screech339 said:
There is a difference between teaching people to be self sufficient and self accountability than teaching people "don't work too hard, we will look after you."
If you had ever lived on public assistance in Canada or the USA, you would know how untrue this statement is. Study after study has shown that the vast majority of people
want to work and will work instead of taking public assistance, whenever that is a viable possibility. That is why some European countries are experimenting with a minimum income whereby people receive a minimum income whether they earn money or not. Studies have consistently shown that providing a livable minimum income
increases employment and motivates people who wouldn't otherwise be employed to work. Instead of relying on misleading platitudes, some European countries are putting these studies to the test in the real world. I, for one, am looking forward to seeing the results.
screech339 said:
For example, we were taught for years that university education will give you the best pay, job prospects.
This is patently false. Lower class persons
observed that higher paid workers mostly had college educations; thus, a perception that higher education guaranteed a higher income became ingrained in the collective consciousness. The University gods never sent their angels into the skies, streaming sky banners and proclaiming a higher income guarantee for the college educated.
screech339 said:
And now look where we are. A ton of fresh graduates with no jobs available. This pushes the minimum job education requirement up higher. Now instead of "high school graduate" being viewed as someone who will work at Mc Job, now it's the university graduates taking these jobs with high student loans. This forces "high school" grad to go to college / university to compete for the same job.
The lack of high paying jobs in the U.S. is a combination of many things, among them: (i) "free trade" agreements that resulted in the off-shoring of manufacturing jobs; and (ii) the proliferation of low paid service jobs to accomodate greater consumer spending. The interesting thing is that these problems are not occuring in Canada as much, where "liberal" policies have sway; as they are in the U.S., where "conservative" policies have sway... hmm.
screech339 said:
Liberal policies tend to breed laziness and self-entitlements.
It would be FAR more accurate to say that conservative policies punish the poor for being poor by condemning them to greater poverty; and reward the rich for being rich by transferring to them an ever increasing portion of the country's wealth and income.
screech339 said:
Yes, greatest country in the world with the pathetic arm forces. Hard to defend Canada with a meager force. Easy picking for China / Russia to invade our territory. Hmmm, why are our forces pathetic? Oh yes, liberal rather spend the money on costly social programs at the expense of military budget.
Hard to defend your "best country in the world" when you don't have the military means to actually defend it.
Canada has NEVER been able to defend itself from the countries that threatened it's territorial integrity. Canada had to rely on Great Britain to defend it from the U.S. in the past; and more recently relied on the U.S. to protect it from nuclear attack.
It is unreasonable for Canada to present an actual deterrent to Russia or America -- the only two countries who, today, could possibly represent a threat to Canadian territorial integrity, as it would require the building of thousands of nuclear weapons and armed forces consisting of several millions of soldiers. An unnecessary national burden that would needlessly frighten our American neighbours. Most Canadians prefer Canada bristle with "niceness".
