Mike Harris did nothing wrong.

[Renegade]

Our SOCIETY wants to be fair to those who haven't had the good fortune and opportunities that most of us have been heir to... Our government is (albeit, sometimes begrudgingly) upholding the public's wishes to dispense this assistance to those less fortunate.

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?

There will always be a few bad apples, a few who are so mean that they do not wish to give even a scrap to help those less fortunate.  Thankfully, that is not the feeling of the majority of Canadians.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

[err]

Our SOCIETY wants to be fair to those who haven't had the good fortune and opportunities that most of us have been heir to... Our government is (albeit, sometimes begrudgingly) upholding the public's wishes to dispense this assistance to those less fortunate.

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. BLAH, BLAH... 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?

That's quite a mouthful coming from someone who begrudges helping ANYONE...

When there are limited resources, it is natural to assist those in your own home before helping outsiders.

If you'll remember at our last federal budget, Jack Layton and the NDP had to twist Paul Martin's arm to increase foriegn aid...

There will always be a few bad apples, a few who are so mean that they do not wish to give even a scrap to help those less fortunate.  Thankfully, that is not the feeling of the majority of Canadians.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

So I guess you identify the fact that you are cheap and uncaring, and would prefer that only other people help. This theme has stuck with you like flies to ... well, you know what I mean.

As you pointed out, society saw that Mike Harris was unduly punishing the poor, and so the public acted by trying to help the poor, and more importantly, by getting rid of Mike Harris, who was causing so much pain. The 'voluntary aid' system cannot be administered in as well as a public system, ensuring that all that need help receive it. I think you'll find that Ontarians don't want mean-spirited people like Mike Harris in a position to hurt our weakest.

What I disagree with is that it is the government's duty to do so.

And the rest of the public seems have demonstrated that they disagree with you.... in Mike Harris's case...

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.

Everybody in our society benefits from it. Everybody pays for it... You cannot say that you don't benefit from membership in our society....

[Renegade]

That's quite a mouthful coming from someone who begrudges helping ANYONE...

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.

When there are limited resources, it is natural to assist those in your own home before helping outsiders.

If you'll remember at our last federal budget, Jack Layton and the NDP had to twist Paul Martin's arm to increase foriegn aid... 

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?

So I guess you identify the fact that you are cheap and uncaring, and would prefer that only other people help.  This theme has stuck with you like flies to ... well, you know what I mean. 

Again no logical argument from you, just insults. That #2.

As you pointed out, society saw that Mike Harris was unduly punishing the poor, and so the public acted by trying to help the poor, and more importantly, by getting rid of Mike Harris, who was causing so much pain.  The 'voluntary aid' system cannot be administered in as well as a public system, ensuring that all that need help receive it. I think you'll find that Ontarians don't want mean-spirited people like Mike Harris in a position to hurt our weakest.

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?

And the rest of the public seems have demonstrated that they disagree with you.... in Mike Harris's case...

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.

Everybody in our society benefits from it.  Everybody pays for it... You cannot say that you don't benefit from membership in our society....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

[Guest eureka]

"Charoty steps in." What utter rubbish. Food banks first appeared in 1981 and have been skyrocketing ever since in numbers. They have been doing that since government has reneged on its responsibilities and its promise to eliminate poverty.

Charity nowhere fills the role of welfare - not in any country of the world, and it cannot do so. Charity is just some of the concerned citizens trying to prevent actual starvation.

BTW, thanks for telling us why people voted the way they did. I had a different conclusion and I think err did. I bow to your superior insights.

[Renegade]

"Charoty steps in."  What utter rubbish. Food banks first appeared in 1981 and have been skyrocketing ever since in numbers. They have been doing that since government has reneged on its responsibilities and its promise to eliminate poverty.

That is true, the government did make that promise. It is no different that half the other unachievable promises they make.

Charity nowhere fills the role of welfare - not in any country of the world, and it cannot do so. Charity is just some of the concerned citizens trying to prevent actual starvation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't "concerned citizens trying to prevent actual starvation" a demonstration of charity?

[err]

When there are limited resources, it is natural to assist those in your own home before helping outsiders.

If you'll remember at our last federal budget, Jack Layton and the NDP had to twist Paul Martin's arm to increase foriegn aid... 

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?

This is pretty ripe coming from Argus... I take it from your naive perspective that you do not have a family.... Because if you did, (and you were anyways normal) you would tend to the needs of your family first. Most people know this, and I'm sure you do... I cannot imagine that you are really as naive as your post would suggest, so I have to conclude that you are just trying to be aggravating..

So I guess you identify the fact that you are cheap and uncaring, and would prefer that only other people help.  This theme has stuck with you like flies to ... well, you know what I mean. 

Again no logical argument from you, just insults. That #2.

If the shoe fits...

As you pointed out, society saw that Mike Harris was unduly punishing the poor, and so the public acted by trying to help the poor, and more importantly, by getting rid of Mike Harris, who was causing so much pain.  The 'voluntary aid' system cannot be administered in as well as a public system, ensuring that all that need help receive it. I think you'll find that Ontarians don't want mean-spirited people like Mike Harris in a position to hurt our weakest.

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?

In a voluntary system, many will get help, but not necessarily all. In the public system, there is a mechanism for distribution which is not necessarily present in a voluteer syustem.

Cutting financing to buy food isn't 100% compensated by having someone go to the food bank to get a replacement... Especially if that person is in a wheelchair, or has several dependants.

And the rest of the public seems have demonstrated that they disagree with you.... in Mike Harris's case...

How so have they demonstrated that?

The public gave him the boot... big time...

Because you say so?

No, because it is fact.

I have told you why the public voted the way they did, yet you refuse to accept it.

It's hard to accept your radical views as realistic, credible, or sane...

[Renegade]

This is pretty ripe coming from Argus... I take it from your naive perspective that you do not have a family.... Because if you did, (and you were anyways normal) you would tend to the needs of your family first.  Most people know this, and I'm sure you do... I cannot imagine that you are really as naive as your post would suggest, so I have to conclude that you are just trying to be aggravating..

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.

If the shoe fits...

Greg once said "Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent ". You prove his point over and over. Keep'em coming.

In a voluntary system, many will get help, but not necessarily all.  In the public system, there is a mechanism for distribution which is not necessarily present in a voluteer syustem.

  Cutting financing to buy food isn't 100% compensated by having someone go to the food bank to get a replacement... Especially if that person is in a wheelchair, or has several dependants.

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?

The public gave him the boot... big time...

Yeah, they gave Rae the boot after only one term.

No, because it is fact.

So you claim but have not proven.

It's hard to accept your radical views as realistic, credible, or sane...

Interesting. I was thinking just the same thing about you.

[err]

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?

Lets hypothetically suppose that you are unable to help your sister, because you are a derelect, or have polio and are in a wheelchair, yourself a dependent on the system... How would you help her then..... The current system attempts to ensure that all those who need help can get it... not just those with (employed) big brothers.... Would you want her to suffer ???

However, if I were to apply the logic you've espoused continuously on this forum to you, I would hope for your sister's sake she has other relatives too....

In a voluntary system, many will get help, but not necessarily all.  In the public system, there is a mechanism for distribution which is not necessarily present in a voluteer syustem.

Cutting financing to buy food isn't 100% compensated by having someone go to the food bank to get a replacement... Especially if that person is in a wheelchair, or has several dependants.

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.

Did you mean "Dilutes the funds collected ??" Some of the taxes collected to pay to run the system, certainly, but it runs a system that can fairly help everyone... not just those fortunate enough to live in an area where there are people who can afford to work for free....

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?

Well, having a cheque delivered in the mail, (or direct deposit into account) certainly opens more options to the poor... like affording a bus or taxi to the store... Like ordering delivery (if housebound)....

Considering you're Mr. pro-choice (at least the choice not to help people), you should be able understand that some of the less fortunate might also like some choices...

[Renegade]

Lets hypothetically suppose that you are unable to help your sister, because you are a derelect, or have polio and are in a wheelchair, yourself a dependent on the system...  How would you help her then..... The current system attempts to ensure that all those who need help can get it... not just those with (employed) big brothers....  Would you want her to suffer ???

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?

However, if I were to apply the logic you've espoused continuously on this forum to you, I would hope for your sister's sake she has other relatives too....

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.

Did you mean "Dilutes the funds collected ??" Some of the taxes collected to pay to run the system, certainly, but it runs a system that can fairly help everyone... not just those fortunate enough to live in an area where there are people who can afford to work for free....

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.

Well, having a cheque delivered in the mail, (or direct deposit into account) certainly opens more options to the poor... like affording a bus or taxi to the store... Like ordering delivery (if housebound).... 

Considering you're Mr. pro-choice (at least the choice not to help people), you should be able understand that some of the less fortunate might also like some choices...

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.

[err]

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?

Canada helps Canadians first... I don't see anything wrong with that at all. And I suspect that you are just trying to be argumentative for arguments sake.... You don't want our government to help anyone, and you find a problem with my suggesting that it is natural for them to help those in their own house first.... duplicity in your position... or is stupidity a better word...

However, if I were to apply the logic you've espoused continuously on this forum to you, I would hope for your sister's sake she has other relatives too....

you couldn't really help yourself and take another shot at me even when we are discussing a hypothetical behaviour, can you?

Like flies to...

Did you mean "Dilutes the funds collected ??" Some of the taxes collected to pay to run the system, certainly, but it runs a system that can fairly help everyone... not just those fortunate enough to live in an area where there are people who can afford to work for free....

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.

And these charities send cheques to every single person who needs financial assistance???? Not just 'some of them', or 'a lot of them'. How do they get all the names and amounts required to sustain... do they work closely with the government ?? I was unaware of the comprensive program that you suggest exists.... Could you explain how this system works ???

[Renegade]

Canada helps Canadians first... I don't see anything wrong with that at all.  And I suspect that you are just trying to be argumentative for arguments sake.... You don't want our government to help anyone, and you find a problem with my suggesting that it is natural for them to help those in their own house first.... duplicity in your position... or is stupidity a better word...

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...

Like flies to...

I have trouble telling if you are the flies or the sh??

And these charities send cheques to every single person who needs financial assistance???? Not just 'some of them', or 'a lot of them'.  How do they get all the names and amounts required to sustain... do they work closely with the government ?? I was unaware of the comprensive program that you suggest exists....  Could you explain how this system works ???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

[err]

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?

It's pretty simple, so you should be able to understand it. Those who have an income pay income tax. Some of that income tax goes to help those who don't have income. The percentage of taxes deducted from your paycheque probably don't fit your description:

the government is taking away the individual's ability to choose to spend those funds on his family first..

If you are making so little money that you can afford nothing after your are taxed, then you obviously aren't in a position to be helping your sister (or anyone else) very much, are you... Other people's taxes will have to do that then....

And it's a good thing... Since you aren't in a position to help your sister, isn't it nice that our welfare system is able to ... I think that's great...

And these charities send cheques to every single person who needs financial assistance???? Not just 'some of them', or 'a lot of them'.  How do they get all the names and amounts required to sustain... do they work closely with the government ?? I was unaware of the comprensive program that you suggest exists....  Could you explain how this system works ???

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.

I think that once our welfare system is restored to its former leverls so that none still have to rely on charity, it will be a wonderful thing....

[Argus]

I think that once our welfare system is restored to its former leverls so that none still have to rely on charity, it will be a wonderful thing....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That was when ten percent of the people of Ontario were on welfare. It was so generous, and there were so few questions asked that anyone could get it for any reason. Teenagers who had arguments with their parents simply walked into the welfare office, got a cheque, and got their own place, so they could hang out with friends, ditch school, do drugs and party like they wanted.

Yes, it was a socialist paradise. It will never happen again.

[Guest eureka]

It has never been generous, Argus. Never more than barely adequate. It is now at a level that is below what is needed for basic sustenance.

[err]

I think that once our welfare system is restored to its former leverls so that none still have to rely on charity, it will be a wonderful thing....

That was when ten percent of the people of Ontario were on welfare. It was so generous, and there were so few questions asked that anyone could get it for any reason. Teenagers who had arguments with their parents simply walked into the welfare office, got a cheque, and got their own place, so they could hang out with friends, ditch school, do drugs and party like they wanted.

Yes, it was a socialist paradise. It will never happen again.

Eureka's response was correct. Welfare levels were never attractive, even when compared to minimum wage jobs. Your tale of teenage welfare drug-havens lacks any credibility, other than at Conservative policy conventions....

I can understand the poor being incensed at the benefits offered the rich, or the lack of charity of the rich... But I do have a hard time relating to the rich bemoaning the poor getting a few crumbs...

[Argus]

It has never been generous, Argus.

Depends on your needs.

Never more than barely adequate. It is now at a level that is below what is needed for basic sustenance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And yet, they appear to be surviving, regardless.

[cybercoma]

When did having money become a right? Cash is earned, through hard work. Those who think people have a RIGHT to a paycheck are what's ruining this country.

[Renegade]

If you are making so little money that you can afford nothing after your are taxed, then you obviously aren't in a position to be helping your sister (or anyone else) very much, are you... Other people's taxes will have to do that then.... 

And it's a good thing... Since you aren't in a position to help your sister, isn't it nice that our welfare system is able to ... I think that's great...

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 think that once our welfare system is restored to its former leverls so that none still have to rely on charity, it will be a wonderful thing....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would certainly advocate reforming the welfare system, however increased funding is not a position I would advocate.

[err]

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.

I'll agree that it could be run at a federal level, but it is not. So our provincial governments have to run it.

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)

Thankfully, we have our social safety net, or this could easily describe Canada as well.

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.

Actually, Canada's books aren't in too bad a shape. My comment that Canada has "limited resources" was directed at your challenge, calling me hypocritical in that I suggested that we help those at home first, before helping other countries' people.

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.

A more subtle, but positively charged insult...

I think that once our welfare system is restored to its former leverls so that none still have to rely on charity, it will be a wonderful thing....

I would certainly advocate reforming the welfare system, however increased funding is not a position I would advocate.

We all know your position...

[Renegade]

I'll agree that it could be run at a federal level, but it is not.  So our provincial governments have to run it.

I'm afraid I have not made myself clear. I was not referring to the running of the welfare system by either provincial or federal government. I was referring to the fact that you standard of forced sharing through welfare which you advocate at the individual level, does not apply to nations. Canada as a rich nation is not forced to share with poor nations. Yet it is a behaviour you defend, quite contrary to your position at an individual level.

Actually, Canada's books aren't in too bad a shape.  My comment that Canada has "limited resources" was directed at your challenge, calling me hypocritical in that I suggested that we help those at home first, before helping other countries' people. 

Given you acknowledge that Canada is in good financial shape, your position is even more hypocritical in that you suggest that Canada should expend its resources at home.

[err]

I'll agree that it could be run at a federal level, but it is not.  So our provincial governments have to run it.

I'm afraid I have not made myself clear. I was not referring to the running of the welfare system by either provincial or federal government. I was referring to the fact that you standard of forced sharing through welfare which you advocate at the individual level, does not apply to nations. Canada as a rich nation is not forced to share with poor nations. Yet it is a behaviour you defend, quite contrary to your position at an individual level.

Actually, Canada's books aren't in too bad a shape.  My comment that Canada has "limited resources" was directed at your challenge, calling me hypocritical in that I suggested that we help those at home first, before helping other countries' people. 

Given you acknowledge that Canada is in good financial shape, your position is even more hypocritical in that you suggest that Canada should expend its resources at home.

The Canadian financial picture is not too bad, as I have stated, so as a result, I think that our government should put more money in to funding healthcare (which it has plundered to achieve the surpluses), education (which has been plundered to achieve the surpluses) and our welfare system (which has been plundered to achieve the surpluses). I also agree with Jack Layton that upping our foriegn aid to the levels recommended by prior Canadian prime ministers would be a good idea.

(Acually, if you look at the thread on NDP policy, you'll see a few other good ideas of the NDPs to help foriegn countries).

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear err,

Thankfully, we have our social safety net, or this could easily describe Canada as well.

I'll agree with you on this, but some have turned the 'social safety net' into a hammock.

Canada has avoided the dire poverty of other countries, mainly because we are 'resource rich', but also because of good work ethic (or the resources would lie fallow).

Even though I am a 'leftist', I have to agree with Renegade...

I would certainly advocate reforming the welfare system, however increased funding is not a position I would advocate.

and, cybercoma....

When did having money become a right? Cash is earned, through hard work.

I work in one of the worst neighbourhoods in Calgary, and I see what welfare 'with no strings attached' does. It is appalling. I also advocate a reform (not abolishment) of our 'social safety net', WITH strings attached, (work for welfare eg.).

[Riverwind]

I also agree with Jack Layton that upping our foriegn aid to the levels recommended by prior Canadian prime ministers would be a good idea.

So you support increasing the GST to 9%? That is what it would cost to donate 0.7% of our GDP to foriegn aid.

[err]

I also agree with Jack Layton that upping our foriegn aid to the levels recommended by prior Canadian prime ministers would be a good idea.

So you support increasing the GST to 9%? That is what it would cost to donate 0.7% of our GDP to foriegn aid.

It's amazing how some of you only look to one source of funding.. How about reducint our country's corporat tax cuts so that Canadian companies pay the same taxes as American companies... And take your surplus funding from there.....

[err]

Dear err,

Thankfully, we have our social safety net, or this could easily describe Canada as well.

I'll agree with you on this, but some have turned the 'social safety net' into a hammock.

I'm impressed that you have chosen to quote me on this matter. If you'll look at the posts that this wording came from, you'll see that I said something like... "We shouldn't take down the social safety nets that are there for the millions because of the small percentage that choose to use it as a hammock"

Canada has avoided the dire poverty of other countries, mainly because we are 'resource rich', but also because of good work ethic (or the resources would lie fallow).

And without the social safety net, you'd see a heck of a lot more slums in Canada... higher crime, etc...

Even though I am a 'leftist', I have to agree with Renegade...

I would certainly advocate reforming the welfare system, however increased funding is not a position I would advocate.

and, cybercoma....

When did having money become a right? Cash is earned, through hard work.

Our society chooses to have compassion for those who have been unfortunate. There is a small percentage of "leeches" to use one of Cybercoma's terms, that throw a negative light on a small section of the programs. However, it should be difficult not to see that these programs are overwhelmingly good programs that most Canadians support. I would rather see the programs continue with a minor parasite problem than to remove the program for all that need it.

I do not object to reforms that will prevent some parasite problems, as long as they do not hurt those who really need the system.

I work in one of the worst neighbourhoods in Calgary, and I see what welfare 'with no strings attached' does. It is appalling. I also advocate a reform (not abolishment) of our 'social safety net', WITH strings attached, (work for welfare eg.).

And if you go to ANY city in the USA, you will see appalling living conditions in slums that should break your heart.... Given the choices between the two, I would prefer see what you see in Calgary...