Wow... So much that is mistaken (at best) in your post. I don't have either the time or the energy right now to respond to all of it. My 2 older kids brought some illness home from school and everybody here is down with it. Urrgh.

Well I hope you feel better soon :)

You bring up racism and gender equality. Yes, in the past those 2 were HUGE problems. Not so much anymore. Yes, they still do exist to some small degree. But they are nowhere near the problem they used to be, here in the USA. Or, were you talking about racism/sexism in Europe?

Oh really? Then why do women consistently earn less than men?

Why do black people with have so much more trouble getting a job?

And then we are not even mentioning rape culture, the fact that a number of Southern States have adopted laws designed to prevent black and poor people from voting, etc. Is it better than 50 years ago? Sure. But is discrimination based either on gender or race still a serious problem? Yes, most definitely.

Consider the USA. Racial minorities and women are well represented at the highest levels of power in government (federal, state, and local). The same with big business.

The majority of big business leaders and politicians are still white males. The fact that there is now some more diversity than 50 years ago does not mean that discrimination is an issue of the past.

50 or 100 years ago, you might have been well justified in claiming it to be a problem in the USA, but today? Get over it.

I'm still well justified in claiming this.

So you are advocating 'heavy handed' action by the government to control people's thoughts and attitudes?

The fookin' Thought Police???

You and others like you sound like something out of Orwell's '1984'.

You all are the ones that are DoublePlusUnGood.

Of course I'm not advocating a thought police. But government can most certainly take measures aimed at combating discrimination. And it is still sorely needed.

Man, where have you been living?

The Netherlands, where the government subsidizes universities and colleges and as a result I can study for 1500-2000 euros a year. And I can get student loans from the government without having to pay a lot of interest over it.

We DO have federal government subsidies on college. Go look up 'Pell Grant' and 'Stafford Loan'. However, while the stated goal of these programs was admirable (to help students of lesser means get a college education), these programs had a DARK SIDE. They are one of the main reasons, likely THE main reason why it costs, as you say, a small FORTUNE to go to college these days. Totally GONE are the days when one could put oneself through college with a part-time job or two. A basic principle of economics is that the more money that is chasing a particular product or service, the more expensive that product or service becomes. The US Federal Government has been pumping a LOT of money into the US College system, for decades. The end result? Grossly over-inflated prices for it. This, combined with the 'loan' aspect of it puts graduates all to frequently in the position of owing huge amounts (US$50,000.00 or more) with no guarantee of ever being able to pay it back. The private sector, on its own, would not ever make most of these loans, but the 'Government Guarantee' on these loans mean that the private sector financial institutions that make these loans CAN'T LOSE money on them.

Something needs to change about the way college is paid for.

Why haven't you guys done what we have done. Subsidize colleges but make sure that students only pay a very affordable price for it. What idiot subsidizes something only to then have them raise the price of college anyways? Thats theft!

This statement does not match reality. In the 1970s, there was REAL poverty in the area I grew up in. Quite a number of my friends lived in shacks with no electricity or running water. After the so-called Reagan Revolution, this kind of poverty no longer exists in that area.

Yeah I guess that is why wages for the majority of the American's haven't gone up since the 80's. Only the top incomes saw a massive increase of their paycheck. See for yourself

How else did you think you got an income inequality as ridiculous as that of the United States?


Sorry man, but the facts do not match your statements.

Chris I put my money in the bank to save not gamble!

If you put money at the bank, they use that money to invest in stuff. Thats how banks make a profit, how they can pay interest and basically what keeps the economy running. But banks should be responsible with their clients money when they invest it in something.

Banks used to make mone by lending and the loans required adequate colatteral, hardly a gamble.

---

Мишель:

I disagree. You seem to consider 'poverty' as a problem that can be solved by some outside agency of sorts (charity, government, whatever). It cannot be.

Poverty exists due to a wide variety of reasons. Some are relatively short-term (for instance your home, or the building where you work blew up or burned down, so you are temporarily homeless or unemployed, or perhaps the river flooded and wiped out your crops for the year). Charity excels at helping with this type. A helping hand feeding, sheltering, and clothing you and your family until you can get back on your feet.

So far I agree

Other reasons for poverty are somewhat longer term in nature. Things like mismatches in your skills with what is in demand. Also, a poor work-ethic (the lazy bums). Now, by no means are all of the poor 'lazy bums', or even very many of them at all. But they do exist. While charity and government programs can help keep them alive, a true solution to this sort of poverty must come from the individual, and the individual alone. They have to be willing to do what it takes to improve themselves.

The lazy bum category is negligible.

And while it is easy to lay the responsibility of solving this form of poverty with the individual, I do believe government can play a role in this. If your skills mismatch with what is needed on the job market, its the government that can help you learn a new skill set. Its easy to say that this is the responsibility of the individual, but if the individual lacks the means or requires help, government can play a positive role.

The last major cause of poverty is lack of opportunity. In this one government isn't the solution, it is the PROBLEM. Over-regulation, excessive taxation, and micro-management of business activity due to central planning by the government. All of these have a drag effect on business activity. This is the ONE sort of poverty the Government can actually fix, by getting out of the way of business.

All those regulations exist for a reason. Yeah, its much easier to start a business in a place where there are no rules on how much you must pay your workers or where there are no safety and health standards. But without minimum wage the majority of people would still be poor and they would live in unhealthy and unsafe environments. And those taxes are necessary to run a wide range of public services that people need, especially if you want them to have the best opportunities. Generally, less rules and less taxation only benefits the people that run the factory, not the people that work in the factory.

And there are more forms of opportunity that you conviniently skip over and in which the government plays a vital role. Conservatives may have declared that racism is no longer a thing in the United States, but I think you will find that to be utter nonsense when you talk to non white people in the United States. Ethnic minorities still do not have the same opportunities as their white counter parts, and for a large degree that is the result of systemic racism. It will require heavy handed approaches enforced by the government to remove this racism. The same goes for gender equality. There is still a pay gap and women still have a much harder time getting the same opportunities as their male counter parts. Again, its the government that can enact and enforce rules that force equality and give women the same opportunities as men.

Then there is of course also the debt problem. In todays world you kinda miss out on a lot of opportunities if you didn't do something after high school. Yet if it costs a small fortune to go to college, you essentially ensure that poor people do not have the same degree of access to college and therefor to the same opportunities who were born in rich families. The problem then becomes that poverty is turned into a cycle. Poor people are not rich enough to go to college, therefor they do not get the opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty, they get kids, they can't afford to send their kids to college, so their kids do not get the opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty. Government could interfere here, through subsidies making college far more accessible to everyone.

If Government WAS able to solve the entire problem of poverty, after spending untold Trillions of US$ on it starting at the beginning of the Progressive era (1890ish) until today, especially considering FDR's 'New Deal' and LBJ's 'Great Society' with their MASSIVE expenditures, continuing through Bush the Younger's NCLB and Medicare Part D, right on up through Obama's current agenda(s) today, don't you think that Government would have ALREADY solved it?

Yeah, just one problem with that assertion. Ever since the 80's the government went full libertarian in its approach to poverty. Trickle down economics, cutting regulation, cutting taxes, etc. And what happened? The rich got extremely rich, while the lower and middle classes did not see their income increase. Poverty got worse, thanks to the same measures you suggest to give more people more opportunities to get a job.

As far as helping out the poor goes, each area has a different set of problems, needing different solutions. And next year, the problem in one area might be different than they are this year. No 'national authority' can do a 'one size fits all' solution on the entire country and expect any kind of efficiency. Helping the poor is BEST done on the local level. And charities are almost always able to adapt to changing needs much FASTER than Government.

It depends on the problem. Racism and gender equality are problems that can be fairly easily tackled on at least state level. Access to education is again something that can be easily solved on a state or national level. Really, structural poverty is caused by structural problems that require a political solution that charities simply cannot provide.

And, especially in the United States, Government has CAUSED a lot of poverty when it started adopting Statist economic policies over the last 120 years. Government can fix a lot of things by abandoning them.

Actually, the US government was well on its way of eradicating poverty starting during WW2 and going on until the 70's, exactly because of its statist economic policies. Things went wrong after Reagan took over and the whole 'free market everywhere' political religion was born.

Wow... So much that is mistaken (at best) in your post. I don't have either the time or the energy right now to respond to all of it. My 2 older kids brought some illness home from school and everybody here is down with it. Urrgh.


You bring up racism and gender equality. Yes, in the past those 2 were HUGE problems. Not so much anymore. Yes, they still do exist to some small degree. But they are nowhere near the problem they used to be, here in the USA. Or, were you talking about racism/sexism in Europe?

Consider the USA. Racial minorities and women are well represented at the highest levels of power in government (federal, state, and local). The same with big business.

50 or 100 years ago, you might have been well justified in claiming it to be a problem in the USA, but today? Get over it.

It will require heavy handed approaches enforced by the government to remove this racism.

So you are advocating 'heavy handed' action by the government to control people's thoughts and attitudes?

The fookin' Thought Police???

You and others like you sound like something out of Orwell's '1984'.

You all are the ones that are DoublePlusUnGood.

Yet if it costs a small fortune to go to college, you essentially ensure that poor people do not have the same degree of access to college and therefor to the same opportunities who were born in rich families.

Government could interfere here, through subsidies making college far more accessible to everyone.

Man, where have you been living?

We DO have federal government subsidies on college. Go look up 'Pell Grant' and 'Stafford Loan'. However, while the stated goal of these programs was admirable (to help students of lesser means get a college education), these programs had a DARK SIDE. They are one of the main reasons, likely THE main reason why it costs, as you say, a small FORTUNE to go to college these days. Totally GONE are the days when one could put oneself through college with a part-time job or two. A basic principle of economics is that the more money that is chasing a particular product or service, the more expensive that product or service becomes. The US Federal Government has been pumping a LOT of money into the US College system, for decades. The end result? Grossly over-inflated prices for it. This, combined with the 'loan' aspect of it puts graduates all to frequently in the position of owing huge amounts (US$50,000.00 or more) with no guarantee of ever being able to pay it back. The private sector, on its own, would not ever make most of these loans, but the 'Government Guarantee' on these loans mean that the private sector financial institutions that make these loans CAN'T LOSE money on them.

Something needs to change about the way college is paid for.

Actually, the US government was well on its way of eradicating poverty starting during WW2 and going on until the 70's, exactly because of its statist economic policies. Things went wrong after Reagan took over and the whole 'free market everywhere' political religion was born.

This statement does not match reality. In the 1970s, there was REAL poverty in the area I grew up in. Quite a number of my friends lived in shacks with no electricity or running water. After the so-called Reagan Revolution, this kind of poverty no longer exists in that area.

'Free Market'-ism did not originate with Reagan.

Chris I put my money in the bank to save not gamble!

If you put money at the bank, they use that money to invest in stuff. Thats how banks make a profit, how they can pay interest and basically what keeps the economy running. But banks should be responsible with their clients money when they invest it in something.

Chris I put my money in the bank to save not gamble!

---

Gamble big, win big or fail big. Banks should not be gamblers.

Isn't the point here that Banks gamble with their investors money, and not with their own? If you choose to invest your money with a Bank then that is the risk you take. Your choice. You can't bring in a law that stops people doing what they want to with their own personal money. What you can do is to bring in regulations that say that a Bank has to manage it's clients money and investments in a responsible manner. If it does not do so then compensation for losses should be paid from previously deposited bonds to allow them to have been in business.

The Banking Act of 1935 increased Reserve Requirements on Banks.

Major, the reduction of reserve requirements was a major component of our recent recesssion. High leverage is dangerous. Gamble big, win big or fail big. Banks should not be gamblers.

---

Actually, the US government was well on its way of eradicating poverty starting during WW2 and going on until the 70's, exactly because of its statist economic policies. Things went wrong after Reagan took over and the whole 'free market everywhere' political religion was born.

That's my take on it.

---

Major prior to the new deal during the great depression what you are advocating was the way things were. Can you cite a time period when it worked well? I can't.

Oh, a couple thousand BCE to the present.

Major you provide no data to back or examples your assertion. I still call BS.

---

The New Deal, during the Great Depression, did save the Country and Capitalism. Of course there were great excesses, and let's try to fix them. Please, let's not get into a discussion of this, and why the Country slipped back into a Depression in 1936. (WWII got us out of the Depression of 1936, not 1929)

Where you get this belief in a double-dip (that is 2 of them, back to back) Depression is beyond me.

The Great Depression was triggered by the Stock Market Crash of Oct. 1929. The economy started faltering during 1930, and by 1931 things were bad... really bad. After the failed Hoover presidency (not only did everything Hoover tried to do NOT help, but things usually got WORSE), the People in the USA were desperate for change. FDR got elected in the election of 1932 because he was NOT Hoover. Almost immediately after FDR took office in early 1933, the economy began a slow recovery. Well before FDR had gotten much of anything enacted and WAY before the lag time had passed for any of the programs (the lag time in these cases is usually 1 to 1.5 years) to have an effect.

This indicates that it was the people's faith in FDR that HE would fix things that prompted the beginning of the recovery. Not any of his actual programs.

In my research of the Great Depression, I had opportunity of interview quite a number of primary sources (you know... the people that were THERE, and lived through it). Almost without exception the primary sources identified themselves as lifelong Democrats and those of voting age reported that they had voted for FDR. Without exception, every single one of these primary sources reported that FDR's 'New Deal' programs at best didn't make much difference one way or the other and frequently made things worse. I am sure that there very likely are some people that those programs helped, but I highly dispute your assertion that the New Deal saved 'Country and Capitalism'. Per my research, the People, by and large, saved themselves.

You refer to a '2nd Depression' of 1936. This just does not turn out to be the case. The Great Depression started in 1929, and did NOT end until 1942. The event in 1936 that you refer to was just a recession from 1936 to 1938. It had a number of causes, chief among them were a couple of FDR's uhh... mistakes.

The Banking Act of 1935 increased Reserve Requirements on Banks. Also the Social Security system was ramping up and it had an issue with how the Government handled the collected funds that wasn't fixed until 1937. Both of these events caused a contraction in the money supply. Recession.

It was the military buildup that we undertook just prior to WWII that got us out of the Great Depression.

Мишель:

I disagree. You seem to consider 'poverty' as a problem that can be solved by some outside agency of sorts (charity, government, whatever). It cannot be.

Poverty exists due to a wide variety of reasons. Some are relatively short-term (for instance your home, or the building where you work blew up or burned down, so you are temporarily homeless or unemployed, or perhaps the river flooded and wiped out your crops for the year). Charity excels at helping with this type. A helping hand feeding, sheltering, and clothing you and your family until you can get back on your feet.

So far I agree

Other reasons for poverty are somewhat longer term in nature. Things like mismatches in your skills with what is in demand. Also, a poor work-ethic (the lazy bums). Now, by no means are all of the poor 'lazy bums', or even very many of them at all. But they do exist. While charity and government programs can help keep them alive, a true solution to this sort of poverty must come from the individual, and the individual alone. They have to be willing to do what it takes to improve themselves.

The lazy bum category is negligible.

And while it is easy to lay the responsibility of solving this form of poverty with the individual, I do believe government can play a role in this. If your skills mismatch with what is needed on the job market, its the government that can help you learn a new skill set. Its easy to say that this is the responsibility of the individual, but if the individual lacks the means or requires help, government can play a positive role.

The last major cause of poverty is lack of opportunity. In this one government isn't the solution, it is the PROBLEM. Over-regulation, excessive taxation, and micro-management of business activity due to central planning by the government. All of these have a drag effect on business activity. This is the ONE sort of poverty the Government can actually fix, by getting out of the way of business.

All those regulations exist for a reason. Yeah, its much easier to start a business in a place where there are no rules on how much you must pay your workers or where there are no safety and health standards. But without minimum wage the majority of people would still be poor and they would live in unhealthy and unsafe environments. And those taxes are necessary to run a wide range of public services that people need, especially if you want them to have the best opportunities. Generally, less rules and less taxation only benefits the people that run the factory, not the people that work in the factory.

And there are more forms of opportunity that you conviniently skip over and in which the government plays a vital role. Conservatives may have declared that racism is no longer a thing in the United States, but I think you will find that to be utter nonsense when you talk to non white people in the United States. Ethnic minorities still do not have the same opportunities as their white counter parts, and for a large degree that is the result of systemic racism. It will require heavy handed approaches enforced by the government to remove this racism. The same goes for gender equality. There is still a pay gap and women still have a much harder time getting the same opportunities as their male counter parts. Again, its the government that can enact and enforce rules that force equality and give women the same opportunities as men.

Then there is of course also the debt problem. In todays world you kinda miss out on a lot of opportunities if you didn't do something after high school. Yet if it costs a small fortune to go to college, you essentially ensure that poor people do not have the same degree of access to college and therefor to the same opportunities who were born in rich families. The problem then becomes that poverty is turned into a cycle. Poor people are not rich enough to go to college, therefor they do not get the opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty, they get kids, they can't afford to send their kids to college, so their kids do not get the opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty. Government could interfere here, through subsidies making college far more accessible to everyone.

If Government WAS able to solve the entire problem of poverty, after spending untold Trillions of US$ on it starting at the beginning of the Progressive era (1890ish) until today, especially considering FDR's 'New Deal' and LBJ's 'Great Society' with their MASSIVE expenditures, continuing through Bush the Younger's NCLB and Medicare Part D, right on up through Obama's current agenda(s) today, don't you think that Government would have ALREADY solved it?

Yeah, just one problem with that assertion. Ever since the 80's the government went full libertarian in its approach to poverty. Trickle down economics, cutting regulation, cutting taxes, etc. And what happened? The rich got extremely rich, while the lower and middle classes did not see their income increase. Poverty got worse, thanks to the same measures you suggest to give more people more opportunities to get a job.

As far as helping out the poor goes, each area has a different set of problems, needing different solutions. And next year, the problem in one area might be different than they are this year. No 'national authority' can do a 'one size fits all' solution on the entire country and expect any kind of efficiency. Helping the poor is BEST done on the local level. And charities are almost always able to adapt to changing needs much FASTER than Government.

It depends on the problem. Racism and gender equality are problems that can be fairly easily tackled on at least state level. Access to education is again something that can be easily solved on a state or national level. Really, structural poverty is caused by structural problems that require a political solution that charities simply cannot provide.

And, especially in the United States, Government has CAUSED a lot of poverty when it started adopting Statist economic policies over the last 120 years. Government can fix a lot of things by abandoning them.

Actually, the US government was well on its way of eradicating poverty starting during WW2 and going on until the 70's, exactly because of its statist economic policies. Things went wrong after Reagan took over and the whole 'free market everywhere' political religion was born.

Major prior to the new deal during the great depression what you are advocating was the way things were. Can you cite a time period when it worked well? I can't.

Oh, a couple thousand BCE to the present.

I disagree. Poverty is a systemic, country wide problem. Even if a charity is capable of changing the local conditions to such a degree that they can actually solve poverty (which I doubt, given how expensive it is), because charities are often local you get a patch work of charities combating poverty with varying degrees of success. On the whole, that is much more expensive and far less effective than having one organization combat poverty on a state or nation wide level.

Furthermore, poverty is caused by certain conditions and more often than not those conditions are not local. Local charities therefor cannot actually solve the problem, just prevent people from starving. Government on the other hand, is so many levels above that and wields so much more power, they can actually do something about some of those conditions. And, especially in the United States, government caused poverty when it started the whole Ayn Rand worshiping economic policies of the past 35 years, it is government who can fix that by changing its economic policies again.

Мишель:

I disagree. You seem to consider 'poverty' as a problem that can be solved by some outside agency of sorts (charity, government, whatever). It cannot be.

Poverty exists due to a wide variety of reasons. Some are relatively short-term (for instance your home, or the building where you work blew up or burned down, so you are temporarily homeless or unemployed, or perhaps the river flooded and wiped out your crops for the year). Charity excels at helping with this type. A helping hand feeding, sheltering, and clothing you and your family until you can get back on your feet.

Other reasons for poverty are somewhat longer term in nature. Things like mismatches in your skills with what is in demand. Also, a poor work-ethic (the lazy bums). Now, by no means are all of the poor 'lazy bums', or even very many of them at all. But they do exist. While charity and government programs can help keep them alive, a true solution to this sort of poverty must come from the individual, and the individual alone. They have to be willing to do what it takes to improve themselves.

The last major cause of poverty is lack of opportunity. In this one government isn't the solution, it is the PROBLEM. Over-regulation, excessive taxation, and micro-management of business activity due to central planning by the government. All of these have a drag effect on business activity. This is the ONE sort of poverty the Government can actually fix, by getting out of the way of business.

If Government WAS able to solve the entire problem of poverty, after spending untold Trillions of US$ on it starting at the beginning of the Progressive era (1890ish) until today, especially considering FDR's 'New Deal' and LBJ's 'Great Society' with their MASSIVE expenditures, continuing through Bush the Younger's NCLB and Medicare Part D, right on up through Obama's current agenda(s) today, don't you think that Government would have ALREADY solved it?

As far as helping out the poor goes, each area has a different set of problems, needing different solutions. And next year, the problem in one area might be different than they are this year. No 'national authority' can do a 'one size fits all' solution on the entire country and expect any kind of efficiency. Helping the poor is BEST done on the local level. And charities are almost always able to adapt to changing needs much FASTER than Government.

And, especially in the United States, Government has CAUSED a lot of poverty when it started adopting Statist economic policies over the last 120 years. Government can fix a lot of things by abandoning them.

IMO a rather simplistic viewpoint.

---

But there IS a history of this nation allowing people to worship as they please, or not to worship at all, without fear of government oppression/tyranny. For many years, people lived their lives and either tolerated what they did not like or moved somewhere else where the local customs/traditions/beliefs more aligned with their own.

Yes, people were allowed to worship as they like. However, you were ostracized if you said you didn't believe, and many here in the U.S. are still ostracized for the same thing. What was the result if you refused to swear into testimony on the Holy Bible in 1865? 1965? What legal action could a non-believer take against a community that intended on driving out non-believers by any means necessary, including death threats and vandalism? What if the Sherriff knew of or took part in these actions and refused to apply the law evenly? I can come up with several other examples of how the law isn't applied evenly in various other situations where it should be. This also doesn't apply just to belief/non-believer, but sexual orientation and race as well.

No, non-believers had/have to hide their non-belief for fear of repercussion, both legal and social. This is what needs to change.

In recent years, there has been an all out attack against the believers... as if the non-believers have been attacked and an appropriate response is being returned and we are now in the middle of a melee. Who started it? Both sides say the other. Who really started it? Look towards our benevolent government/judicial branch.

That's the problem with the issue. Non-believers simply want Church and State separated for good reasons. Believers see this as an attack on their belief system and assert that God must be included in the laws, which automatically creates a bias in the laws in favor of religion when executing or writing those laws. These are biases that do not allow for a peaceful co-existence with non-believers. All non-believers want is more neutrality by keeping personal beliefs in God out of the laws and out of tax dollar spending.

There is no attack on religion. There is only a push for more equality.

Yes, I would argue that religion helps keep humanity civlized. I've explained this in detail in previous posts. Not going to bother repeating myself. Didn't do any good then, won't do any good now.

I understand that's how you believe; I've read your posts in the past. Not sure if you read or understood my responses. My argument is that religion is not necessary to keep humanity civilized, and using non-religious dictators as a representative sample is not a + for your argument anymore than pointing out all the wars and bloodshed in God's name makes all believers bad people.

Never said it was required. Quit putting words in my mouth.

So if it isn't required, I hope you'll join me and others in pushing for more separation of church and state.

I don't see how there can be tolerance when a minority of non-believers are *successfully* forcing their opinion on a majority of believers.

Because it isn't about majority/minority. It is about equal rights. Everyone in this country has a right to their voice in how they are represented and how their money is spent in the form of tax dollars. Our Constitution was setup so that there would be a separation of Church and State, and as time has passed, we've learned to become more tolerant of others and listen to their views. Non-believers are simply making the argument that personal belief in God does not have a place in the creation and execution of the laws.

Blame religion on the world's history of wars? Keep trying to force religion out and let's see what happens.

I would never try to push religion out of people's lives. People are more than welcome to worship as they please. It must be taken out of the State if there's going to be an equitable execution of the laws of the land.

How do you limit the inherently 'Evil of Power', and still have this Power (Government) do what is necessary?

Clyde, Sweeden, Norway and Denmark seem to that do quite well as does New Zealand.

---

CLYDE wrote the following:

KWSN – MajorKong:

The New Deal, during the Great Depression, did save the Country and Capitalism. Of course there were great excesses, and let's try to fix them. Please, let's not get into a discussion of this, and why the Country slipped back into a Depression in 1936. (WWII got us out of the Depression of 1936, not 1929)

Hi CLYDE:

well said.

I agree with you.

I'm almost eighty years old now.

my father volunteered and Served in the Canadian Army 1939 to 1945.

my Grand father in Canadian Navy 1939 to 1945 - Battle of the North Atlantic

On September 10, 1939 our Parliament of Canada declared war on Hitler.

then everyone in Canada had a Job.

Best Wishes
Byron

I still like to think that it is not quite the same here over the pond. You guys in the States are completely convinced that every last damn one of them is not worth a cough or a sneeze. We haven't got to that stage yet. Whether we will do in time is another matter.