---

Man-o-man, are they very good at buying votes or what?  Boss Biden has blatantly turned vote buying into a high profile art form. First we must acknowledge that buying votes is what politicians have always done.  Most have historically been somewhat subtle when doing it.  However, throughout American history, politicians of all political stripes are always trying to buy your vote.  For most of the population, vote buying is what the politician could do for your state or county.  If the politician could bring more federal money back to your state than your state population sent to the IRS, that was viewed as a good thing and you re-elected the incumbent. This was an acceptable form of corruption.  I say corruption because if your state received more money than it sent to Washington, the citizens of some other state didn’t get their fair share.  It was a very subtle way of robbing Peter to pay Paul.  Nonetheless, it was wrong.

By Centrewing on 2022 10 21

So true. Also add that these social programs add millions of high paying jobs and bigger government. Then like here in Canada 87% of these new government created thousands of high paying government jobs were filled by boarder crosser s, I have read. Now try calling the government which you now need to do so often too, and find someone who speaks a language you can understand you and them you ? We already have a problem with English and French here, when there were mainly English speakers 80% across Canada and French 20% in Quebec mostly. You're racist if you ask please give me someone who speaks English, so we both can understand each other.
Canada is very socialist and has been for many years. Vote buying and the politicians and government staff are reaping as much money from this, as the people receiving supposed help.

---

By dollops on 2022 10 22

Universal benefits aren't vote-buying due to their applying equally to all. Sewer and highway services aren't considered corrupt except in rare cases of "a bridge to nowhere", and the same attitude could apply to social security, education and health care if the public should view them as needed by everyone regardless of ability to pay. If voters approve of a national pet food voucher there is no high principle vetoing such a benefit.

Perhaps it shouldn't be so, but democracy allows the majority to decide such things and much, much more. Even if a nation's constitution forbade any handouts from the public purse except maybe in times of great disaster like widespread weather calamity, we might expect politicians to try to change the meaning of "calamity" to make it useful for buying votes.

John Adams said .. the people "have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge – I mean of the character and conduct of their rulers." And there lies our problem: the people are denied such knowledge by public censors and liars - the MSM daily commit sedition with their deliberate misinforming of the public.

---

By dollops on 2022 10 22

To Centrewing: you hit the nail on the head when pointing out the huge numbers of government employees that social benefits always "justify". They aren't necessary in large numbers if the true intention is to finance universal access to necessities such as education and health care similarly to how Old Age Pension works.

Imagine some funding - call it a citizen's dividend - that is available to everyone cradle to grave, with limited application to free market goods and services. It would require a minimum number of government staff because the consumer would make almost all of the decisions, and the cost savings of free market delivery could make the entire scheme less of a burden on the treasury.

---

---

Support Canada Free Press

---