Random Politics & Religion #00

If you're really interested, I would look at the comparisons between US and Canadian Government assistance regulations. It may be a prudent way to fix both systems by taking and applying the best scenarios of both.

If we're genuinely looking at GA reform, that benefits the people as much as the country, then some of the things I mentioned need to be taken into account. Granted, people on assistance are still people, so *some degree of feels* will enter the mix, but it shouldn't be dominated. Which is why I proposed analyzing each case specifically instead of simply doling out money or food stamps. Offer the people a means to get a higher education, or a higher degree of working knowledge in their field so that, while they may have to take jobs at the bottom for a while, they won't feel stuck there, and can find better opportunities, if they don't outright make those opportunities happen with their own hands.

Someone doesn't want to work as a waitress or waiter making American standard minimum wage, and relying on tips? They won't have to for their entire lives. They can take what they have learned from these programs or courses to work towards better jobs in their areas, or at better restaurants, learn the ins and outs, become management material, etc.

Disclaimer* The whole waitress/waiter thing is a tad biased, but only because I spent a lot of my time growing up in one, actively wanting to learn the business, inside and out, and I realize given the context, it is still a rather flimsy example, but a very common one.

What about that Josh Duggar fellow from that reality series 19 kids and counting?

Don't confuse your idea of a 2nd class citizen with my idea of a working underclass. I meant were importing poor people, and importing poor people is a stupid as far as an immigration reality. It has a TERRIBLE effect on the rest of us.

Two is replacing both parents. Got to keep population up, yo!

That whole family is *** and a perfect example of how religion can turn your well-meaning family into a big hypocritical spectacle.

That's pretending both parents are even worth replacing.

For the vast majority of couples I think that one new kid is enough to replace their consolidated value as people.

Edit: Please note, I'm not saying no one should have kids or have more than one child. What I'm saying that if you have multiple children, please acknowledge it for what it is at this point in our country: an unnecessary luxury.

People are people regardless of where they are born.

Their culture helps shape who they are, but in the end, it's the individual person that should be looked at.

Saying this:


...is not saying the same as importing a working underclass. Hell, underclass by definition is a separate, lower class of <insert measurement and/or definition of a group>, in which case we are talking about citizens. You based your entire argument of immigrants because slightly more than half of them are reported to use some sort of welfare at one point in their lives....

Can't watch videos at work, but I have to assume that it's the video of the Carlin quote I had in mind. [+]

Although Canada and US are similar in many aspects, the main proponent of funding (aka taxes) are completely different. I don't think we can honestly combine both systems and keep the best of both together, in my opinion.

Only problem I can see with analyzing each case is effort. The US government is not known for effort, being one of the most inefficient systems known to the history of man.

*Disclaimer* The American minimum wage for waitstaff is $2.13/hr. Whatever they do not collect in tips for the day to bring it up to the state level (or federal level if there is no state imposed minimum wage) is paid as wages by the restaurant.

/themoreyouknow.gif

There's another side to the whole welfare system that KN brought up: There stigma of people being on welfare or government assistance, despite many only using it for as long as necessary. The number of people who are on welfare is staggering on it's own, but the fact that people are looked down upon as welfare queens as a general second class citizen only makes it worse. Most people who go on welfare wait until the last second as a last resort.

Some of these people genuinely need the help. But the problem also lies with the system itself - it is designed to make people rely on it, rather than be used as an assistance program. While I think that anyone abusing the system is appalling, I'm also more realistic than naïve, and know there will be a handful (in relation to the amount of people who actually use the assistance programs as intended) of people who abuse it willingly. The steps taken are then used to minimize that from happening, and will take punitive actions towards such people, including jail time.

I'm not saying welfare or assistance should be given out all willy-nilly, just that it needs to be done smarter, with more checks and balances like "how long do you expect to be without a job? What are your financials like in terms of living expenses? Can you cut out luxuries? What do you consider to be a necessity?" etc. along with "what are your employable skills, what kind of work are you looking for, and are you willing to take workshops or classes to retrain and update old skills, or learn new skills?"

When your economic system by nature has winners and losers, welfare is going to be the means by which you prop up the losers while still maintaining some semblance of order. It's no surprise when people feel like losers, they start to imbibe extremist ideology and loathe the system they exist in.

The problem is that so much wealth is being siphoned out of the system that you have less losers becoming winners and more people moving from the winners column to the semi-losing column. Couple that with the debt racket you've got going and even more winners and becoming losers by nature of a system designed to make you a loser.

Of course you're free to believe all is well or that you're a winner but at some point you need to look at the world around you, walk in another mans shoes etc.

Again, most of those questions require honesty, and those who are out to abuse the system (there are no real checks and balances in place in the American system, there are too many people on welfare vs. too little staff to actually audit said people) will not answer truthfully, knowing full well that they will not even so much as lose their benefits.

Because "feels"

I knew it!

Our economic system is not designed to create losers, far from it.

Yes, it is created to reward winners a lot more than losers, but it is not created to actually create losers. Inappropriate use of wealth created by corrupt and worthless leaders in all aspects (business and government) is what really creates losers, but, if ran more efficient, with better leadership and less corruption, would actually make life better for both winners and losers. Winners moreso than losers, but there you go.

Thanks for telling me I didn't mean what I said. I'll try to clarify again. Poor people are a class of people socio-economically "below" the middle class and "below" the upper class. By that measure they are an underclass.

Why should be be importing anyone who is going to go on welfare? Why shouldn't we turn them away and only permit the ones who demonstrably aren't going to ever go on welfare?

In regards to funding, our tax system is inherently different on many levels, but the core principle is the same - the real difference comes down to how taxes are collected by the province. HST, GST, PST, etc. Not all provinces use all the forms of collecting taxes.

But didn't you recently say but a few posts ago that the Government, as doubtful as you were of their efficiency, would be able to pull tasks like that in the immigration system, which is more complicated? The basic idea is to take as many benefits as we can and use them, or learn from and create better ideas.

I am very aware of how the law stands on the minimum wage of wait staff, since you and I have discussed it at length in many previous threads, but the point of this wasn't the expectation of wages and tips, but knowing that they can aspire to more than an entry level position and pay scale in the same industry or even in a different one. Assistance programs can then be tailored to the individual or group that grants them access to a better way of doing things, while the government can use this as a long term solution to bring in more tax revenue in the future because more people are working higher paying jobs. It also goes towards the idea of consumer spending boosting the economy for long term gains and stability.

They won't have to bank on getting a large table or bank on tips their entire career. Especially considering that more and more businesses are trying to curb overhead in their largest unstable expenditure area - employees. However, this also benefits an employee who enjoys being wait staff: The more friendly, more skilled, higher quality service they provide, the more people are going to want to come back to that place of business. Which, on average, means more tips to supplement the low minimum wage.

It becomes a bigger win-win scenario the more critically it gets looked at, and discussed or debated.

Because in many cases turning them out is sentencing them to the sort of cruel and unusual punishment that would be constitutionally protected against for even the most loathsome of criminals in the U.S.?

He's being staggeringly reasonable today. I like it.

There are stigmas for everything. There is a point where you need to pull up your big boy / big girl pants and do what is best for you. If it makes you feel any better, most people are floating their lifestyles on credit cards and other means of 'i dont have the money' diets.

The rich thoughtlessly accept breaks/aid, so why shouldn't you? Pride is one of those seven deadly sins for a reason.

So everyone in the world who is living in poverty should be allowed in?

Then we don't really have a country.

Stop using "underclass," that signifies a separate class of citizenship. Lower/Middle/Upper classes signify an equal measurement of citizenship, as the only difference between people is the level of wealth they have.

Saying "underclass" is paramount to saying "subclass."

Same reason why we shouldn't export those who are on welfare, because people are people, and in some-to-most cases, are on assistance temporary. While BR and I may differ the level or percentage of welfare recipients who are life-long members, I do believe that most who become life-long welfare recipients started out wanting only temporary assistance.

But those who immigrate to America are more than willing to work "off the books" for lower wages, as even at lower wages they still have a better life than what they would have had at their country of origin. Those business practices need to stop, in my opinion. I'm glad that my company does not engage in such practices, and I told my managers that if any of them were to do so, that would be an automatic, no questions asked dismissal. Which we have a policy in place for (my company suffers through a lot of I-9 audits, which are very costly even if they show no problems).

Then I'm sure it will sicken you to know that I would hope the goal of the world is to eventually have no countries.