What follows was sent to me by a resident of the Canadian province of Ontario. These three short, profound statements apply not just to Ontario, or even Canada, but all the AABC countries -- America, Australia, Britain and Canada -- and to western Europe as well. Just change the names of the government agencies and programmes as required. As HST would have said, this is all ye know and all ye need to know about our culture.
1.
We are advised by the liberals to not judge all Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge all gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.
2.
We constantly hear about how the CPP (Canada Pension Plan: the Canuck equivalent of Social Security) is going to run out of money. How come we never hear about welfare running out of money? What's interesting is that one group -- those entitled to their state pensions -- worked for their money, but the other group -- welfare recipients -- didn't.
3.
Provincial Social Services (the welfare department) is proud to be distributing this year the greatest amount of "free money" ever handed out. Meanwhile, the ministry responsible for provincial parks asks us "Please Do Not Feed the Animals." Why not? The stated reason for this commandment is that "The animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves."
Thus endeth today's Lesson In Irony!
Showing posts with label social security. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social security. Show all posts
Friday, February 5, 2016
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Redistributing wealth won't save us
The fiscal cliff, the 1% vs the 99%, taxing the middle class out of existance... What it all comes down to is the wisdom of the Almighty State taking from them as has to give to give to them as has not.
There's no doubt the State can do so if it wishes. But is it the smart thing to do? Can the government legislating the "poor" into prosperity? Walt thinks not (lifetime pct .984) and argues from the record of two great empires.
Consider the mighty and long-lived Roman Empire. History tells us an important factor in the slow demise of Rome was excessive welfare. This was mandated by Roman senators to buy voter support. They feathered their own nests while keeping the poor quiet with bread and circuses. Not much has changed in two millenia, has it.
Now think about Japan. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by American atomic bombs in August of 1945. Nothing left. But look at them now! The two cities -- indeed the whole country -- have redeveloped beyond anyone's imagination.
How did the Japanese become so prosperous so quickly? They do not have a welfare system. You work or do without. Which caused more long-term destruction: the A-bomb or government welfare programmes created to buy the votes of those who want someone to take care of them?
What we're talking about, dear readers, is the importance of incentives. Walt will explain in five sentences.
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
That's not intended to be an argument for no taxes. The Romans had taxes. The Japanese have taxes. There will probably be taxes in hell. It is, however, an argument for a flat tax, an idea whose time has come... and gone... again and again. But keep it in mind as you listen to the wrangling about who's going to pay for all the entitlements and social programmes that the vote-hungry politicians and lamestream media tell us we must have.
There's no doubt the State can do so if it wishes. But is it the smart thing to do? Can the government legislating the "poor" into prosperity? Walt thinks not (lifetime pct .984) and argues from the record of two great empires.
Consider the mighty and long-lived Roman Empire. History tells us an important factor in the slow demise of Rome was excessive welfare. This was mandated by Roman senators to buy voter support. They feathered their own nests while keeping the poor quiet with bread and circuses. Not much has changed in two millenia, has it.
Now think about Japan. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by American atomic bombs in August of 1945. Nothing left. But look at them now! The two cities -- indeed the whole country -- have redeveloped beyond anyone's imagination.
How did the Japanese become so prosperous so quickly? They do not have a welfare system. You work or do without. Which caused more long-term destruction: the A-bomb or government welfare programmes created to buy the votes of those who want someone to take care of them?
What we're talking about, dear readers, is the importance of incentives. Walt will explain in five sentences.
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
That's not intended to be an argument for no taxes. The Romans had taxes. The Japanese have taxes. There will probably be taxes in hell. It is, however, an argument for a flat tax, an idea whose time has come... and gone... again and again. But keep it in mind as you listen to the wrangling about who's going to pay for all the entitlements and social programmes that the vote-hungry politicians and lamestream media tell us we must have.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Canada's porous border - follow-up
Walt's in a hurry this morning. No power and cows have to be milked by hand. But there's time to pass on a story in today's Globe & Mail which puts the icing on yesterday's cake.
If you didn't read yesterday's post, please do so now. Then click on the link above to go to the Globe story. It presents the highlights of a report, by the Canada Border Services Agency no less, which predicts that as other developed countries shut out refugees and asylum-seekers, Canada will become the safe haven to which they flee.
In other words, because of Canada's reputation as being a "soft touch", we can expect a tidal wave of the world's flotsam and jetsam to wash up on our shores. This is contrary to what CIC is saying in its annual report, which was the subject of yesterday's post.
Citizenship & Immigration Canada (CIC) says it's battening down the hatches, so to speak. Closing the loopholes and tightening up our porous borders. What they don't say is that when someone's refugee claim is accepted, they get social benefits -- housing, welfare and health care -- at levels unmatched anywhere in the world.
Canadians living in poverty suffer, but refugees have to buy big bushel baskets to carry off the swag we lavish on them. No wonder the scum of the earth head for Canada..."very good place to be, very good indeed".
Footnote: The Border Services Agency report had to be obtained by a lawyer under freedom of information legislation. Why is it that Canadians have to fight so hard to get access to reports and other documents prepared at our expense? Don't we have the right to know what our government is doing? What do our governments fear? Voter backlash? Could be!
Postscript: This is Walt's 200th post, another milestone reached!
If you didn't read yesterday's post, please do so now. Then click on the link above to go to the Globe story. It presents the highlights of a report, by the Canada Border Services Agency no less, which predicts that as other developed countries shut out refugees and asylum-seekers, Canada will become the safe haven to which they flee.
In other words, because of Canada's reputation as being a "soft touch", we can expect a tidal wave of the world's flotsam and jetsam to wash up on our shores. This is contrary to what CIC is saying in its annual report, which was the subject of yesterday's post.
Citizenship & Immigration Canada (CIC) says it's battening down the hatches, so to speak. Closing the loopholes and tightening up our porous borders. What they don't say is that when someone's refugee claim is accepted, they get social benefits -- housing, welfare and health care -- at levels unmatched anywhere in the world.
Canadians living in poverty suffer, but refugees have to buy big bushel baskets to carry off the swag we lavish on them. No wonder the scum of the earth head for Canada..."very good place to be, very good indeed".
Footnote: The Border Services Agency report had to be obtained by a lawyer under freedom of information legislation. Why is it that Canadians have to fight so hard to get access to reports and other documents prepared at our expense? Don't we have the right to know what our government is doing? What do our governments fear? Voter backlash? Could be!
Postscript: This is Walt's 200th post, another milestone reached!
Friday, October 2, 2009
Population control damaging society, bankrupting Social Security, US bishops say
This coming Sunday, October 4th, is Respect Life Sunday. In their statement for the occasion, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops condemns a wide variety of threats to human life and dignity, including abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, and population control.
Cardinal Justin Rigali, speaking for the USCCB, writes, "In the current debate over health care reform, it has become evident that a number of Americans believe that the lives and health of only some people are worth safeguarding, while other classes of people are viewed as not deserving the same protection. Such an attitude is deplorable, all the more so in the context of health care.
"Unborn children remain the persons whose lives are most at risk in America: Over one million children each year die in abortion facilities.… It bears repeating: Abortion -- the direct, intentional killing of an unborn girl or boy -- is not health care. Abortion robs an innocent child of his or her life, and robs mothers of their peace and happiness.… Abortion funding can only increase the number of dead and grieving." (emphasis added. ed.)
"Unborn children are not the only human beings disfavored under current proposals," the statement continues. "Many people insist that undocumented persons living and working in the United States should not be allowed in any new system to purchase health-care coverage, and that poor legal immigrants be denied coverage for the first five years they are in the United States. Do immigrants forfeit their humanity at the border? How can a just society deny basic health care to those living and working among us who need medical attention? It cannot and must not."
Cardinal Rigali also slated the environmentalists who support population control. Small family sizes are bankrupting Social Security and Medicare, he said.
"It should not be surprising that the neglect, and even the death, of some people are offered as a solution to rising health care costs. Population control advocates have long espoused aborting children in the developing world as a misguided means for reducing poverty. Some environmentalists now claim that the most efficient way to curb global climate change is to make 'family planning' more widely available in the developing world. They report that an average of 2.3 pounds per day of exhaled carbon dioxide can be eliminated from the atmosphere by eliminating one human being. As used by population control advocates, the innocuous term 'family planning' includes abortifacient contraceptives, sterilization, and manual vacuum aspiration abortions.…
"Since the advent of widespread contraception and abortion, a cultural hostility to children has grown. They are often depicted as costly encumbrances who interfere with a carefree adult life. No fewer than six recent books are dedicated to defending the childless-by-choice lifestyle, for selfish reasons, or to counter 'overpopulation,' a thoroughly discredited myth.
"In fact, if married couples were to have more children, Medicare and Social Security would not be hurtling toward bankruptcy. Since 1955, because of fewer children and longer life spans, the number of workers has declined relative to the number of beneficiaries, from 8.6 to only 3.1 workers paying benefits to support each beneficiary. Without substantially more young people to enter the work force as young adults, in 25 years, there will be only 2.1 workers supporting each beneficiary. Eliminating our young does not solve problems even on pragmatic grounds. It adds to them."
Click here to read the entire USCCB statement.
Cardinal Justin Rigali, speaking for the USCCB, writes, "In the current debate over health care reform, it has become evident that a number of Americans believe that the lives and health of only some people are worth safeguarding, while other classes of people are viewed as not deserving the same protection. Such an attitude is deplorable, all the more so in the context of health care.
"Unborn children remain the persons whose lives are most at risk in America: Over one million children each year die in abortion facilities.… It bears repeating: Abortion -- the direct, intentional killing of an unborn girl or boy -- is not health care. Abortion robs an innocent child of his or her life, and robs mothers of their peace and happiness.… Abortion funding can only increase the number of dead and grieving." (emphasis added. ed.)
"Unborn children are not the only human beings disfavored under current proposals," the statement continues. "Many people insist that undocumented persons living and working in the United States should not be allowed in any new system to purchase health-care coverage, and that poor legal immigrants be denied coverage for the first five years they are in the United States. Do immigrants forfeit their humanity at the border? How can a just society deny basic health care to those living and working among us who need medical attention? It cannot and must not."
Cardinal Rigali also slated the environmentalists who support population control. Small family sizes are bankrupting Social Security and Medicare, he said.
"It should not be surprising that the neglect, and even the death, of some people are offered as a solution to rising health care costs. Population control advocates have long espoused aborting children in the developing world as a misguided means for reducing poverty. Some environmentalists now claim that the most efficient way to curb global climate change is to make 'family planning' more widely available in the developing world. They report that an average of 2.3 pounds per day of exhaled carbon dioxide can be eliminated from the atmosphere by eliminating one human being. As used by population control advocates, the innocuous term 'family planning' includes abortifacient contraceptives, sterilization, and manual vacuum aspiration abortions.…
"Since the advent of widespread contraception and abortion, a cultural hostility to children has grown. They are often depicted as costly encumbrances who interfere with a carefree adult life. No fewer than six recent books are dedicated to defending the childless-by-choice lifestyle, for selfish reasons, or to counter 'overpopulation,' a thoroughly discredited myth.
"In fact, if married couples were to have more children, Medicare and Social Security would not be hurtling toward bankruptcy. Since 1955, because of fewer children and longer life spans, the number of workers has declined relative to the number of beneficiaries, from 8.6 to only 3.1 workers paying benefits to support each beneficiary. Without substantially more young people to enter the work force as young adults, in 25 years, there will be only 2.1 workers supporting each beneficiary. Eliminating our young does not solve problems even on pragmatic grounds. It adds to them."
Click here to read the entire USCCB statement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)