What is the difference between Canada and the US re: socialism

[dps]

I thought the Conservative attack was that we need to roll back spending - not that we don't do it.

I'm not sure if that was directed at Berkut, but if it was it doesn't really fit--he's not a conservative.

But I am, and speaking as a conservative, yeah, I'm not going to complain about us not spending money.

[garbon]

I thought the Conservative attack was that we need to roll back spending - not that we don't do it.

I'm not sure if that was directed at Berkut, but if it was it doesn't really fit--he's not a conservative.

But I am, and speaking as a conservative, yeah, I'm not going to complain about us not spending money.

Berkut has been saying that here in the US "we" like to pretend that we don't have government intervention. I'm not sure who that "we" is - as like I said the typical attack line is that the US needs to role back on gov't intervention. There isn't really anyone saying it doesn't happen.

[frunk]

Berkut has been saying that here in the US "we" like to pretend that we don't have government intervention. I'm not sure who that "we" is - as like I said the typical attack line is that the US needs to role back on gov't intervention. There isn't really anyone saying it doesn't happen.

There's two different attacks.  One is that we need to roll back spending, the other is that "we can't do it like Canada/UK/Europe does it, that's socialism!"  I think the second is the one that Berkut is talking about.

[garbon]

Berkut has been saying that here in the US "we" like to pretend that we don't have government intervention. I'm not sure who that "we" is - as like I said the typical attack line is that the US needs to role back on gov't intervention. There isn't really anyone saying it doesn't happen.

There's two different attacks.  One is that we need to roll back spending, the other is that "we can't do it like Canada/UK/Europe does it, that's socialism!"  I think the second is the one that Berkut is talking about.

But again I don't think that stems from a lack of awareness that money is being spent.

[sbr]

Berkut has been saying that here in the US "we" like to pretend that we don't have government intervention. I'm not sure who that "we" is - as like I said the typical attack line is that the US needs to role back on gov't intervention. There isn't really anyone saying it doesn't happen.

There's two different attacks.  One is that we need to roll back spending, the other is that "we can't do it like Canada/UK/Europe does it, that's socialism!"  I think the second is the one that Berkut is talking about.

But again I don't think that stems from a lack of awareness that money is being spent.

I think most voters* in this country, no matter how much they claim to care, are completely clueless** regarding the vast majority of the issues they claim to care about, especially when it comes to national financial matters. 

I think there are a very large number of voters who would do all sorts of borderline unethical things to get government money to send their kid to school based on the current system, but would freak out if that exact amount of money was given directly to the school from the government to "subsidize" tuition costs.

*I assume you realize that this board is very unrepresentative of the general population.

**A very close split between those that are truly clueless and those that refuse to see things based on ideology.

[dps]

I think there are a very large number of voters who would do all sorts of borderline unethical things to get government money to send their kid to school based on the current system, but would freak out if that exact amount of money was given directly to the school from the government to "subsidize" tuition costs.

That's just looking out for Number One, though, and doesn't really have anything to do with ideology.

[sbr]

But I think that is the crux of the argument of the thread.

Both countries spend similar amounts on the same things, but Canada is able to direct the money from the government directly to the provider while the US has to have other layer(s) so that the "inefficient" government isn't wasting money. 

The end result is Canada getting better bang for their buck while we piss more money away but preserve our idea of not having the government involved in our day to day lives.1

[frunk]

But again I don't think that stems from a lack of awareness that money is being spent.

I'm not so sure.  At the least it's a lack of awareness that our supposed non-socialist system is spending significantly more than those it is being compared against and/or there's a presumption that it is well spent because it is for some reason not categorized as socialist.

[grumbler]

But I think that is the crux of the argument of the thread.

Both countries spend similar amounts on the same things, but Canada is able to direct the money from the government directly to the provider while the US has to have other layer(s) so that the "inefficient" government isn't wasting money. 

The end result is Canada getting better bang for their buck while we piss more money away but preserve our idea of not having the government involved in our day to day lives.1

Really?  You honestly believe that the American public is unaware that governments in the US directly fund schools? 

I think that this entire line of argument is completely ideologically-driven, and silly.  One could make the argument that third parties make government spending on health care less efficient than it could be, but to extend that to include all government spending, including education, infrastructure, defense, social security, etc is completely unwarranted.

[garbon]

But I think that is the crux of the argument of the thread.

Both countries spend similar amounts on the same things, but Canada is able to direct the money from the government directly to the provider while the US has to have other layer(s) so that the "inefficient" government isn't wasting money. 

The end result is Canada getting better bang for their buck while we piss more money away but preserve our idea of not having the government involved in our day to day lives.1

Really?  You honestly believe that the American public is unaware that governments in the US directly fund schools? 

I think that this entire line of argument is completely ideologically-driven, and silly.  One could make the argument that third parties make government spending on health care less efficient than it could be, but to extend that to include all government spending, including education, infrastructure, defense, social security, etc is completely unwarranted.

[crazy canuck]

Our friends in Quebec have made a few factual blunders.

There are private universities in Canada.  They are not well known for two reasons.  First, as Grumbler suggested, the main market demand for private universities in North American is filled by the Universities in the US.  Second, the endowments for the Canadian private universities are dwarved by those in the US - which leads again to the point Grumbler made.

Funding of Universities in Canada is not exclusively done by the Province.  Operational funding is partly provided by the provinces.  The rest is made up by tuition fees, donations and endowments.  Where our friends in Quebec went badly off track is that, much like the US, a lot of direct research funding comes from the Federal government.

a more minor point is that Viper got the Federal/Provincial jurisdiction regarding unions wrong.  All Federal Undertakings are governed by Federal labour laws and all the rest - ie everything regulated under Provincial authority, are governed under Provincial labour law.  Therefore he was wrong that there was a Federal law governing who must pay what to unions.  Where I think he got confused is that both the Feds and Provinces have adopted the same rule within their own jurisdictions.  But there is nothing preventing any Province from adopting another rule within their jurisdiction. 

[crazy canuck]

But I think that is the crux of the argument of the thread.

Both countries spend similar amounts on the same things, but Canada is able to direct the money from the government directly to the provider while the US has to have other layer(s) so that the "inefficient" government isn't wasting money. 

The end result is Canada getting better bang for their buck while we piss more money away but preserve our idea of not having the government involved in our day to day lives.1

On the contrary, I think the US does a very good job of directing funding to Universities, both by government and privately.  As for the bang for the buck argument,  I am not sure about that.  The quality of university education in the US is excellent.

There is an issue regarding cost.  But I think that is a different issue.

[grumbler]

On the contrary, I think the US does a very good job of directing funding to Universities, both by government and privately.  As for the bang for the buck argument,  I am not sure about that.  The quality of university education in the US is excellent.

There is an issue regarding cost.  But I think that is a different issue.

A quick-and-dirty survey says that the top-end (i.e. in the top 100) public universities in the US charge and spend about $17,000 per year per undergrad student, exclusive of course of room and board and books.  I'd be interested to see what the equivalent is for Canadian universities.  I'd be willing to bet its right in the same ballpark.  I don't think that there's any question that the product is very equivalent.

[garbon]

On the contrary, I think the US does a very good job of directing funding to Universities, both by government and privately.  As for the bang for the buck argument,  I am not sure about that.  The quality of university education in the US is excellent.

There is an issue regarding cost.  But I think that is a different issue.

A quick-and-dirty survey says that the top-end (i.e. in the top 100) public universities in the US charge and spend about $17,000 per year per undergrad student, exclusive of course of room and board and books.  I'd be interested to see what the equivalent is for Canadian universities.  I'd be willing to bet its right in the same ballpark.  I don't think that there's any question that the product is very equivalent.

I don't know. Is McGill on par with Berkeley?

[The Brain]

Berkeley? If you don't mind getting a hot poker inserted where hot pokers don't fit I guess it's allright.