• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Welfare and Baby Bonuses - Our Goverment's Main Responsibilty?

What is a national government's most impotant duty?


  • Total voters
    51

mo-litia

Banned
Banned
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
160
First of all, I've read 4 or 5 pages of the Political forum posts and couldn't find any similar topics; my apologies in advance to the moderators should this post cover ground already discussed!

My question is simple: I'd like to hear your opinions on what you feel a national government's primary responsibility to it's citizens is; along with your thoughts on how our current government is meeting (or abdicating) this responsibility.

Cheers
 
Education, defence and healthcare would all be looked after if our government would stop throwing money at useless social programs and commissions/studies into economic growth not to mention the feel good bleeding heart foundations that millions upon millions of taxpayer's dollars. This was all brought up during the last federal election campaign but Canadians still voted to waste taxpayer's money.
 
I agree that the only three things they should be responsible for is education,healthcare(this would include disabled persons, vets, etc) , and defense.  I think the government wastes way too much money on social spending. Why should hard working Canadians have to foot the bill for everyone else. Make education more affordable, bring in workfare and let the people help themselves. I see lots of disabled people who actually work hard for a living, why should we let perfectly able people sit at home and collect our taxes? The problem, IMHO in Canada is the lack of motivation by some of it's citizens. Why do something for yourself when the government can do it for you?
 
"This was all brought up during the last federal election campaign but Canadians still voted to waste taxpayer's money."

I'd agrue that Canadians did vote for change only our system still let the Liberals back in.  As first past post, is a out dated system and needs to be replaced with something more decomatic.  

The main problem I see is that conservative can't get past social issues, like gay marriage, and their too linked to christian right...  and it makes people who want change stay with the Liberals.  If the conservative could only stay the course and keep their polices limited to economics and how to run the country, it would much easier to vote for them. Polictics and religion shouldn't be mixed.  Another exmple would be Stockwell Day, saying durning the election he beleives planet is only 6000 years old. There is no need to bring that up, its his beleif, but he never made it clear that could let his religious beleive at home when he's running the country... and so the liberals win again because they don't let relgion run their party or create its policy.  The PC's were a much better choice the present conservatives.  If the conservatives ever to do get in, they need to run a few studies fingure out what programs are waste and what works and make major changes, without thinking of being re-elected.  They also need to go though each department and get rid of old dead wood that Liberals appointment to run the government, as its those un-elected managers that really make the polices works.
 
Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I agree that the government's responsibilities are many, with varying degrees of importance to the national interest. I think that I can speak for many of us when I state that our government does a reasonable job in meeting most of it's responsibilities but that it definitely needs to relvaluate the astronomical amount that it spends on it's bloated social programs in comparison to it's other ...more critical departments. I am not proposing that budgets be slashed (Although many could likely be reduced.), but rather that a serious, OBJECTIVE look be taken at the output, efficiency, and effectiveness of every department; including defence.

I think that, if a study about what our operational capabilities in the CF really are along with information on the effects that a neglected CF is now having on our international significance as a nation was given half the media coverage that the CBC gives to the latest feel good Liberal press opportunity, the ensuing public outrage would force the government to fix it's mistakes very quickly!

The thing that really angers me is that I feel that a government's most important responsibility, and the ultimate reason why we pay taxes, is to provide security and safety for every one of it's citizens.   Our government abdicated that responsibility decades ago. IMO, our social service programs won't do any of us any good if Canada ceases to exist because it was unable to counter foreign aggression.

To all of you out there who are content to suckle at the American teat: do you think the Americans would ever leave Canada if they had to send in their military to save our collective ass after years of successive US (and other allied) administrations repeatedly telling our government that our military readiness was becoming more and more pathetic with every round of cutbacks?  

A nation that can not or will not provide for the military protection of it's population has lost it's sovereignty. :cdn:
 
Conservative-leaning people aren't the only ones who can't get past social issues.  When we go into the next federal election, pay close attention to who raises social issues most frequently and vocally.

I would not choose to allow the federal government to have anything to do with education.

Government's responsibility is to safeguard rights.  We (voters) are all government.  Someone who votes on the basis of moral issues or benefit programs is in effect saying he feels entitled to impose his values or help himself to the contents of your wallet.  I do not propose we leap headfirst into a libertarian frontier society, but people should stop hiding behind "government" when they make a grab for others' paycheques.
 
radiohead said:
"This was all brought up during the last federal election campaign but Canadians still voted to waste taxpayer's money."

I'd agrue that Canadians did vote for change only our system still let the Liberals back in.  As first past post, is a out dated system and needs to be replaced with something more decomatic.  

The main problem I see is that conservative can't get past social issues, like gay marriage, and their too linked to christian right...  and it makes people who want change stay with the Liberals.  If the conservative could only stay the course and keep their polices limited to economics and how to run the country, it would much easier to vote for them. Polictics and religion shouldn't be mixed.   Another exmple would be Stockwell Day, saying durning the election he beleives planet is only 6000 years old. There is no need to bring that up, its his beleif, but he never made it clear that could let his religious beleive at home when he's running the country... and so the liberals win again because they don't let relgion run their party or create its policy.  The PC's were a much better choice the present conservatives.  If the conservatives ever to do get in, they need to run a few studies fingure out what programs are waste and what works and make major changes, without thinking of being re-elected.  They also need to go though each department and get rid of old dead wood that Liberals appointment to run the government, as its those un-elected managers that really make the polices works.

You will find that the Conservative party is slowly changing the way it does things.  Right now the COnservative party is going through a very very big transition.  A new generation of conservatives is starting to break into the ranks who are a lot more left leaning with their social problems.  

I openly admit that I am a Conservative thinker, but I am also an Atheist.  I promote a very conservative policy when it comes to defence, economics, etc but I am very supportive of liberal social programs such as healthcare, gay marriage, etc.  

I think what the Conservative party needs to do if they want to win big is get a leader who isn't from Alberta(Where all the ultra right wing facists come from) such as Bernard lord from New Brunswick, and adopt a more moderate platform when it comes to social issues.
 
The longer you persist in waiting for the "perfect" conservative party, the less likely you will be able to break the grip of the Liberal party and its semi-permanent constituency of entitlement, or a coalition of Liberal/NDP/Bloc (all leaning toward welfare liberalism) parties.  And they all have their own morality they wish to impose.
 
Brad Sallows said:
And they all have their own morality they wish to impose.

The "imposition" since the 60s has been of a value system based on victimhood, "group rights" and entitlement. The so called social conservatives are attempting to draw a line in the sand, since they can reasonably point out that similar efforts in other countries (especially Europe) have had negative consequences.

The other thing social conservatives (and Libertarians) hate is the use of appointed judiciaries to impose laws by fiat. The so called "Gay Marriage" legislation is being passed post ex facto by parliament, the courts have already indicated what they want. Notice how the electorate has been bypassed, supporters of "gay Marriage" know full well that if this was put to the popular vote, it would fail miserably. (In every US state where "Gay Marriage" has been put to the electorate, it has been soundly defeated. In the states where it is in effect, it was not legislated, but imposed by the States Supreme Court).

Public and private morality can evolve without the imposition of laws and regulations by the government. Their job is to act as the "night watchman", protecting us from physical and criminal assault
 
Welfare and baby bonus are based on certain assumptions about human behavior. US welfare reform atacked different aspects of behavior, with encouraging results:

Lifting Up The People
From the November 29, 2004, issue of National Review.

By Robert Rector

American Dream: Three Women, Ten Kids, and a Nation's Drive to End Welfare, by Jason DeParle (Viking, 422 pp., $25.95)

Bill Clinton's promise to "end welfare as we know it" played a decisive role in his 1992 victory. Despite its deliberate vagueness, Clinton's pledge foreshadowed real changes. Jason DeParle's fascinating new book, American Dream, chronicles the "end of welfare" from Clinton's campaign slogan through the historic legislation passed by a Republican Congress, and â ” even more important â ” offers an insightful examination of poverty and the underclass.

DeParle begins with the following premise: "We live in a country where anyone can make it: yet generation after generation some families don't. To argue about welfare is to argue about why." He attempts to answer this question through an in-depth personal exploration of the lives of the poor â ” and the result is one of the best books on the American underclass ever written, a compelling account that is disturbing, yet hopeful.

The core of the book is a rich narrative of the lives of three families in inner-city Milwaukee. The author spent years studying these families and came to know them intimately. The families are trapped in webs of dysfunctional behavior stretching back for generations; all are headed by single mothers, two of whom are high-school dropouts. Between them, the three mothers have twelve children out of wedlock. (Two of the children were born after the chief events reported in the book, hence the subtitle.) Fathers are absent; drugs, drug dealing, alcohol, and violence abound. Children avoid school and are drawn to early sex, violence, and the streets. The parents and children are separated from mainstream society by an avalanche of self-destructive behavior that seems almost inescapable.

A major concern of American Dream is how these families are affected by welfare reform. DeParle's initial views on reform were cynical. As a reporter covering the welfare beat for the New York Times in the early 1990s, he relied on the pessimistic views of elite battalions of liberal experts in academia and think tanks: Welfare recipients could not be expected to work, since no jobs were available; welfare caseloads were immutable; and reforming welfare would cost far more than maintaining the status quo. When the Republican welfare reform was enacted in 1996, liberals uniformly predicted it would throw millions into poverty and leave children "sleeping on grates."

In contrast, a handful of conservative theorists predicted the opposite: If welfare mothers were required to work or prepare for work in exchange for aid, they would leave the rolls in large numbers and take jobs; poverty rates would fall. As welfare reform was implemented, liberal and conservative theories were put to the test. Liberal predictions turned out to be wildly inaccurate. In Wisconsin, welfare caseloads dropped by 90 percent; across the nation, families on welfare fell from 5 million to 2 million. Nationwide, employment of single moms surged and child poverty dropped. In particular, the black child-poverty rate, which had remained frozen for a quarter century under the old, permissive welfare system, quickly plunged from 41 percent down to a historic low of 30 percent.

Conservatives had clearly understood the dynamics of welfare and employment far better than the liberal elites: If welfare recipients were required to earn their benefits, they would not stay on welfare long. DeParle's welfare mothers in Milwaukee exceeded conservative expectations; faced with serious work requirements, they quickly left welfare and found jobs with ease. (Some were already working "off the books.")

But DeParle also finds major shortcomings in conventional accounts of welfare reform's success. The implementation of reform often falls far short of government press releases; his inner-city mothers, though employed, continue to face significant financial difficulties and â ” worst of all â ” chaos still rules in their households. Years after reform, their children seem to be glued to the same downward path the parents took long before: They drop out of school, have children out of wedlock, and are drawn toward crime and violence. Reform seems to have done little to disrupt the culture of the underclass.
This should not be a great surprise. Underclass culture is like an old stump with deep, tangled roots, difficult to dislodge. In slums from Chicago to London, the underclass is characterized by six interrelated behaviors: illegitimacy and the disappearance of marriage; limited supervision and control of children; school failure, and the lack of educational self-discipline; eroded work ethic, especially among men; chronic alcohol and drug abuse; and violence and crime. These behaviors roil through the pages of American Dream. Given the complexity of these problems, it should be clear that simply increasing women's employment could never be expected to catapult families out of the underclass. Making welfare mothers work may be a necessary precondition to uplifting the underclass, but it is far from sufficient.

But to focus on families long trapped within the underclass is to miss much of the reform's success. Among conservatives who worked on the 1996 reform legislation, the paramount goal was to slow the alarming expansion of the underclass â ” a more realistic short-term objective than trying to rescue families long mired within it. The best predictor of underclass behavior is the share of all births that occur out of wedlock. At the beginning of the War on Poverty in the 1960s, 7 percent of all U.S. births were out of wedlock; by the mid-1990s, this figure had swollen to 32 percent, and was rising rapidly (one percentage point each year). As marriage disappeared from poor communities, other social problems mushroomed.

Once welfare reform took effect, however, the 30-year rise in illegitimacy came to a halt â ” and, contrary to all expectations, the rate has remained flat for nearly a decade. This represents an enormous, unheralded social victory. DeParle acknowledges that this momentous change can be explained only by welfare reform and its message that welfare could no longer be a permanent way of life. Thus, the greatest success of welfare reform has been largely invisible to the press and politicians. This success occurred not among mothers already on welfare, but among the thousands of women who, because of reform, never had a child out of wedlock, never went on welfare, and never started on the long multi-generation tumble into the underclass nightmares so vividly described in American Dream.

Even with his tight focus on troubled inner-city families, DeParle is quietly optimistic. Despite the chaos that continues to embroil his protagonists, he holds that welfare reform was an important step forward. He argues that the next step must grapple with the absence of fathers and marriage, which he correctly sees as the arch-problem fueling all others. In this, he concurs with long-held conservative views.

At heart, American Dream shows that the problems of the underclass are not economic but moral and behavioral. Liberals, for decades, have studiously ignored the moral dimensions of poverty â ” which leaves them ill equipped to address the crippling problems presented in this book. Conservatives, on the other hand, have always seen poverty and social problems as emanating from individual behavior. They have long proposed policies targeted specifically at the problems that afflict DeParle's families. These policies include programs to promote healthy marriage, vouchers for poor children to attend religious schools, and public funds for faith-based drug treatment. Each of these ideas is currently mocked by the Left, just as conservative workfare policies were derided in decades past. But these policies, aimed at fundamental moral change, offer the best hope for broken families to find the American dream.

â ” Mr. Rector is senior research fellow in welfare at the Heritage Foundation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   
 
  http://www.nationalreview.com/books/rector200502011038.asp       
 
Main responsibilities:

Armed Forces:  to protect us from foreigners trying to beat up on us.

Police:  To protect us from socially maladjusted people (those who opt out of society) trying to beat up on us.

Civil and Criminal Law courts:  to prevent people from beating up on eachother from within the country.

The only purpose of government is continuance of civilization.  We don't need welfare, health care, public roads etc. in order to maintain civilization.  All these additional things are "nice to haves" that ultimately become absorbed by the bureaucracy, thereby costing the common man more than if he had paid privately to support them.

Society consists of a bunch of people getting together, and based on common principles, agreeing that the use of force will be subject to mutually agreed-upon rules, thus leaving them free to get on with the business of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  To paraphrase, "it is for this reason that governments are instituted among men...."

When you have the government doing other things, you are allowing them to use their monopoly on force to enforce decisions that would not otherwise be unanimous.

Think of government as a club.  A bunch of people get together and say "hey, let's have a private club, with good rules so that we can exclude killers from our midst...we'll call it Society".  They get together, and form that Society.  It has police, law courts and a military.  It keeps the bad people out.  Then, due to the structure of the government they set up, a small minority (or even a majority) says "hey, let's change the rules of the club a bit...all the dues are going up, and we get "free" roads, health care and child care...of course, we can't afford everything, so we may have to cut back on police....".  People object, but at this point, Society is formed.  People are born into the club, and can't opt out without becoming criminals, because they've given up their right to the use of force to the State.  So all further social program implementations amount to a majority of people (or a minority of those in power) extorting resources from those who don't want to play their game any more, but are forbidden from leaving the club.  So power cliques form.  We call them political parties.  Most political parties don't clue into this problem, but instead (like cliques everywhere) seek to exploit someone different, instead of returning to the status quo of "let's all leave eachother alone, as long as nobody is injuring us".

So, the federal government's primary purpose in life is to "keep the bad people out".  However, being run by a clique, it has been busily engaged in making everyone who doesn't agree with the agenda of the day into de facto "bad people" if they try to opt out, or forcing them to pay for things they don't want.  Gun registry?  HRDC job creation?  Fat salaries for Mr. Dithers' staff?  Meanwhile, it has abdicated its primary purpose of "keeping the bad people out" by cutting the Canadian Military, destroying Customs' ability to patrol the ports, filling important government roles with politically correct (in-clique) personnel who do not advance the primary responsibilities of government & etc.

Under the original form of government, you could be a Socialist or a Nazi, and nobody would bother you.  You could form all sorts of cooperatives with like-minded people to do whatever you wanted...but you couldn't force anyone else to play your game because the State would stop you.  If people had been playing in your club and wanted to quit, they could (subject to any legal interpretation of contracts you signed--Law Courts)...because the State enforced the bare minimum of rules that everyone had agreed upon.  Nowadays, under a "democracy" that does more than enforce the bare minimums, you can be forced to give money to the State, so that it can WASTE IT, give it to the clique's friends, or use it to declare YOU a criminal.

Keep in mind that "Libertarian Land" needn't be the anarchy some think it would be.  Nothing stops you from forming insurance companies, farmer's co-operatives, credit unions, etc., etc.  Even today, some of the best organizations are still formed that way--except that only their members are forced to pay for them.  You want child care?  Well how about if the child care programme is staffed by people who have kids in the programme, and who actually care about the level of care that is provided?  Or would you prefer to have it staffed by faceless functionaries who are just filling a job classification, taking salaries voted to them by an equally uncaring (and in some cases, hostile) public at large?  Education, as taught by people who want their children to *read*, not as taught by bored professors with a pet theory on education to prove....imagine...responsive institutions, not faceless government bureaucracies...

Ah well, I'm done.  Someone asked, and this is what I believe.
 
I agree that the core responsibilities of the Gov is to provide Defence, Police, and Courts. I also agree with Gunner's analogy about the club. I immediately thought of a Mess when I read that post.

What I don't agree with is the idea that unless it is one of those 3, the Gov shouldn't be involved. Those are basic requirements. We elect people to represent us and our interests, and not to sound naive and altruistic, if we don't like it, we should tell our reps (MPs). I suspect that most Canadians want to keep Gov run infastructure, Customs, EI, CPP, etc., so I wouldn't hold your breath.
 
I suspect most Canadians want to keep and adopt every program which offers them something at what they perceive to be the expense of others.  Not many people will stand up and say, "No, I could sure use it, but it's unfair to those who pay for it."  You shouldn't have to guess where that vector leads.
 
I disagree Brad. That's why we have qualifying conditions for any gov assistance. If you want to discuss abuse of EI, Welfare, ect, fine, but I think the solution is enforcement of the established rules, re-evaluating the qualifying conditions, etc, not the termination of an otherwise legitimate program.


 
Gunnar said:
The only purpose of government is continuance of civilization.   We don't need welfare, health care, public roads etc. in order to maintain civilization.   All these additional things are "nice to haves" that ultimately become absorbed by the bureaucracy, thereby costing the common man more than if he had paid privately to support them.

Nicely said, Gunnar!
:salute:
 
Abuse of the system doesn't have to enter into it if the system itself is unjust.  EI is one of my pet peeves, but I'll try not to rant too much.  I don't consider it to be an insurance program; I consider it to be a wage subsidy.  A proper insurance program would assign benefits purely on the basis of earnings and have a uniform qualifying time.  Premiums should be assessed based on risk: the greater the likelihood of you being unemployed, the higher your premiums would be.

What we instead have is a system which cushions some employers against having to pay reasonable or satisfactory wages - a wage subsidy.

EI is a blatant handout, and people (and in fact identifiable regions of Canada) who benefit by it seem unwilling to say "no" and demand reform.

For anyone who cares to try, save yourself the trouble of trying to convince me that I have a duty to pay someone else to live in the location of his choosing, following the lifestyle of his choosing.  You can't.  If you want to fish or plant trees and spend 6 months in idleness, then either demand enough wages to cover yourself for the year or find complementary off-season employment.
 
What I don't agree with is the idea that unless it is one of those 3, the Gov shouldn't be involved. Those are basic requirements. We elect people to represent us and our interests, and not to sound naive and altruistic, if we don't like it, we should tell our reps (MPs). I suspect that most Canadians want to keep Gov run infastructure, Customs, EI, CPP, etc., so I wouldn't hold your breath.

But that's the point, eh?   Most Canadians want to keep the government run infrastructure...but not all.   So to the extent that you force these social programs on me, and force me to pay for them, you're misusing the first three powers.   If you only give me the "basic requirements", then anything above that is up to the interested parties to provide, and believe me, I'm not interested.

Customs doesn't really belong to your argument, BTW...it is a legitimate function of government, to keep the bad people (and and threats to national security) out...think of it as an arm of the military, or the legal system, a way to keep the club closed.

Basically, I don't support the rights of the majority to exploit me.   I agreed to submit certain rights to the government so I wouldn't get attacked or killed in my home by enemies foreign or domestic.   I don't recall being asked about whether or not I would like to give my money to Joe Welfare, artists who make $60,000 dresses out of Alberta beef, or spend exorbitant amounts of money on paintings that consist of three coloured lines....and yet somehow, they can do this with MY tax money, which I pay primarily for the privilege of being safe in my home.   I didn't ask for these other "privileges", and in fact view them as wasteful indulgences which steal my money away from things I'd rather spend it on...so why am I being forced to pay?   You want it?   You pay for it, like any other insurance policy.

Am I telling my representatives I don't like it?  Sure.  But somehow they seem to believe that the needs of the many (votes) outweigh the needs of the one...and the logical extension of that argument is legal gang rape...Society was formed so that the strong, or the many, couldn't exploit the few or the weak...yet here you are, using my voluntary compliance to exploit me further.  Seems kinda self-defeating, doesn't it?
 
New thread: "Welcome to the Libertarian Revolution!"

Can we all adopt funky accents?   Yell "Viva la Revolution!"   Get T-shirts with Che Guevara Ayn Rand on them?
 
Brad Sallows said:
EI is one of my pet peeves, but I'll try not to rant too much.   I don't consider it to be an insurance program; I consider it to be a wage subsidy.   A proper insurance program would assign benefits purely on the basis of earnings and have a uniform qualifying time.   Premiums should be assessed based on risk: the greater the likelihood of you being unemployed, the higher your premiums would be.

What we instead have is a system which cushions some employers against having to pay reasonable or satisfactory wages - a wage subsidy.

EI is a blatant handout, and people (and in fact identifiable regions of Canada) who benefit by it seem unwilling to say "no" and demand reform.

....If you want to fish or plant trees and spend 6 months in idleness, then either demand enough wages to cover yourself for the year or find complementary off-season employment.

There are problems with the EI system, and I feel you are not incorrect in your criticism here, but I think you are not necessarily 100% correct either. Yes, I suppose some employers, mainly of seasonal low-wage employees, do benefit from their employees collecting EI in the off-season. I don't think it's as rampant as you suggested. I agree that EI is not really a true insurance program, it is a social program. It's premiums are not true premiums, they are a tax. I feel that the biggest problem with EI is fraud and the ever-growing surplus. There just aren't enough  fraud investigators to catch the many people who are stealing our money. The fraud consists of fraudulant Records of Employment, bogus job searches (or none at all), working while on claim, on vacation while on claim, etc. As far as the surplus goes, the Budget announced included a reduction in premiums to reflect the fact that less and less is being paid out of the EI fund every year.

I think that seasonal workers should be pushed into retraining. Give them skills to get an off-season job, get agreements with employers for the off-season work so that the employee is committed to going back there.

Also, push the Self-employment Program. This program gives training in how to run a business, and financial assistance in starting up a business, provided the applicant meets certain criteria. This also gets people off the EI cycle.


Gunnar:

Where I agree with you:

'artists who make $60,000 dresses out of Alberta beef, or spend exorbitant amounts of money on paintings that consist of three coloured lines....'

I'm was referring to the more traditional programs, not this circus act you've mentioned.

Where I disagree:

'I didn't ask for these other "privileges", and in fact view them as wasteful indulgences which steal my money away from things I'd rather spend it on...so why am I being forced to pay?   You want it?   You pay for it, like any other insurance policy.

Am I telling my representatives I don't like it?   Sure.   But somehow they seem to believe that the needs of the many (votes) outweigh the needs of the one...and the logical extension of that argument is legal gang rape...Society was formed so that the strong, or the many, couldn't exploit the few or the weak...yet here you are, using my voluntary compliance to exploit me further.   Seems kinda self-defeating, doesn't it?'


That's democracy. You have a vote. Those programs were democratically proposed, debated, and passed in the Commons by your elected MP (or MLA in the case of welfare).
 
Back
Top