Interesting view on Greece

[HiEquity]

JC, the Greens party believe all cultures are equal....and that Australia can only be enriched by being multicultural.

Hi WW

I agree with you up to a point. However, IME the vast majority of immigrants from southern Europe (I know an awful lot of them...) and indeed elsewhere are entrepreneurial types looking for a better life and were essentially escaping the cultures you refer to when given the opportunity through our migration programs at the time.

If they were happy with the culture then they would have stayed - it takes an awful lot of "get up and go" to leave behind your whole family and way of life in search of something better for your kids in a new country with a different language. Most just fit in and take the good with the bad in their home country. This is evidenced by the vast number of old Greek and Italian landlords around the place - growing up with nothing but insecurity tends to make one hardworking, industrious and keen to invest for the future when all you can see around you are lazy Aussies who have no idea how lucky they are. The opportunity to purchase land in any form is pounced upon as a result.

So, to the extent that we tend to get some of the most entrepreneurial and industrious people from those countries, the Greens may have a point...

I guess it also depends on whether you feel their home country would be a better place for their talents but leaving an entrepreneur in a communist State doesn't make anyone happy unfortunately...

Not that I think we should increase immigration but the Greens policy of increasing our humanitarian intake and (by default although it's not explicit in their policy docs) decreasing our skilled etc migrant intake may yet have some merit...

 

[WinstonWolfe]

However, IME the vast majority of immigrants from southern Europe (I know an awful lot of them...) and indeed elsewhere are entrepreneurial types looking for a better life and were essentially escaping the cultures you refer to when given the opportunity through our migration programs at the time.

I implied that earlier HE. I have a lot of Greek and Italian friends who created their own super well before super was compulsory, by building blocks of flats, RIPs, and CIPs. However, cultures have changed right around the world, as have younger generations. I regularly meet first gen migrants who know more about welfare entitlements than I do, and are quick to use them.


So, to the extent that we tend to get some of the most entrepreneurial and industrious people from those countries, the Greens may have a point...

I guess it also depends on whether you feel their home country would be a better place for their talents but leaving an entrepreneur in a communist State doesn't make anyone happy unfortunately...

Not that I think we should increase immigration but the Greens policy of increasing our humanitarian intake and (by default although it's not explicit in their policy docs) decreasing our skilled etc migrant intake may yet have some merit...

See my previous post which raises why Australia needs to think about how many humanitarian migrants it can afford. In particular, the Access Economics model should be compulsory reading for anyone with strong views about humanitarian migrant intake.....as should a better understanding of why Australia runs a current account deficit and has ever higher net foreign debt. In its current state, Australia has to sell assets to foreigners, then borrow back the profits they make, to fund the instantaneous lifestyle improvement of humanitarian migrants.

Further, if a nation's educated elite choose to emigrate, rather than take a stand against repressive rogues, then their homeland is left impoverished. Iraqi and Irani doctors and professionals emigrating at the invitation of Australia leave their countrymen wanting. Where's the will and pride of a country's educated to stand up and defend their homeland, and help bring about the democracy they value?

Ultimately, Australia cannot take in all of the repressed of the world. What do the Greens do about humanitarian migrants and showing compassion when they determine Australia is full? Because as sure as you and I are alive, the third world will be churning out poor and repressed people in 50, 100, 200 years time.

Further, I have an issue with the Greens stance that kids born in Australia don't enrich the nation as much as migrants. If they think that, then they are saying there's something inferior or broken about Australian culture. If so, they need to get about stating that, determining why it is, and coming up with policies that prevent or fix it.

 

[HiEquity]

In its current state, Australia has to sell assets to foreigners, then borrow back the profits they make, to fund the instantaneous lifestyle improvement of humanitarian migrants.

That's more a reflection of our current balance of payments and financial system than it is a reflection of the cost of providing a safe haven for genuine refugees. We can fix the former and easily accomodate the latter if we chose to prioritise that end.

Further, if a nation's educated elite choose to emigrate, rather than take a stand against repressive rogues, then their homeland is left impoverished. Iraqi and Irani doctors and professionals emigrating at the invitation of Australia leave their countrymen wanting. Where's the will and pride of a country's educated to stand up and defend their homeland, and help bring about the democracy they value?

Interesting argument but I thought we were discussing genuine refugees instead of migrants? Leaving someone in their home country to be shot doesn't strike me as helping their homeland very much. Might be a comfort to be shot while "taking a stand" I guess...

Because as sure as you and I are alive, the third world will be churning out poor and repressed people in 50, 100, 200 years time.

Poor people don't qualify as refugees.

As to the repressed, my view is we should do what we can afford to and we should take a reasonable proportion in concert with other countries, both of which are an awful lot more than we currently take. If we're worried about population growth as a result then I believe we are jumping at shadows but the solution in any case is simply to reduce skilled and other forms of "standard" migration, who swamp genuine refugees 50 to 1 at the moment.

 

[WinstonWolfe]

That's more a reflection of our current balance of payments and financial system than it is a reflection of the cost of providing a safe haven for genuine refugees.

You must believe Greece's debt solution is to take in more 45yo unskilled non english speaking Muslim refugees, and give them free health care and generous pensions at 55.

Interesting argument but I thought we were discussing genuine refugees instead of migrants? Leaving someone in their home country to be shot doesn't strike me as helping their homeland very much. Might be a comfort to be shot while "taking a stand" I guess...

The educated could take a leaf out of history and procure weapons to counter the oppressors. That's how democracies come about, by an act of strong will. Though suppose it is easier to seek refugee status, then, from a comfy armchair in front of a plasma tele, demonize American and Australian soldiers as they are mutilated trying to do what educated refugees wouldn't. But then I guess fighting for freedom is so passe these days.

Probably would have been more civil when Japan invaded Australia for all of us to just high tail it out of here as refugees bound for....Tahiti looks nice.....or the good ol USA.

Poor people don't qualify as refugees.

Only wealthy people from poor countries.....who can afford to pay the ferryman after paying their way in Indonesia for 2 years waiting for Labor to get into power.

As to the repressed, my view is we should do what we can afford to and we should take a reasonable proportion in concert with other countries, both of which are an awful lot more than we currently take. If we're worried about population growth as a result then I believe we are jumping at shadows but the solution in any case is simply to reduce skilled and other forms of "standard" migration, who swamp genuine refugees 50 to 1 at the moment.

So HE, let me get this straight. You want to increase the number of unskilled workers coming into Australia, and decrease the number of skilled, which I presume includes engineers? Sounds like you are motivated by self interest trying to protect your job and income....and caring little about Australia's already burgeoning and underemployed unskilled workforce.

 

[HiEquity]

So HE, let me get this straight. You want to increase the number of unskilled workers coming into Australia, and decrease the number of skilled, which I presume includes engineers? Sounds like you are motivated by self interest trying to protect your job and income....and caring little about Australia's already burgeoning and underemployed unskilled workforce.

Hi WW

Engineering in Australia is a hiding to nothing right now. We are the most expensive place on the planet to do engineering and most of it can be done anywhere. Until the dollar weakens we shall see more and more engineering work head overseas. Many companies are only just starting to wake up to this though...

As to the unskilled workforce, it's certainly not underemployed in the North West of WA... or many other places. Under employment is a regional issue, not a national one. And we do have an excellent framework for upskilling people into trades if we chose to use it.

Regarding the rest of your post, I'd be happy for you to be the one to look them in the eye and send people back to their death...

 

[jaycee]

And it sound like your just looking to ridicule anyone and anything Winston

Wow, you think your opinion oins better than HE's -that proves it

 

[WinstonWolfe]

Regarding the rest of your post, I'd be happy for you to be the one to look them in the eye and send people back to their death...

HE, I suppose out of all good conscience, you couldn't vote Labor, as they froze asylum appns from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan in April, before the UN changed the status of those two countries.

And would you be prepared to look them in the eyes before they embarked in a shabby boat on a perilous and often fatal sea voyage....when they could just get in the queue with all the others who's lives are threatened?

Would you find it easier to look into the eyes of an Aussie digger's parents and tell them their son just died trying to liberate Afghanistan? Maybe diggers should just all come home....stop fighting for nothing....and instead, we invite all non Taliban Afghanis to come live here. The money saved on the military could then be spent on English lessons for humanitarian refugees and the 20 year net deficit each of them create.

JC, I've put you on ignore yet again.

 

[HiEquity]

Hi WW

I'm not quite sure of your logic here. If we are talking Afghanistan then I support the deployment there of professional troops from around the world who are engaged in a long and arduous process to bring freedom to an oppressed people - although IMO the implementation leaves a lot to be desired in the form of Mr Karzai. The number of refugees coming from Afghanistan can drop right off as they are now able to live in their own country. So to me Afghanistan represents an "ideal" solution (if such a word could be used in these situations) to the refugee issue - stopping the problem at the source.

I would like to think that those families whose loved ones voluntarily enrol in professional military service in Australia and pay the ultimate sacrifice while liberating an oppressed people would take some comfort in the fact that their sacrifice serves more purpose to humanity than any other (that I can think of at least).

For those where capable international support is not forthcoming to intervene in their oppression and murder, then I believe the quid pro quo is we should be willing to accept our fair share of an international problem. To not intervene and not offer asylum falls under the category of "good people doing nothing" and IMO is morally bankrupt - we can't just wash our hands of it all as if we don't know so that makes it OK.

As for the leaky boats, we don't need to wait for the refugees to arrive on our shores before assessing their claims... we have assimilated genuine refugees from many countries (I'm friends with a few from Poland for example) without them having to arrive by boat. The boats are as much our choice as anyone else's...

 

[Piston Broke]

Until now I didn't believe this was possible but I'm in Greece atm and I can now picture it clearly.
With all their strikes I see a somewhat spoiled society who want things for themselves and have little regard for the rights of others.

Those wouldn't care less if I was inconvenienced or was stuck at an airport or run out of fuel on a motorway.
Its a pity really....

I can see a picture of clear ignorance in regards to Greece and the whole southern EU and the problems & causes it's faced in the last few hundred yrs.
Which of course of course you have no clue nor could care less either.
Nor do most Australians care about what happens within their shores as the "everyman for himself" and "don't trust your neighbour" (unless they go to the same church) culture of fear increasingly takes hold.

If so, why do the PIIGS need propping up by France and Germany? Why do Germans resent having to finance the softer lifestyle of Greeks?

The problem has always been political, the most recent being events after WWII, where even being on the allies side Greece got screwed for political reasons, together with the others.

Culture isn't just a language, songs and dirt JC. It is the whole mindset of a people, the government they elect, their approach to eeducation, production and consumption, debt and savings, law and order, the respect and care they show for each other, their resourcefulness in looking after themselves rather than expecting a government to do everything for them, and then not paying taxes via a pervasive black market.

All of which comes from the southern EU populations and their rebellions against the aristrocies that ruled them.
And yep, it was those socialists who created the democratic (and capitalistic) world we live in today.
It was'nt the US that invented "The Republic" with a senate etc.
There's a pretty rich culture there in those PIIGS that pretty much invented the modern version all those concepts you speak of.

Unlike Australia & UK who has an unelected queen (illegitimate by Heraldry rules) as head of state. And her country has an unelected house of lords.

 

[WinstonWolfe]

Hi WW

I'm not quite sure of your logic here. If we are talking Afghanistan then I support the deployment there of professional troops from around the world who are engaged in a long and arduous process to bring freedom to an oppressed people - although IMO the implementation leaves a lot to be desired in the form of Mr Karzai.

So only professional troops should be expected to fight a non professional enemy like the Taliban? Were the Anzacs professional troops? If Australia was invaded, would you defend it, or claim you are not a professional soldier?

So it isn't fair to expect a country to defend itself against aggressors. They should just all hightail it out as asylum seekers, apart from the poor buggers who are professional troops.

Isn't the solution to train Afghanis to be professional troops HE, including the Afghan asylum seekers?

The number of refugees coming from Afghanistan can drop right off as they are now able to live in their own country.

So what happens to Afghani asylum seekers granted asylum HE? Do we tell them to go home now cos it is safe? Or do we say hang around? What do we do if there's conflict in another country and they want asylum in AUstralia? Do we send the Afghanis home and bring in the others, or just keep taking a steady stream in, until we're full, by the Greens definition.

And what happens to asylum seekers after we're full? Do we just look boat people in the eyes and say go home knowing they will die? Why should you condemn your grandchildren to that decision, when you can't face it yourself?

So to me Afghanistan represents an "ideal" solution (if such a word could be used in these situations) to the refugee issue - stopping the problem at the source.

By your logic, how many ADF casualities should we suffer to liberate Afghanistan HE? Is 10,000 deaths and 50,000 total and permanent incapacitations too many? WHat happens when civilians start getting slaughtered in Sudan or Nigeria again? How many ADF troops should we lose there? How many should we have lost in Bosnia Herzegovina? I ask these questions HE, because your logic is that as Australia is wealthier, we are morally responsible for sorting out conflict and poverty in the rest of the world. I don't follow that. Isn't that the kind of thinking that turned Muslims against the USA? The US always feeling its moral compass was superior to others. Now you want Australia to do the same.

I would like to think that those families whose loved ones voluntarily enrol in professional military service in Australia and pay the ultimate sacrifice while liberating an oppressed people would take some comfort in the fact that their sacrifice serves more purpose to humanity than any other (that I can think of at least).

Yes, it most likely is, apart from some guy in a lab who comes up with a cure for diabetes or paraplegia......So what do you think about the govt cutting back pension payments and health services to honorably discharged ADF personnel after years of being shot at in the most hostile of environments? No work place health and safety protection for our diggers HE. Why has the govt cut those payments?

Maybe you could get in touch with your local federal member and enlighten him/her about your plan to straighten out Australia's BOP and pay our diggers fairly for sacrificing their mental and physical health.

For those where capable international support is not forthcoming to intervene in their oppression and murder, then I believe the quid pro quo is we should be willing to accept our fair share of an international problem. To not intervene and not offer asylum falls under the category of "good people doing nothing" and IMO is morally bankrupt - we can't just wash our hands of it all as if we don't know so that makes it OK.

Once again HE, how many Aussie diggers do we sacrifice in straightening out the hell realms of the world? Africa and the Middle East were basket cases 60 years ago. WOuld you suggest we keep sending troops over there decade after decade? WOuld you go? or send your kids? when Obama pulls American troops out of Afghanistan next year and the Taliban take over, does that make Obama a morally bankrupt guy who 'does nothing'?

And if we expect our lads to do something to help another country, is it too big an ask to expect the locals to do something too? apart from run away to Australia while our boys are having their legs blown off?

As for the leaky boats, we don't need to wait for the refugees to arrive on our shores before assessing their claims... we have assimilated genuine refugees from many countries (I'm friends with a few from Poland for example) without them having to arrive by boat. The boats are as much our choice as anyone else's...

Did these Polish refugees come to Australia after we exported manufacturing jobs to Asia and heavily automated farming, or before?

Considering you have no cap on how many asylum seekers Australia should accept HE, what contribution do you think 500,000 unskilled non english speaking 45 year old humanitarian migrants can make to AUstralia? Which jobs do you think they might do?

How about we train them for jobs in the Australian Defence Forces and send them back to kill two birds with one stone? they get paid employment for a bit, and they get to be true humanitarians by freeing their homeland from repressive tyrants and giving their countrymen a better life.

And BTW, why is Australia in Afghanistan and not in Zimbabwe?

 

[jaycee]

And BTW, why is Australia in Afghanistan and not in Zimbabwe?

Because the US never told us to go to Zimbabwe is my take on it

 

[Piston Broke]

And BTW, why is Australia in Afghanistan and not in Zimbabwe?
[/COLOR]

The same reason the PIIGS are pigs.

 

[HiEquity]

Hi WW

For brevity:

- No-one is talking about invasions. I don't believe innocent civilians who have been targeted by their own regime and are about to be killed should be expected to somehow overthrow their own country by themselves.
- Nations on the other hand should do whatever it takes to act in their own self defence. The refugees don't come until after the war has been lost and they no longer have a home in their own country – probably because they were good at fighting in the first place.
- There aren't any genuine Afghan asylum seekers / refugees anymore – you said as much yourself.
- To me, granting asylum is a final act that allows someone to begin a new life.
- I have already made the point that we can increase our refugee intake by an order of magnitude and more and still reduce our total migrant intake if we want to. Please refrain from linking refugees to population growth or any concept of being “full”. At 3000 per year we are a very long way from that, unless we keep increasing “non refugee” migration.
- I don't believe we will ever become “full” anyway – the tendency for the birth rate to drop with increasing wealth will see to that.
- I haven't done enough research to give you a number for ADF casualties etc but for me it would be a lot more than the number we are currently dealing with.
- I don't believe Australia has a moral obligation to assist in isolation from the rest of the world. I believe our obligation extends to sharing our part of those humanitarian endeavours that are taken on among a number of developed and developing countries.
- I have no idea about Veteran's policies – it's not a policy area I follow in any detail.
- I do believe there should be a cap on our refugee intake far above the current cap, which would only bring us somewhere into line with what most other developed nations are doing.
- As for why not Zimbabwe, because no-one else is, in particular the USA. I'm glad we helped out East Timor though...

 

[Intrinsic_Value]

Guys just a suggestion,
keep things tactful, Australia is such a multicultural society (which in my opinion makes it such a great country).

These sought of topics need to be touched upon in a sensitive and open minded approach by all people.

Its funny because there are very very very few Australians going back several generations, most of us are immigratants or children on 1st or 2nd generation immigrants.

Now we are all pround of our heritage, we feel our cultural background makes us 'special', this is normal.
However herein lies the key, how many of us WANT to return to our country of origin. Maybe the key is that we are more AUSTRALIAN than we want to admit.

 

[BV]

I can see a picture of clear ignorance in regards to Greece and the whole southern EU and the problems & causes it's faced in the last few hundred yrs

I wouldn't have put it that way, I'm certainly up to date with most of the events after WWII

Which of course of course you have no clue nor could care less either.

This is not true and I do care or I wouldn't have bothered to report what I see on the ground.

 

[joeExpat]

Ironically Greek workers have almost the longest working hours (I think they're 3rd) & have amongst the lowest pay in the EU, and now they're being screwed again via myths accusing them of being lazy.

 

[topcropper]

I can see a picture of clear ignorance in regards to Greece and the whole southern EU and the problems & causes it's faced in the last few hundred yrs.
Which of course of course you have no clue nor could care less either.

The problem has always been political, the most recent being events after WWII, where even being on the allies side Greece got screwed for political reasons, together with the others.

.

So, you reckon Greece's problems were caused by others a long time ago, the most recently being after world war 2. 60 years ago.

How long will it take Greece to get over these events that you don't seem to elaborate on? Must have been a bit serious? Amazing how Germany and Japan were blown to bits yet seem to have come through it OK.

Sure your not making excuses PB?


See ya's.

 

[Piston Broke]

First I'll say sorry BV, i was speaking generically and that post may seem that i was referring to you specifically. Though i was referring to your post.
As a nation we don't have much regard for the well being of others, nor those dying to produce goods for our consumption.
Greece has much bigger problems than a tourist looking for fuel.

How long will it take Greece to get over these events that you don't seem to elaborate on? Must have been a bit serious? Amazing how Germany and Japan were blown to bits yet seem to have come through it OK.
Sure your not making excuses PB?

The problem is political and goes back to the days when there no states or nations, but kingdoms aristocrats and their territories which were pretty much personal property.
It was the socialists (they were also referred to as liberals at the time) who continuously battled for a "fair go" and, some basic rights and not be treated as slaves to the ruling very few.
It was them who fought for equality, while the aristocrats would use their work and taxes to pay mercenary armies to quash their revolts.
It was also the same socialist types who revolted against the fashists & nazis in southern EU.
They both hated socialists and were both extreme right winged politically.
It is no secret that Hitler wanted England as their allies, and that his "Arian" race are actually Anglo-Saxons.
At the end of WWII the "left wing" types were no longer usefull and were again alienated out of politics by the UK & US who favoured, aided & placed corrupt govts in all southern EU. Just as they were in South America.
And they have never ceased to be active in that politcal world since, undermining and sabotaging their political systems.
Legally and illegally.

You mention Japan.
What happen to the Japanese PM that last year said he was going to get rid of the US army base in Japan because it caused to many problems?
His fate was much better than those who campaigned for decades to rid the PIIGS of US missile bases.
So why does the US have a heap of missile bases all over EU?
Why does it have bases in Australia which our own govt does'nt have access to?
And what would happen if Australians decided en masse that those bases are Australian territory and should be handed back, and they should go back to their own country?
Well it's pretty much well documented what happens to those who had the conviction to do so.

 

[WinstonWolfe]

- No-one is talking about invasions. I don't believe innocent civilians who have been targeted by their own regime and are about to be killed should be expected to somehow overthrow their own country by themselves.

You mean like Saddam did to the Kurdish?

Is the Taleban Afghanistan's own regime? It's numbers are primarily made up of jihadists from surrounding Islamic states.

- Nations on the other hand should do whatever it takes to act in their own self defence. The refugees don't come until after the war has been lost and they no longer have a home in their own country – probably because they were good at fighting in the first place.
- There aren't any genuine Afghan asylum seekers / refugees anymore – you said as much yourself.

Explain then whether all asylum seekers should be sent home once the war is over. If not, then Australia will become 'full' that much earlier in The Greens parlance, and we'll be less able to accept asylum seekers in the future.

- To me, granting asylum is a final act that allows someone to begin a new life.

You are confusing the granting of citizenship with granting protection of the persecuted (the definition of asylum) until the threat of persecution subsides.

Why should asylum seekers who arrived pre April 2010 be allowed to become citizens and those who arrive after, not?

- I have already made the point that we can increase our refugee intake by an order of magnitude and more and still reduce our total migrant intake if we want to. Please refrain from linking refugees to population growth or any concept of being “full”. At 3000 per year we are a very long way from that, unless we keep increasing “non refugee” migration.

You can only say this HE because you don't understand the drain on Gross National Income of humanitarian refugees. Why do you think both governments have such a small quota if they have a net surplus effect on GNI? If it is a matter of wrong perception in the electorate's eyes, why are not both governments showing nice powerpoint presentations of how much humanitarian refugee intake increases GNI per capita?

The truth is HE, that humanitarian refugees cost a lot to process and support, whether in their short stay as temporary seekers of asylum, or in the long term as citizens. Name the public service you want to take money away from to fund the larger fiscal deficit created by more asylum seekers. We've already removed ADF Vets pensions....how about we erode the entitlements of wounded Vet's gold and white health care cards?

- I don't believe we will ever become “full” anyway – the tendency for the birth rate to drop with increasing wealth will see to that.

You'll have to cap the migration rate as well, which currently includes asylum seekers.

- I haven't done enough research to give you a number for ADF casualties etc but for me it would be a lot more than the number we are currently dealing with.
- I don't believe Australia has a moral obligation to assist in isolation from the rest of the world. I believe our obligation extends to sharing our part of those humanitarian endeavours that are taken on among a number of developed and developing countries.

So you are saying the Australian electorate should not determine our obligation, some organization like the UN should....even if China, out of self interest, has the right to veto acts of humanitarianism that would prevent the need for asylum seekers and refugees to flee repression and death....

- I have no idea about Veteran's policies – it's not a policy area I follow in any detail.

You should look into this more carefully HE, in addition to the fiscal deficit of humanitarian refugees. It might change your views on what Australia can and cannot afford to do. You also want to talk to defence force personnel about the state of our combat capability and what Australia cannot afford in the way of protective helmets and combat uniforms. Then look into the net cost of a 20 something year old Veteran who is totally and permanently incapacitated.

I raise all this because the media and the electorate are grossly ignorant about the costs of the compassion they wish to express. Ask the electorate if they'll wear a 3% increase in tax to provide more protective uniforms and better weaponry for the military, and better health care when injured, and see what response you get.

- I do believe there should be a cap on our refugee intake far above the current cap, which would only bring us somewhere into line with what most other developed nations are doing.
- As for why not Zimbabwe, because no-one else is, in particular the USA. I'm glad we helped out East Timor though...

I respect your views on most stuff HE, and know you are a rational guy, and I am not riling things up because I am a racist xenophobe. I've made clear before I think the population needs to increase, and migration has its role in that.

The more rational and educated attitude towards any wish of the electorate which is a fiscal drain on Australia is to more carefully consider it, devoid of the emotionally unchecked arguments that drive these issues now.

Most are not prepared to work hard to finance all that their compassion wants, nor are they big enough to face the utilitarian calculus of a funding shortfall.

 

[HiEquity]

Hi WW

You make some reasonable points, which is why I'm happy to continue the conversation. As usual, i suspect we are a lot closer in opinion than those reading this thread may think. In any case, again for brevity:

- I don't believe those who have been granted asylum should be sent back "after the war". But once people can live peacefully in their own country they cease to be genuine refugees / asylum seekers, in which case they should be sent back if they are still seeking asylum. I'm not talking about TPVs here...
- You know my views already on middle class welfare and tax reform. A few hard decisions there would see us more than capable to support the genuinely needy in these numbers, including our vets and the mentally ill for that matter. I am of the view that most of our population has gone soft in their expectation of how much their govt should subsidise their own lifestyle and forgotten what hardship actually is - a small reminder wouldn't hurt.
- I am not advocating we subordinate our national decision making to the UN. I am advocating for us to make a national decision to actually support the small number of international humanitarian efforts that are out there.
- I agree with capping the total migration rate.
- Regarding your last sentence, I agree and this is what I rail against... and I suspect I'm not the only one?