jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (12/16/86)
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
brewster@watdcsu.UUCP (12/18/86)
>>> 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. > J.B. Robinson Here's another problem I see. How do you think the family could afford two BMW's and a harbourfront condo ? Three ways; way one : their last name is Eaton or Black or Reichman(sp?) or etc, way two : these people have started a business of some sort, accepted the risk inherent in the endeavor, and have been successful, way three : they bought lottery tickets. Nepotism will always be around and there will always be people stupid enough to waste money on lottery tickets and governments greedy enough to sell and aggressively market them, but consider case two. These are the kind of people who can be pushed only so far before they say screw Canada. If you want job creation then someone has to do the creating, and unless you propose that everyone eventually work for the government this means that private enterprise will have to do the creating. Recent figures show that job creation is occurring most rapidly in the small, family owned, start-up type of business. If the firm is successful (i.e. they create jobs), then they will also make money and at some point they will probably go out and buy nice cars and homes. If at this point everyone else, the people who chose to accept the career offer with large corporation X with starting salary Y dollars per year and Z weeks holidays and company benefits and etc., decide they are jealous of someone elses success and tries to tax the hell out of them, or tell them that they are not allowed to share at least equally in government programs, which they have paid for the majority of, why would the entrepeneurs stay in Canada ? To the original point, I don't think the Yuppies should have access to "free" government financed daycare, so I agree with the poster. What I disagree about is the appropriateness of the government getting involved in daycare of any kind. What reason do you have to suspect that government would be any better at handling this social problem with some new program then they are at handling any other social problem ? Why do people always call on the government to throw money at problems without looking at or attempting to treat the root cause ? Try not to become a man UUCP : {decvax|ihnp4}!watmath!watdcsu!brewster of success but rather try Else : Dave Brewer, (519) 886-6657 try to become a man of value. Albert Einstein
majka@ubc-vision.UUCP (12/18/86)
In article <2564@hcrvx2.UUCP> jimr@hcr.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: >Here's my two cents worth: [...] Thanks for the two cents, Jim, but I don't think you will be able to write it off on your 1986 income tax :-) Seriously, I was shocked to see Jim proposing what I thought were well thought-out, reasonable ideas. Which of us is feeling ill, Jim? One comment however: You suggest that UIC is "Subsidizing those parts of the country which are simply not economically viable". You propose that some UIC money might be better spent on re-location programs. I could not help getting a vision of Maritimers and Newfoundlanders being herded into cattle cars bound for Toronto, there to be joined by Prairie farmers (travelling in Alberta Wheat Pool cars) and former oil drillers (in tankers, of course). This idea bothered me. What is T.O. going to do with them all? What happens when the price of oil rises again? Does our society become nomadic, following "economically viable" economic resources around? >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? I can't, but I don't mind that in the least. > ... 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? Because maybe then they might not be terrified of us nuking them into oblivion first. The effect might be so calming that they might decide to spend the mega-billions that *they* spend on arms instead on useful programs for their people. We, of course, would have beat them to it, spending our excess mega-billions on good things like railways, so that the above - mentioned Maritimers could travel to Toronto in more comfort. * /.\ // .\ ./.|.\ Merry Christmas to the Net! / . \.\. ././.\.\ Marc Majka //. .\. | _|_
idallen@watmath.UUCP (12/19/86)
In article <2564@hcrvx2.UUCP> jimr@hcr.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: >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? We can't retaliate with nuclear weapons anyway. Once a nuclear exchange starts, the world loses. Some people who want to get rid of the nukes think that the risk of an accidental exchange is worse than the risk of an unprovoked one. -- -IAN! (Ian! D. Allen) University of Waterloo
sl@van-bc.UUCP (12/19/86)
In article <329@ubc-vision.UUCP> majka@ubc-vision.UUCP (Marc Majka) writes: >In article <2564@hcrvx2.UUCP> jimr@hcr.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: >>Here's my two cents worth: [...] > >> ... 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? > >Because maybe then they might not be terrified of us nuking them into >oblivion first. The effect might be so calming that they might decide to >spend the mega-billions that *they* spend on arms instead on useful programs >for their people. We, of course, would have beat them to it, spending our >excess mega-billions on good things like railways, so that the above - >mentioned Maritimers could travel to Toronto in more comfort. The effect might even be so calming that they decide just to use their non nuclear army. The reason the Western world spends mega-billions on nuclear arms is twofold. First we would have to spend MORE mega-billions to adequately man and equip a standing army of the same effectivness as the Eastern bloc. Second, there is a distinct lack of interest in the Western society to have LARGE standing armies at the ready. The nuclear defense is less expensive. And requires smaller armies on our side. The bottom line on this, as with most subjects is simple economics, whats cheaper. Of course if we put all the bases in the Maritimes we wouldn't have to ship the people east or pay them welfare or uic :). Personally I don't agree with the idea of a nuclear defense, but I would probably be more nervous if we didn't have it. It's quite possible that it has prevented a third world war. -- Stuart Lynne Public Access Network - Vancouver BC UUCP: ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vi!van-bc!sl Mail: 225B Evergreen Dr., Port Moody, BC, Canada, V3H 1S1 Phone: 604-937-7532
sample@ubc-cs.UUCP (12/20/86)
In article <177@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes: >The effect might even be so calming that they decide just to use their non >nuclear army. The reason the Western world spends mega-billions on nuclear >arms is twofold. First we would have to spend MORE mega-billions to adequately >man and equip a standing army of the same effectivness as the Eastern bloc. >Second, there is a distinct lack of interest in the Western society to >have LARGE standing armies at the ready. Why would they want to invade? We are probably much more useful to them the way we are now, in view of how they have destroyed innovation and incentive to produce in their country. I seriously doubt that they could occupy North America, in view of the trouble they have with a mickey-mouse country like Afghanistan, which is much closer and doesn't involve crossing any oceans. I don't think a large standing army is needed, just a populace that is willing to put up a fight. Rick Sample
sl@van-bc.UUCP (12/20/86)
In article <735@ubc-cs.UUCP> sample@ubc-cs.UUCP (Rick Sample) writes: >Why would they want to invade? We are probably much more useful to them >the way we are now, in view of how they have destroyed innovation and >incentive to produce in their country. I seriously doubt that they >could occupy North America, in view of the trouble they have with a >mickey-mouse country like Afghanistan, which is much closer and doesn't >involve crossing any oceans. I don't think a large standing army is >needed, just a populace that is willing to put up a fight. > Who said anything about North America. The last two world wars were started in Europe. Without a nuclear defense the third one probably would have started there too. The Soviets have not shown any lack of interest in advancing into new territory in that part of the world (Hungary, Czechoslovakia, now Afghanistan). And don't forget they surround Berlin and occupy half of Germany. Make no mistake the Soviet military does have incentive and unfortunately does not have a strong elected government to hold it in check. As I stated before the Western world has agreed (can you spell NATO) to keep the Eastern Bloc out of Europe. The problem is we don't want to spend enormous amounts of money putting a large army into Europe. The result is the use of the Nuclear defense. -- Stuart Lynne Public Access Network - Vancouver BC UUCP: ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vi!van-bc!sl Mail: 225B Evergreen Dr., Port Moody, BC, Canada, V3H 1S1 Phone: 604-937-7532
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (12/21/86)
> ... I seriously doubt that they > could occupy North America, in view of the trouble they have with a > mickey-mouse country like Afghanistan, which is much closer and doesn't > involve crossing any oceans. I don't think a large standing army is > needed, just a populace that is willing to put up a fight. Afghanistan is hardly a mickey-mouse country, given the temperament of the inhabitants. And while Afghanistan is certainly giving the Soviets a lot of trouble, it's worth noting that the Afghans are suffering pretty severely for it. It's not clear to me that North Americans love their freedom and democracy, as opposed to safety and prosperity, enough to live with the sort of crackdowns and punitive measures the Soviets are freely applying in Afghanistan. The Afghans have Islam to hold them together against the invaders; I see no North American equivalent. Especially given that the Afghans have been fighting invaders for centuries, while North America has been quiet and peaceful internally. (The question is not whether some North Americans would be angry enough to fight, but whether the non-fighting North Americans would show enough solidarity to support the fighters even when the occupation forces started getting nasty. Guerillas and such have little chance of long-term survival and effectiveness unless the non-fighting population supports them.) Also, willingness to put up a fight doesn't count for as much as you'd think against modern weapons. The Afghan guerillas would undoubtedly give several semi-essential parts of their anatomies in exchange for man-portable anti- aircraft missiles; they have said so (phrased a bit differently...). They are badly short of many things. This, in a country with (a) a history of internal warfare, (b) a history of armed resistance to invasion, (c) an active cottage industry in arms, and (d) a history of vigorous smuggling across the border from a friendly neighbor. Even if North Americans have the will to make trouble for an invader, they are sadly ill-equipped to do so, even by Afghan standards. (Before you start counting hunting rifles, remember to count ammunition for them as well. 50 rounds is several years' supply for a moderately active big-game hunter, but is NOTHING for combat, even guerilla warfare. Guns without ammunition are useless.) Switzerland is a better model than Afghanistan. The Swiss do have standing armed forces, although of relatively modest size. More important, nearly the entire population is TRAINED and EQUIPPED to fight as militia. They know that enthusiasm isn't enough, even with natural advantages like their ideal defensive terrain. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
majka@ubc-vision.UUCP (12/29/86)
In article <271@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes: >Make no mistake the Soviet military does have incentive and unfortunately >does not have a strong elected government to hold it in check. Sadly, the same holds for the Americans.
brkirby@watdragon.UUCP (01/02/87)
In article <271@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes: > >As I stated before the Western world has agreed (can you spell NATO) >keep the Eastern Bloc out of Europe. But, I thought the Eastern Bloc WAS part of Europe? Bruce Kirby ----------------------- The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them. -- George Orwell ----------------------- CSNET: brkirby@waterloo.csnet UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra}!watmath!watdragon!brkirby