[clarkgoble]

Some people want to call it "welfare" as if wanting low crime, decent pay, good education and health care make you some kind of parasite.

Most of the US is in low crime areas. I know plenty of places locally where people don't bother locking their doors at night. If you get out of the city you'll find that crime is amazingly low. Further if you think Canada is low crime you may be in for a shock. While it has low murder rates it still has most of the other problems that the US has. I've never been mugged in the US. I have been mugged in Canada.

Here are some stats from the Ontario government.

http://www.fightcrime.net/stats.htm

Other than murder, crime victimization is about the same in both Canada and the US, with the exception of home invasions which are considerably higher in Canada. (Be wary quoting pure crime statistics since the categories are not commesurate between countries - general surveys of the population are far more accurate)

As for decent pay, there are plenty of jobs in the US that pay decent. Indeed through most of the 90's there was a brain drain in Canada as Canadian (myself included) went to the US for better pay. Further there are far more jobs in the US as compared to Canada - even in the current recession. The only exception is if you wish to work entry level jobs. Those admittedly pay better in Canada. However I'd not want to live on those wages, even in Canada. There are also many "hidden" costs in Canada due to the climate that I think many Americans overlook. (i.e. transportation costs, winter clothing, heating, high cost of goods, etc.)

For health care, the Canadian system is better if you are in the low income bracket. If you are even upper lower income in the US and are willing to budget your money you can easily find affordable health insurance. I did that for many years. $1000 a year for very, very good coverage - far better than what Canada gave me. However clearly I had to sacrifice some things to purchase the health insurance. Many people don't budget well and then find that they can't afford the insurance.

Where Canada is better is if you have a pre-existing health condition. Once again this is less of an issue if you get insurance in your early 20's in the US and then stay with that carrier. But that's not always possible if you move around and change jobs a lot. So there definitely are circumstnaces where health care is better in Canada. But by and large I think the wise consumer can do better in the United States.

Part of the difference is that in the US you have the responsibility to do things that are done for you in Canada. Typically what Canada gives you is inferior to what you could easily do for yourself in the US. However it also must be admitted that most people are lazy and, especially in their youth, don't plan for the future. For those people they may prefer the system in Canada where, despite the many flaws, there aren't the responsibilities and risks inherent in the US system.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
not being judgemental at all, just pragmatic:
If you can't afford health care I'm confused how you are going to be able to afford the transportation costs to move to places like iceland?

Magical bus.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
[B] Part of the difference is that in the US you have the responsibility to do things that are done for you in Canada. Typically what Canada gives you is inferior to what you could easily do for yourself in the US. However it also must be admitted that most people are lazy and, especially in their youth, don't plan for the future. For those people they may prefer the system in Canada where, despite the many flaws, there aren't the responsibilities and risks inherent in the US system.

I thought this was a good post of solid advice and sound reasoning. Part of dispelling the "grass is always greener" mentality that I alluded to (even thought it might be greener depending on circumstances).

I take exception to the notion that almost 1/3 the country is uninsured and the fastest growing class in America is the working poor being a result of being "lazy" or "irresponsible". I think that is a bit dismissive of the very real barriers to "making it" in this country.

Most prosperous societies have tried to implement some form of Safety Net. It's considered a moral priority as well as being true to our principles of protecting opportunity for everyone. Some societies have gone much further on this ideal than others, for good or bad.

I think it's wise to dispell any erroneous notions of how good it is in Canada for those who are struggling in the US, but I don't think it's fair to suggest that the startling number of people in the US that are struggling is merely a function of personal failure.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
not being judgemental at all, just pragmatic:
If you can't afford health care I'm confused how you are going to be able to afford the transportation costs to move to places like iceland?

It ain't *that* expensive to travel to Iceland. It so happens that our national airline, Icelandair, subsidizes all the America->Iceland routes. It'l set you back $250-300 bucks from Minnesota.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I thought this was a good post of solid advice and sound reasoning. Part of dispelling the "grass is always greener" mentality that I alluded to (even thought it might be greener depending on circumstances).

I'm not sure which oneliner to make at this time. For all I know neither is funny, so here goes:

"Is this another reference to weed?"

OR

"In this case, the grass is under snow most of the time."

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I'm not sure which oneliner to make at this time. For all I know neither is funny, so here goes:

"Is this another reference to weed?"

OR

"In this case, the grass is under snow most of the time."

[clarkgoble]

I take exception to the notion that almost 1/3 the country is uninsured and the fastest growing class in America is the working poor being a result of being "lazy" or "irresponsible". I think that is a bit dismissive of the very real barriers to "making it" in this country.

Note that I didn't say this. I said most people are lazy. That seems unarguable. People prefer having insurance as an employee benefit to having to deal with it themselves.

As for why 1/3 of the country being uninsured, I also dealt with that. Part of that is due to pre-existing conditions. The US system doesn't deal with those well at all. However by and large if you are responsible at a young age you can get very good, very affordable health insurance even if you are in the lower pay realm. Those at the lowest level (mainly entry level jobs) will have a very difficult time, and I dealt with that.

However that is a significant difference in mindset between the US and Canada. In Canada there is, I think, a perception that you ought to be able to have a semi-comfortable life in entry level jobs. There is among many Americans the perception that entry level jobs should be just that - entry level jobs.

The difficulty in the US is that there is a significant portion of the population who, for various reasons, aren't able to do much beyond entry level jobs. Often that is due to irresponsibility - especially in their youth. One can, however, strongly argue that people shouldn't be penalized forever because of unwise choices in their youth. Further one can argue about how much choice people, especially young people, have in their choices given their environment. There are compelling arguments on all sides in this matter.

The basis of disagreement between Canada gets down to how you deal with the less competent members of society. For instance not everyone will be smart enough to do well in school. Some people will have personal trauma leading them to be unlikely to make wise decisions. What do you do with those people? In the US you basically leave them to their own devices and then mandate a limited level of health care and subsistence. In Canada they feel that there is a low level which everyone deserves, whether they are the cause of their own problems or not.

[Adam Betts]

Originally posted by voodoo:
It ain't *that* expensive to travel to Iceland. It so happens that our national airline, Icelandair, subsidizes all the America->Iceland routes. It'l set you back $250-300 bucks from Minnesota.

Read Lerk's post again. He asked about how can he afford the transportation cost for moving to a place like Iceland?

It ain't *that* cheap. Definitely not in the price range of $250-$300 if you have some big stuffs to bring.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Adam Betts:
Read Lerk's post again. He asked about how can he afford the transportation cost for moving to a place like Iceland?

It ain't *that* cheap. Definitely not in the price range of $250-$300 if you have some big stuffs to bring.

I don't have to read Lerk's post again. I comprehended it completely the first time. MPC hasn't said anything about moving anything besides himself and his clothes. And to be honest one should always try to take as little with oneself when moving over great distances. It just isn't worth the trouble to take all your stuff with you. Start out light, it'll give you a much needed flexibility at the new place. I should know. I have moved many times long distances. (unfortunately I have to add)

[Logic]

Originally posted by Adam Betts:
Read Lerk's post again. He asked about how can he afford the transportation cost for moving to a place like Iceland?

It ain't *that* cheap. Definitely not in the price range of $250-$300 if you have some big stuffs to bring.

It all of course depends on how much he will take with him. The Icelandic government also subsidizes freight ships to and from Iceland. It won't cost that much that I know. Somewhere in the area between 200 dollars to 600. For containers(I think it's called in english) that is. But the best way is like Voodoo said, travel light.

[typoon]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I think your idea of "making it" might need some revision. I would say "survive" describes it a bit more accurately.

Sounds to me like MPC is sick of "surviving" and wants to go somewhere where government (and community) are more publically minded.

Some people want to call it "welfare" as if wanting low crime, decent pay, good education and health care make you some kind of parasite.

Society is based on cooperation. People working together to secure common good which enables private good. I don't think MPC is alone in wondering if enough Americans see through the false promises of the Rat Race and Consumerism to be worthy partners in building a better tomorrow.

If you don't feel like anyone else cares, it's natural to think about going somewhere where people might care more. The grass is always greener, as they say, but maybe the grass really is greener--depending on what you want.

Then again, maybe MPC just needs to find a corner of America with more like-minded people to find what he's looking for.

I would call it socailism is what he is looking for. Unfortuanately Socialism creates lazyness.

[Logic]

Originally posted by typoon:
I would call it socailism is what he is looking for. Unfortuanately Socialism creates lazyness.

Please explain how this in any way could be called socialism.....

Are you saying Europe are a bunch of socialists that only read the writings of Marx and Engel, and Maos little Red book?

[typoon]

Originally posted by Logic:
Please explain how this in any way could be called socialism.....

Are you saying Europe are a bunch of socialists that only read the writings of Marx and Engel, and Maos little Red book?

I would call it socialism in that they want everything handed to them by the government becasue they feel everyone and thing should be equal. The CEO of a big company shouldn't make more than the guy working the phones, is what it sounds like he wants. Sounds to me like he Doesn't like this country because he is "just getting by" while someone like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs Makes Millions and can fire people at will. Sounds like he feels that he can't get health insurance unless the government give it to him.

That is what i meant by calling it socialism

[Logic]

Originally posted by typoon:
I would call it socialism in that they want everything handed to them by the government becasue they feel everyone and thing should be equal. The CEO of a big company shouldn't make more than the guy working the phones, is what it sounds like he wants. Sounds to me like he Doesn't like this country because he is "just getting by" while someone like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs Makes Millions and can fire people at will. Sounds like he feels that he can't get health insurance unless the government give it to him.

That is what i meant by calling it socialism

Maybe he feels like people should get help from the government if they need help. Maybe he feels like the CEOs should not get this incredible salaries at the same time they are laying of people and putting the stabilities of families at risk. Maybe he feels like people should be able to live a "normal" life of the wages of only one job. Maybe he feels like health care should be free for all as it is human rights to get your wounds and illnessess cured. And what you are talking about isn't socialism. It is a responsible society where people are valued after their contribution to society and not their wealth and family ties.

But since I don't know him I can't state what he really wants and neither can you.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by typoon:
I would call it socailism is what he is looking for. Unfortuanately Socialism creates lazyness.

Try not to resort to useless blanket statements. It sounds more like indoctrination than thoughtful critique.

Socialism includes things like Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and public education.

I don't want to derail this into the the relative merits of socialist democracies or whatever, I'm just taking exception to your dismissal of all forms of public mindedness.

Clark makes a very good point about the different attitudes concerning the idea of a Safety Net between the US and Canada. I doubt you would be so cavalier as to suggest that a Safety Net is not needed at all since that would also include things like public assistance for victims of natural disasters.

We can talk about what common interests we all share enough to include in the Safety Net, but I think it's dishonest to suggest that anyone who thinks healthcare should be included is more "lazy" or "irresponsible" than someone who thinks it's more important to subsidize airlines or Farmers or have the most dazzling array of "smart bombs" known to man. It's a question of priorities and interests.

[Logic]

The standing ovations and applause go to Thunderous Funker.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I don't have to read Lerk's post again. I comprehended it completely the first time. MPC hasn't said anything about moving anything besides himself and his clothes. And to be honest one should always try to take as little with oneself when moving over great distances. It just isn't worth the trouble to take all your stuff with you. Start out light, it'll give you a much needed flexibility at the new place. I should know. I have moved many times long distances. (unfortunately I have to add)

actually, my point got lost somewhat. I was making the point that if he/she could not even afford one doctor visit to find out if they have diabetes (a bloodsugar test would be less than $20) when it concerned their health, how would they THEN afford to move to iceland? It was a question of relative cash flow, not making an indictment of how cheaply one can move....well, indirectly yes.

Besides, even if they traveled with the shirt on their back only,
and the airline flight was 300 dollars, there's the costs of applying for a work visa/change of citizenship, passport and attending paperwork, I assume he/she'd have to have SOME amount of capital once they got there, unless they were intending to live in a cardboard box. So, even if they found an apartment for 200 dollars a month, if iceland is like the US (I have not expertise so help me out here), I assume that first and last month's rent is customary, and then consider groceries to eat until you can find employment/secure welfare is at least 60 dollars a week if you starve yourself, and figure a rough estimate of waitin period before you find job/secure welfare would be at least two months.
Then there's utilities, transportation costs once there (taxis, buses, whatnot). You could arrive with no possessions, but you'd have to have access to some funds or you'd be in real trouble real fast. You're talking a fair chunk of change.

Just curious, how easy/hard is it for a non-national to instantly qualify for welfare in Iceland? What would the waiting period be like? What sort of qualifications would have to be met?

I"m also confused how funds can be found for ganja, but not a simple blood sugar test.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
you'd have to have access to some funds or you'd be in real trouble real fast. You're talking a fair chunk of change.

I think you are right. When I moved from the UK to the US when I was 21 I had about $1500 to my name. I also had citizenship, the language, and a sister's couch to sleep on for a couple of months - and still I damned near went bankrupt. It was really the army that saved me from the streets and it probably took the the best part of a decade to get reasonably established.

Moving from country to country is a lot harder than people think unless you have a lot of money and/or are prepared to work your butt off. It's not a lazy person's escape.

[typoon]

Originally posted by Logic:
Maybe he feels like people should get help from the government if they need help. Maybe he feels like the CEOs should not get this incredible salaries at the same time they are laying of people and putting the stabilities of families at risk. Maybe he feels like people should be able to live a "normal" life of the wages of only one job. Maybe he feels like health care should be free for all as it is human rights to get your wounds and illnessess cured. And what you are talking about isn't socialism. It is a responsible society where people are valued after their contribution to society and not their wealth and family ties.

But since I don't know him I can't state what he really wants and neither can you.

If they need help is fine. But from what it sounds like it is not what he wants.
Isn't the guise of socialism that everyone is equal, no one makes more than anyone else and everything is provided to you?

You are right I don't know him and can't state what he really wants. from reading his post it just sounded like he wants it all given to him.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by typoon:
If they need help is fine. But from what it sounds like it is not what he wants.
Isn't the guise of socialism that everyone is equal, no one makes more than anyone else and everything is provided to you?

You are right I don't know him and can't state what he really wants. from reading his post it just sounded like he wants it all given to him.

I heard him express anger over the fact that CEO's get bonuses at the same time employees get laid off. I'm not sure that constitutes an argument for equal pay for everyone. I think it's safe to say you're reading into it quite a bit.

And I'm not sure that wanting decent pay and health coverage (he is gainfully employed, afterall) constitutes wanting "it all given to him".

Perhaps MPC has some unrealistic ideas of fairness. Perhaps he doesn't see opportunities that would help him out of his predicament. Perhaps he's not careful with his modest earnings (pot ain't cheap) and some of his problems are of his own creation. Perhaps he's overly depressed and grossly overestimates the lack of social conscience in his fellow Americans. Perhaps.

But isn't it fairly safe to say that people here have really over-reacted to his comments?

[clod]

Originally posted by itai195:
BTW Air Canada declared bankruptcy yesterday

They filed for bankruptcy protection. The government will bail them out if they fold. It is Canada's only major airline. They bought out all the competition.

[typoon]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I heard him express anger over the fact that CEO's get bonuses at the same time employees get laid off. I'm not sure that constitutes an argument for equal pay for everyone. I think it's safe to say you're reading into it quite a bit.

And I'm not sure that wanting decent pay and health coverage (he is gainfully employed, afterall) constitutes wanting "it all given to him".

Perhaps MPC has some unrealistic ideas of fairness. Perhaps he doesn't see opportunities that would help him out of his predicament. Perhaps he's not careful with his modest earnings (pot ain't cheap) and some of his problems are of his own creation. Perhaps he's overly depressed and grossly overestimates the lack of social conscience in his fellow Americans. Perhaps.

But isn't it fairly safe to say that people here have really over-reacted to his comments?

I'll agree with you on this one.

[itai195]

Originally posted by clod:
They filed for bankruptcy protection. The government will bail them out if they fold. It is Canada's only major airline. They bought out all the competition.

I've actually flown Air Canada a lot and like that airline quite a bit. Hopefully they can pull out of it without government help, though. These bailouts are getting ridiculous, at this rate the government should just run the industry itself... that would be just as preposterous.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
But isn't it fairly safe to say that people here have really over-reacted to his comments?

yes, but my comment was originally just a pragmatic cash-flow question.

[theolein]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I thought this was a good post of solid advice and sound reasoning. Part of dispelling the "grass is always greener" mentality that I alluded to (even thought it might be greener depending on circumstances).

I take exception to the notion that almost 1/3 the country is uninsured and the fastest growing class in America is the working poor being a result of being "lazy" or "irresponsible". I think that is a bit dismissive of the very real barriers to "making it" in this country.

Most prosperous societies have tried to implement some form of Safety Net. It's considered a moral priority as well as being true to our principles of protecting opportunity for everyone. Some societies have gone much further on this ideal than others, for good or bad.

I think it's wise to dispell any erroneous notions of how good it is in Canada for those who are struggling in the US, but I don't think it's fair to suggest that the startling number of people in the US that are struggling is merely a function of personal failure.

This was a damn good post. I think often some Americans who have never lived in Europe have this idea that Europe is some kind of Communist hell, with Stalin's KGB patrolling the streets. I don't think that many know what life is really like here. The differences between living in America and elsewhere are smaller than one thinks. Most European countries provide free education and medical care (Switzerland doesn't, but if you're really down and out, your community will support you, by law) But even in Europe most of the big welfare sates are scaling back the systems because of the recession. But it is comforting to know that one won't starve if one can't find a job, something that is very possible in the economic mess we're in. I don't know how it's organised in the states, but I imagine there must be some sort of system to help those who have no job etc. The condition of the working poor is however a reality not only in the US. It's like that in most countries. Life has become tougher, and the phenomonen of CEO's cashing in millions while people lose their jobs is a worldwide thing. Claiming that the CEO's "earned" that money is perhaps as naive as thinking that one can live a life of ease and laziness in welfare systems. Most welfare systems have weekly checks on you to see what's happening with you (Got a job, looking for one etc) and CEO's of companies are not that different from Ken Lay or others like him. They're in it for the money, and it's rare that anything will ever really happen to them if they **** up.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Just curious, how easy/hard is it for a non-national to instantly qualify for welfare in Iceland? What would the waiting period be like? What sort of qualifications would have to be met?

To satisfy your curiosity, I'll tell you what I know about those things.

You can't possibly go on instant welfare once you are eligible to stay in Iceland. There are really only two ways to be allowed to stay: School is one and the other is work. See, to get permission to stay in Iceland (as a person of foreign nationality - i.e. outside of the Nordic countries) you have to have a work permission. The only way to get a work permission is to have your emplyer apply for one for you. So. Naturally you have to have a job here to have said employer apply for a work permission for you. :/

As for a waiting period... there isn't any official waiting period, just the time it takes to process your work application. Will definetely take a few weeks. Yup, immigration systems suck. Everywhere in the western world. But if you are determined, you can get permission.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by itai195:
I've actually flown Air Canada a lot and like that airline quite a bit. Hopefully they can pull out of it without government help, though. These bailouts are getting ridiculous, at this rate the government should just run the industry itself... that would be just as preposterous.

Air Canada was a run by the Canadian state untill 1989.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by MPC:
It's actually not easy. I have looked into Canada, Iceland, and New Zealand. You can't just land and get a job and apartment. If anyone can tell me how to do this i'll give you a nice bag of weed.

Go to Australia They absolutely LOVE americans

[undotwa]

A government should protect its citizens of all classes. It must support the disadvantaged. It must provide medical care for people who can not afford it. It must provide education to people who can not afford it. That doesn't make the country communistic, it just means it has implemented the better of the socialist policies.

There must be a mishmash of private and public corporations. The government must have some involvement in the regulation of industry, but must not control it. Doing so hinders productivity. The government must make sure it does not remove the sense of 'self responsibility' of each individual citizen. The government shall provide help, but the citizen must take some initiative to get him/herself out of the trap. There must be a fully independent of the executive judiciary power which has the final say of disputes with any citizen or body (including Government).

[itai195]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Air Canada was a run by the Canadian state untill 1989.

Well... ok... I'm generalizing... Damn you and your facts

[clod]

Originally posted by itai195:
I've actually flown Air Canada a lot and like that airline quite a bit. Hopefully they can pull out of it without government help, though. These bailouts are getting ridiculous, at this rate the government should just run the industry itself... that would be just as preposterous.

I hope they don't go bust. Can you imagine a country without a major airline (that controls pretty much all flights except for those small no frills airlines) and no suitable competition? The economy could collapse! Plus the fact that my mom works for them would be a minus.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by clod:
Plus <blah blah mum blah> would be a minus.

EEk!! This is a serious matter! Mathematicians everywhere must be worried like heck. A lot of responsiblity rests on the shoulders of Air Canada if plus would be a minus should they become bankrupt

[BasketofPuppies]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Of course, the Democratic National Committee (a wholly owned subsidary of the American Trial Lawyers Association) see it differently.

That's only half the problem. The RNC is a partnership of the drug manufacturers and insurance industry.

Seriously, we don't even have political parties in the United States. (Yes, there are Democrats and Republicans, but there aren't parties in the same way that there are political parties in the rest of the world.) And if the people who always complain that they only have two parties to choose from would vote in the primaries, they wouldn't have much to complain about.

[3gg3]

Originally posted by Adam Betts:
MPC, the problem is YOUR, not America. You seem to be an anger and miserable guy. Perhaps you should go see a counselor.

Blaming all of it on America is silly, really.
..snip...

MPC in Oregon, meet Monique in Alberta. Monique in Alberta, meet MPC in Oregon.
Wanna house-swap?

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by 3gg3:
MPC in Oregon, meet Monique in Alberta. Monique in Alberta, meet MPC in Oregon.
Wanna house-swap?

[typoon]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Try not to resort to useless blanket statements. It sounds more like indoctrination than thoughtful critique.

Socialism includes things like Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and public education.

I don't want to derail this into the the relative merits of socialist democracies or whatever, I'm just taking exception to your dismissal of all forms of public mindedness.

Clark makes a very good point about the different attitudes concerning the idea of a Safety Net between the US and Canada. I doubt you would be so cavalier as to suggest that a Safety Net is not needed at all since that would also include things like public assistance for victims of natural disasters.

We can talk about what common interests we all share enough to include in the Safety Net, but I think it's dishonest to suggest that anyone who thinks healthcare should be included is more "lazy" or "irresponsible" than someone who thinks it's more important to subsidize airlines or Farmers or have the most dazzling array of "smart bombs" known to man. It's a question of priorities and interests.

i'm not saying that public assistance shouldn't be given to those who need it but from what I have seen most people on public assistance had abused the system. Many states reformed welfare and changed it to Workfare. Which is fine. They are working for those benefits. I don't think healthcare should be included but it desperately NEEDS to be reformed in the US so that everyone can afford it. Would you agree with this? If Healthcare in the US was made more affordable then there would be no need for the government to subsidize this and therefore it would free up money to be put elsewhere to help people who need it.

[fxbezak]

Originally posted by typoon:
i'm not saying that public assistance shouldn't be given to those who need it but from what I have seen most people on public assistance had abused the system. Many states reformed welfare and changed it to Workfare. Which is fine. They are working for those benefits. I don't think healthcare should be included but it desperately NEEDS to be reformed in the US so that everyone can afford it. Would you agree with this? If Healthcare in the US was made more affordable then there would be no need for the government to subsidize this and therefore it would free up money to be put elsewhere to help people who need it.

I think the ENTIRE public assistance program needs to be reworked as well. There are definitly people who need it but when I got to A&P and see some guy with a huge ham, a carton of cigerettes and crest white strips... paying with his EBT card.. it makes me wonder why I even pay taxes...
I think Hagar The Horrible had it right.. when the tax came to his door, he was always holding an axe.

Personally I would like to see welfare disappear for immigrants and naturalized citiczens, and also people whith no job in a 2 year period. Im mean ...McDonalds is always lookin to hire, go apply...

Also: word to democrats....
If lets say there is a war on... and a bill is brought to you in congress or the senate for say spedning 80bil in costs..keep your stupid parks and programs out of my bill. We are conquering a regime here, not supplying healthcare or some idiotic program you dreamed up in some back room.

[theolein]

Originally posted by clod:
I hope they don't go bust. Can you imagine a country without a major airline (that controls pretty much all flights except for those small no frills airlines) and no suitable competition? The economy could collapse! Plus the fact that my mom works for them would be a minus.

Happened to Switzerland last year. Swissair, the national carrier, privatized in the 80's, went bankrupt after trying to buy out half the other airlines in the region. Huge fukking drama here last year.

Now there's a new one called "Swiss". And they're already losing money.

Welcome to the globalisation of the world's economy, where you can be a millionaire and a pauper in the same day.

[theolein]

Originally posted by fxbezak:
I think the ENTIRE public assistance program needs to be reworked as well. There are definitly people who need it but when I got to A&P and see some guy with a huge ham, a carton of cigerettes and crest white strips... paying with his EBT card.. it makes me wonder why I even pay taxes...
I think Hagar The Horrible had it right.. when the tax came to his door, he was always holding an axe.

Personally I would like to see welfare disappear for immigrants and naturalized citiczens, and also people whith no job in a 2 year period. Im mean ...McDonalds is always lookin to hire, go apply...

Also: word to democrats....
If lets say there is a war on... and a bill is brought to you in congress or the senate for say spedning 80bil in costs..keep your stupid parks and programs out of my bill. We are conquering a regime here, not supplying healthcare or some idiotic program you dreamed up in some back room.

You know what is so funny? You get people here in Europe saying almost the exact same thing, that the welfare system is being abused. And it is. Quite a few people abuse it.

But not all.

I get a laugh though when I see a news piece on TV about some upper management guy who has been laid off (there's a lot of them at the moment) for the first time in his life. These guys are so confused and helpless it's hysterical. Their whole world has been turned upside down, and no one wants to give them a job because they can't actually do anything. They don't have skills apart from sitting in offices and ordering people around. And it's them who take the fall for the faults of the CEO's etc who have millions in bonuses etc.

[typoon]

Originally posted by theolein:
You know what is so funny? You get people here in Europe saying almost the exact same thing, that the welfare system is being abused. And it is. Quite a few people abuse it.

But not all.

I get a laugh though when I see a news piece on TV about some upper management guy who has been laid off (there's a lot of them at the moment) for the first time in his life. These guys are so confused and helpless it's hysterical. Their whole world has been turned upside down, and no one wants to give them a job because they can't actually do anything. They don't have skills apart from sitting in offices and ordering people around. And it's them who take the fall for the faults of the CEO's etc who have millions in bonuses etc.

I actually agree with you on this. It is kind of funny seeing upper management guys get fired and they not know what to do because they are either too qualified for a certain job, won't take another because they feel it is "below" them or because they have no other skills.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by typoon:
I actually agree with you on this. It is kind of funny seeing upper management guys get fired and they not know what to do because they are either too qualified for a certain job, won't take another because they feel it is "below" them or because they have no other skills.

There is another aspect, and that is age discrimination. You might not find this so amusing when you are 55.

[theolein]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
There is another aspect, and that is age discrimination. You might not find this so amusing when you are 55.

Hey, McDonalds is hiring!

On the serious side, I know very well, sadly, what it is like to be unemployed for long periods of time. And I'm also not that young any more. (39) This is why I think my days here in Europe are numbered and why I should go back to SA and start up a restaurant.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by theolein:
Hey, McDonalds is hiring!

On the serious side, I know very well, sadly, what it is like to be unemployed for long periods of time. And I'm also not that young any more. (39) This is why I think my days here in Europe are numbered and why I should go back to SA and start up a restaurant.

I like SA actually. Capetown, or Kapstadt, is a sensational place. The wine is good, the cooking sensational.

Beats Switzerland, nowadays. IMO.

[typoon]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
There is another aspect, and that is age discrimination. You might not find this so amusing when you are 55.

Yes but not everyone in upper management is 55.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by typoon:
i'm not saying that public assistance shouldn't be given to those who need it but from what I have seen most people on public assistance had abused the system. Many states reformed welfare and changed it to Workfare. Which is fine. They are working for those benefits. I don't think healthcare should be included but it desperately NEEDS to be reformed in the US so that everyone can afford it. Would you agree with this? If Healthcare in the US was made more affordable then there would be no need for the government to subsidize this and therefore it would free up money to be put elsewhere to help people who need it.

Well, I hardly think you've seen "most" people on public assistance so it's hard for me to take you seriously when you say "most" are abusing it.

Obviously there are cases of abuse, but I find it hard to think that "most" is an accurrate assessment.

I think we should be cautious to embrace "workfare" as presented in recent years. Clinton and Bush are both guilty of simply dumping people into the working poor (who then must neglect their children) and claiming that they've done something positive. What's worse? A woman who stays at home on the Dole with her kids? Or a woman forced to work for minimum wage while her kids fend for themselves or end up being raised by a grandparent or stranger? It's great to put people to work, but not if it means their kids suffer worse because of it.

Politically the only stat anyone talks about is unemployment, but underemployement is much bigger problem. People who only get enough hours to stay poor and get no benefits. It's a HUGE problem by many estimates and it's growing. There are even places like the central valley in California where they have 100% employment but everyone is still below the poverty line.

Child care and job training would do more than just about anything else we could offer as welfare, IMO.

As for healthcare, I think it's entirely doable but I probably wouldn't advocate it until there are very serious reforms to our budget priorities. I'd probably consider education a higher budget priority than universal healthcare since they have to compete for the same tiny slice of the pie.

I will say, however, that it strikes me as ridiculous that the richest country in the world can't find a way to fund education and healthcare with total ease. I think our current budget priorities border on criminal.

[clarkgoble]

"Simey the Limey" There is another aspect, and that is age discrimination. You might not find this so amusing when you are 55.

This is true. However there are actually many ways to avoid these problems. One thing is that people tend not to continue to improve their education. A lot of people expect that they ought to be able to hold a job and then coast in security. Certainly that was both the dream and the expectation from the 1950's through 1960's. Beginning in the 1970's that dream started collapsing. Anyone believing it today is being naive.

If you continue to update your education and skills then you can succeed, no matter what your age. Further one major trend (at least in the States) the past few years has been outsourcing, contracting and so forth. If you are let go but have been networking while in your job you may be able to start up your own business. A lot of people have been quite successful in this. I did it.

Starting your own business radically changes how you view business. The view you had when you were a worker is typically very wrong. You also work a lot harder, have (at least initially) a lot more stress. However you also in many ways can roll with the punches more. It is very rewarding.

I saw several documentaries about how many older Americans in high tech were doing this and being fairly successful at it.

Also you should ideally already have a fair degree of savings by the time you are 55 if you have been responsible in managing your funds. (I just turned 35 and realized I'd been anything but - I have next to no savings. But I'm trying to remedy that)

[MPC]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Moving from country to country is a lot harder than people think unless you have a lot of money and/or are prepared to work your butt off. It's not a lazy person's escape.

Bingo, you nailed what I was trying to say. This "Love it or leave it" mentality isn't right. It's not easy to move to a new country.

I took the long way around

[clarkgoble]

MPC: It's not easy to move to a new country.

It really depends upon what country you are speaking of. I rather suspect moving from Portugal to Spain isn't as big a deal as you make out. Likewise moving from Canada to the US or vice versa is a no brainer. The only trick is getting the work visa. But if you are even remotely skilled that typically isn't a big deal.

Now if you *are* only working entry level jobs and have few skills that the other country wants, you'll definitely have a harder time.

But overall moving to Canada is not worse than moving to New York City. (Probably easier in many ways, speaking as one who nearly did move to NYC)

[typoon]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Well, I hardly think you've seen "most" people on public assistance so it's hard for me to take you seriously when you say "most" are abusing it.

Obviously there are cases of abuse, but I find it hard to think that "most" is an accurrate assessment.

I think we should be cautious to embrace "workfare" as presented in recent years. Clinton and Bush are both guilty of simply dumping people into the working poor (who then must neglect their children) and claiming that they've done something positive. What's worse? A woman who stays at home on the Dole with her kids? Or a woman forced to work for minimum wage while her kids fend for themselves or end up being raised by a grandparent or stranger? It's great to put people to work, but not if it means their kids suffer worse because of it.

Politically the only stat anyone talks about is unemployment, but underemployement is much bigger problem. People who only get enough hours to stay poor and get no benefits. It's a HUGE problem by many estimates and it's growing. There are even places like the central valley in California where they have 100% employment but everyone is still below the poverty line.

Child care and job training would do more than just about anything else we could offer as welfare, IMO.

As for healthcare, I think it's entirely doable but I probably wouldn't advocate it until there are very serious reforms to our budget priorities. I'd probably consider education a higher budget priority than universal healthcare since they have to compete for the same tiny slice of the pie.

I will say, however, that it strikes me as ridiculous that the richest country in the world can't find a way to fund education and healthcare with total ease. I think our current budget priorities border on criminal.

You make some valid points. My only disagreements are this.
First You say "What's worse? A woman who stays at home on the Dole with her kids? Or a woman forced to work for minimum wage while her kids fend for themselves or end up being raised by a grandparent or stranger? It's great to put people to work, but not if it means their kids suffer worse because of it."

I would say that normal parents who make a lot of money are doing the same thing Leaving there kids with GrandParents, friends or strangers. Should these people not work as well becuase it would mean that there kids would suffer worse because of it? What would you tell single middle class parents? Should the not work and live on welfare because it would do harm to leave there kids with someone?

Second I think we need to reform education and healthcare, We are spending a lot on education already but kids are not learning anything. Some kids can't name there state capitol or even who there governor is or who the President is. When we start teaching our kids "creative math" there is something wrong with our education system and it NEEDS to be reformed. Throwing more money at it isn't the answer.
I'm all for making healthcare more affordable for everyone so that no one goes without. one thing that will lower the costs is something that Bush proposed and what the Doctors walked off the job for a few days for. Malpractice reforms. Right now from what I understand you can sue a doctor for everything he has for malpractice, with that it increases in malpractice insurance for all doctors and has made some doctors stop doing certain proceedures that they used to or stop practicing medicine all together. That is something that NEEDS to be reformed.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
"Simey the Limey" There is another aspect, and that is age discrimination. You might not find this so amusing when you are 55.

This is true. However there are actually many ways to avoid these problems. One thing is that people tend not to continue to improve their education.

Not to disagree with you too much, but this only works up to a point. I have exerience of this with my father. He was an executive in various corporations or subsidiaries of corporations in the UK (e.g. Control Data). At a certain point when he was in his mid 50s, one of those corporations (not CD) laid him off. He never worked again and ended up (in effect) taking an early retirement.

The problem wasn't becuase he was underqualified. It also wasn't really because he was overqualified. It was simply because of his age. At that point in his career, he was earning at his peak. A simple way to economize is to dump the old guy, and hire someone younger.

At the same time, another firm doesn't want to pay the same high salary for him. But they won't hire him for a lower salary because that would put downward pressure on their current executives pay scale. Pay parity is a real thing and people make sure that no peer of theirs gets paid less than the going rate when it means there is a chance that they could be next out the door. So again, the solution is to not hire the old guy, but to hire a younger worker who makes less.

Nor could he get a job at a lesser seniority level. Younger, less senior managers do not want an employee who is older and more senior than them. It's intimidating. So again, it is easier to not hire the "overqualified" older person.

My father isn't the only person I have seen this sort of thing happen to. It's a lot more common than people think.