All financial institutions to be run by the federal government.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

HappySqurriel said:

Avinash_Tyagi said:

HappySqurriel said:

The problem with "Helping" the poor in the way the government tends to do it is that it tends to translate into the poor being worse off in the long run ... The classic example of this is that welfare receipients tend to need "Help" because they lack education and experience to get a decent job, and yet most wellfare systems around the world prevent people from building experience or getting an education, and the longer they're on welfare the more dependant on welfare they become.

Another problem is how unfair the "Help" becomes ... I know a woman who recently found out that there are drug addicts which long criminal records who have been given a much better appartment than she has that is fully furnished, and she has a university education and works 2 jobs to pay her bills.

The same problems exist with corporate welfare also ... Canada's government is forced to bailout Air Canada every year because people constantly claim that Canada needs its own large national airline; except there are smaller airlines which are run better who could be more successful at being a National Airline than Air Canada is, but they can't grow quickly in these ventures because every time Air Canada runs into trouble the government bails them out. Therefore the airline industry is worse off for bailing out airliners to protect the industry ...

To see unfairness all you have to do is look at the handling of automobile companies by the current presidential administration ... Large banks and pension funds buy bonds because they're secured debt and they have rights to the assets of the company before all other debt holders which makes them very safe investments. The Obama administration arbitrarily changed the rules to benefit the autoworkers unions. People who "Did the right thing" and saved their money in lower return safe investments are having their money taken away from them so that a union, who's unfunded liabilities and insane wages lead to the destruction of the company they work for, can benefit.

I don't think they are worse off Squirrel, if you look at the poverty levels of various "Welfare state" nations, they have lower poverty than the US

I think you missed what I was saying ...

As people get older they tend to get better paying jobs with more responsibility, and by the time someone is in their late 20's/early 30s they generally don't have problems making a living. Most people do struggle, and live in undesireable conditions (share house with 4 people) until they reach this point but they get there anyways. Giving someone welfare to give them the ability to make a living without working results in these people not working, and when they hit their 30s and 40s they still can't make a living because they still lack the education and experience; at the same time, most of their peers who did the really crappy jobs through their 20s will be financially better off than they are for being on welfare.

You also keep mentioning "Welfare States" without considering that other factors may be influencing the statistics ...

Most European "Welfare States" have had a much lower birthrate for awhile, which has resulted in a much older workforce, and when you double the number of workers above the age of 35 at the expense of workers under 35 you will have a dramatically better poverty rate.

Lets take France, yes they do have a slightly older population than the US does, but not that much more, median age in France is 39, in US its 36.7, the reason is that they have been offsetting much of the decline in fertitlity rates with immigration, not to mention in the last year fertitlity rates in France have shot up, with birth rates in Metropolitant france at 2 children for every woman.  Not to wntion having an older population, with longer life expectancies. means that you have to pay out more old age benefits.