Australia is "ridden" with welfare and we're doing just fine economically, thanks.
We also get to walk around our cities without constant fear of violent robbery by the extreme poor. Nice huh?
We also get to walk around our cities without constant fear of violent robbery by the extreme poor. Nice huh?
ANd thanks for the cliche that poor = robber/criminal, I am sure many honest poor people appreciate your point of view.
"Canada’s federal debt grew steadily between 5% and 10% per year until 1975. For the next 12 years it grew on average over 20% per year. It surpassed $100 billion in 1981, $200 billion in 1985, $300 billion in 1988, $400 billion in 1992, and $500 billion in 1994. It peaked at $563 billion in 1997. The debt then declined to $458 billion by 2008. With the recession, the federal debt grew by $5.8 billion in 2008-09 and is expected to grow by $55.9 billion in 2009-10. November 2012 Canadian debt surpassed the $600 billion mark"
Canada certainly look like Maple Red in this map of worldwide public debt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dette_publique2011.jpg
You better check your sources before commenting. Or maybe you are one of those to think that federal debt is not an issue and that you never need to pay it back. You are in for a big surprise.
How about Mother Theresa? How about the Red Cross? About about the religious associations who live on donations only?
In your little world everything comes from the government, as well as your ideology it seems.
And your argument that charities and government-funded welfare are mutually exclusive is just plain bizarre. In any case, let us know how Somalia works out for you.
I suspect we may well share some sentiments, but you're coming off as needlessly argumentative. Yeah, sometimes I do too :p
The quality of care offered to terminally ill patients in the Homes for the Dying has been criticised in the medical press. The Lancet and the British Medical Journal reported the reuse of hypodermic needles, poor living conditions, including the use of cold baths for all patients, and an approach to illness and suffering that precluded the use of many elements of modern medical care, such as systematic diagnosis. Dr. Robin Fox, editor of The Lancet, described the medical care as "haphazard", as volunteers without medical knowledge had to make decisions about patient care, because of the lack of doctors. He observed that her order did not distinguish between curable and incurable patients, so that people who could otherwise survive would be at risk of dying from infections and lack of treatment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa)
As a Canadian, I think I strongly prefer our government-provided healthcare to the Mother Theresa version.
Parent was pointing out that a reasonable government welfare program does a lot less to foster resentment than a free market "fend for yourself" approach.
> I am sure many honest poor people appreciate your point of view.
Honest people still have to eat. Poor people don't (usually) choose to be poor, and if you force them into a corner with no other alternative, they will either
a) Die
or
b) Resort to crime or some other undesirable activity to prevent themselves from dying.