, but things seem to work quite well there.

Man has no natural enemies. Mankind is the natural enemy to Lions, Elephants, Whales etc. Many animals have been wiped out and are extinct because of mans actions. There are no buffalo.

Perhaps you consider this a good thing.

We have tended to try and put a protective arm around all the weaker members of our "herd" in order to keep that kind of natural law from unduly harming them.

Actually, we put a system in place that allowed many in the "weaker herd" to break their bondage and become free. There has been a trend in the past 15years to undermine that and make it more difficult for those people from disadvantaged backgrounds to succeed. We had greater success in the past then we do today. Yet there are always good people willing to help out and pick up the slack. Today that person seems to be Grandma who runs the church basement meals.

This was done with good intentions, of course. But to what end? For every person we help by providing their children with food and shelter do we not hurt another by removing any real purpose to their lives?

It is my opinion that we help all children, regardless of their economic background, in order for them to reach the true potential.

Only a fool believes we can better a childs life by taking away food and shelter.

And its a petty person believes that by feeding, clothing and sheltering a child, that somehow this disadvantages someone else.

None of which surprises me coming from you. I find your opinion to be a sheltered one.

Shall we queue up the iceflow for you upon your retirement?

Edited November 1, 2009 by madmax