Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hcrvx2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!hcrvx2!jimr
From: jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Make the rich pay? - no, the middle class, as usual.
Message-ID: <2564@hcrvx2.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Dec-86 18:25:50 EST
Article-I.D.: hcrvx2.2564
Posted: Mon Dec 15 18:25:50 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Dec-86 20:28:24 EST
References: <2819@watdcsu.UUCP> <708@looking.UUCP> <3764@utcsri.UUCP>
Reply-To: jimr@hcr.UUCP (Jim Robinson)
Distribution: can
Organization: Human Computing Resources, Toronto
Lines: 68
Keywords: rebooting can.politics....... please wait
Summary: 

In article <3764@utcsri.UUCP> clarke@utcsri.UUCP (Jim Clarke) writes:
>We're not talking about Sunday openings here, I think....
>
>In article <2840@watdcsu.UUCP> brewster@watdcsu.UUCP writes:
>	(in response to my posting)
>>  You seem to assume that there is an automatic right for people to
>>  expect to receive unemployment and welfare.
>	I sure do, only I'd phrase it as "a right to food, clothing,
>	shelter and education".  Education's not usually on that list,
>	but we acknowledged that right in the nineteenth century when
>	we brought in free schooling.  Daycare is education.

Here's my two cents worth:
Chuck the current welfare system. A person who is down on his luck 
deserves assistance in getting back on his feet. However, the current
system does not require the recipient to make such an effort, it 
merely maintains the status quo. Thus, I'd propose that a prospective
welfare recipient of able mind and body be given two choices if he 
wants to receive a cheque; he can either perform some community work 
(I bet the unions would love that) or he can take some kind of job
(re)training which would be paid for by the government (i.e. toi and moi).  
Daycare would be provided for those who have pre-school age children.

I don't mind paying taxes to help people help themselves but I do
very much mind when the people in question are allowed to take my
money and do nothing in return for it - either for themselves,
as in job training, or for the community. It is simply not fair to
those of us who foot the bill.

As the Forget Commission has pointed out the unemployment program is a mess. 
This is yet another example of a program that attempts to maintain what
should be an unacceptable status quo. Subsidizing those parts of the
country which are simply not economically viable makes no sense 
but UIC does it anyway. I guess it's easier to run massive deficits
(I believe UIC's deficit is on the order of several *billion* dollars)
and give people what they want, but can't afford, than it is to bite
the bullet and make some hard decisions. And please don't even try
to tell me that Joe Blow has a right to live a government supported
life in some chronically economically depressed area because his
father and father's father lived there. Mr. Blow deserves an opportunity
to become a self-supporting citizen thru job (re)training and perhaps
government subsidized relocation, but he does not deserve to continue
receiving government largess to live in an area which you, I, and he 
know quite well cannot support him, just because he likes it there. 

>>  In the same vein, I have never understood the calls for  universal
>>  free daycare.
>	I'm not sure I'm asking for that.  I pay for my children's daycare,
>	and don't want a handout.  But you must realize that it costs about
>	the same as a university education -- not just the tuition fees, the
>	whole thing.  I can afford it because I'm better of than most people.

I am against universal daycare. Why in the world should I have to pay for
Mr and Mrs Yuppie's daycare costs when they're making more than me???????
Subsidized daycare for low income families? - fine. For low income
single parents? - even more fine! But families with two BMWs
sitting in the garage of their harbour front condo? Give me a break.

And now some more reboot material of an entirely different sort:

Let's make Canada nuclear-weapons free said the Liberal delegates at
their recent convention. Can anyone out there explain to me how this
is *not* an endorsement of unilateral nuclear disarmament? And given that
it is just that, is there anyone out there who can explain why it is to
our advantage to let the other side have the ability to nuke us into
oblivion secure in the knowledge that we cannot retaliate? 

J.B. Robinson