[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Admiral Yi]

I still have issues with that "top one percent threshold is quite low."

Low is very relative. It still means that 99 per cent of Canadians don't make enough to be in that "low" threshold.

That will be true of any 1% threshold.

[crazy canuck]

I still have issues with that "top one percent threshold is quite low."

Low is very relative. It still means that 99 per cent of Canadians don't make enough to be in that "low" threshold.

[edit]...Or at least the threshold is so high that almost all candians don't qualify.

The only solution to that is to have a society where everyone earns exactly the same comrade.  That way everyone will be in the top and bottom 1%.

[Josephus]

I still have issues with that "top one percent threshold is quite low."

Low is very relative. It still means that 99 per cent of Canadians don't make enough to be in that "low" threshold.

[edit]...Or at least the threshold is so high that almost all candians don't qualify.

The only solution to that is to have a society where everyone earns exactly the same comrade.  That way everyone will be in the top and bottom 1%.

Well that's a start.

ps: you don't actually think I believe that, right?

[crazy canuck]

I still have issues with that "top one percent threshold is quite low."

Low is very relative. It still means that 99 per cent of Canadians don't make enough to be in that "low" threshold.

[edit]...Or at least the threshold is so high that almost all candians don't qualify.

The only solution to that is to have a society where everyone earns exactly the same comrade.  That way everyone will be in the top and bottom 1%.

Well that's a start.

ps: you don't actually think I believe that, right?

No, I know you dont.  I was just pointing out the fallacy in your concern.

[Jacob]

I hope all the "hidden agenda" types out there noticed the tongue lashing Harper gave to the pro life camp.

I didn't, but if you hook me up with a link I will read it with relish (and even trot it out when the subject comes up).

[crazy canuck]

I hope all the "hidden agenda" types out there noticed the tongue lashing Harper gave to the pro life camp.

I didn't, but if you hook me up with a link I will read it with relish (and even trot it out when the subject comes up).

Here is one of the stories on it. http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/no-intention-of-reopening-abortion-debate-harper-says-1.1137734

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says while some of his Conservative MPs may not agree, abortion is legal in Canada.

Harper made the comments while under questioning in the House of Commons over a letter written by three Tory MPs who want the RCMP to investigate hundreds of abortions as possible homicides.

"I think all members of this house, whether they agree with it or not, understand that abortion is legal in Canada and this government, myself included, have made it very clear that the government does not intend to change the law in this regard," Harper said Thursday.

[Jacob]

Yep, I agree. 

To further answer your question Jake, if I was king for a day I would increase government funding of universities while restricting tuition in proportion to that funding.  The proportionate part is key.  In the past when governments have put on tuition restrictions they did not make up the difference in funding.

Makes sense. Personally, I think the necessary ingredients for decent social mobility are:

- Some sort of social safety net, both to ensure that children get the necessary basics during crucial formative years, and to make it easier for the less privileged to take some risks in pursuits of improving their lot. Health care is part of this social safety net.

- Good, generally available education infrastructure both on the primary and secondary levels (and ideally with enough support that "ritalin & general level courses" isn't the default path for kids with learning disabilities in the public system), and, as you suggest keeping post-secondary education accessible (and generally meritocratic in access) and high quality.

[Jacob]

Here is one of the stories on it. http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/no-intention-of-reopening-abortion-debate-harper-says-1.1137734

Thanks!

Yeah, that's pretty unequivocal. Good

[Malthus]

I still have issues with that "top one percent threshold is quite low."

Low is very relative. It still means that 99 per cent of Canadians don't make enough to be in that "low" threshold.

[edit]...Or at least the threshold is so high that almost all candians don't qualify.

Welcome to Lake Wobegon, where all of the children are above average! 

[crazy canuck]

- Some sort of social safety net, both to ensure that children get the necessary basics during crucial formative years, and to make it easier for the less privileged to take some risks in pursuits of improving their lot. Health care is part of this social safety net.

While I think safety nets are important I dont think they serve the purpose you propose.  Rather there is a lot of literature so support the notion that welfare systems can be a trap.  Where I differ with many on the right is I do not use that as an argument to restrict them.  Rather I recognize that many will require it - althought they may never get out of the trap.

I dont think health care is a safety net.  I think access to health care is a fundamental right of all citizens.  Not just those who might quality for social assistance.  That is where I think the US got it terribly wrong.

[Jacob]

While I think safety nets are important I dont think they serve the purpose you propose.  Rather there is a lot of literature so support that notion that welfare systems can be a trap.  Where I differ with many on the right is I do not use that as an argument to restrict them.  Rather I recognize that many will require it - althought they may never get out of the trap.

I think they're only a trap if other parts of the system are broken.

There's definitely a risk of encouraging some sort of permanently-on-benefits lumpen proletariat. Personally, however, I believe that if benefits were not there (and nothing else changed), then we'd still have that lumpen proletariat with no ready source of support - I think they'd find a way, but I don't think those ways would be generally positive.

I think the things that drive the "trap" part are social problems (some of them very complex). If we want people to not get trapped, we need to address those problems.

I work on East Hastings St., so I see a lot of people who are likely permanently on welfare. I don't think that removing welfare payments would get them out of any sort of trap - what keeps people trapped are things like drug abuse, histories of sexual abuse, mental illness, physical disabilities, and family and social legacies that leave them without the skills to support themselves in socially acceptable ways (and often combinations of these). So if we want them out of the trap, we have to improve the part of the system that helps those issues, and deal with the systems that tend to create these problems (easier said than done, of course).

That said, I definitely concede that it is possible to set up social programs such that they provide significant disincentives to work; but I think that this - when it happens - is a product of specific programs, economic conditions, and social factors rather than an inherent fact of all forms of welfare and employment insurance and so on.

[crazy canuck]

I don't think that removing welfare payments would get them out of any sort of trap

I think you should go back and re-read what I said.

[Jacob]

I don't think that removing welfare payments would get them out of any sort of trap

I think you should go back and re-read what I said.

I know you're not arguing that welfare payments should be restricted - in fact, you explicitly state that you do not think they should be. I'm saying that if they were removed, it wouldn't untrap a significant number of recipients; thus I hoped to illustrate my argument that welfare doesn't create much of a trap in many cases. This is obviously not a counter to your position, but rather a counter to "many on the right" as you put it.

[Josephus]

In an interview at the end of his very bad week, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews told CBC Radio that he was unaware of a provision of Bill C-30 that would allow police officers to obtain personal information from Internet Service Providers without a warrant.
http://blogs.canada.com/2012/02/18/why-nobody-wrote-about-vic-toews-divorce/


I think at the very least, Ministers should know the content of the bills they propose. At the very least. I wonder what he thought the bill did, though. Find out the ISPs of twitter uses perhaps. 

Thank God for "popular misinformed outrage."

Thankfully a year later, this Bill is history.

[crazy canuck]

In the What the Heck Were They Thinking categorie, the Speech from the Throne here in BC announced that the government would be establishing a new fund in which the revenue from LNG development will be stored - something similar to the heritage fund the Albertans set up with their oil revenues.  They further announced that BC's debt would be paid off from this fund and that further Billions would be used to fund things like health care and education.

Great plan right?  except there is no money for this fund because there is no LNG revenue stream as yet.  It is all just a twinkle in our Premier's eye.

To add to the stupidity the one thing this government had going for it going into next election is people still have a distrust of the NDP regarding economic matters and particularly taxes and spending.  I have stated them before so I you will all be familiar with that view.

But now that the government has promised this windfall of revenue to spend, as illusory as it is, they have trashed the one strong point they had to make.  How can they now credibly say the voters need to be wary of NDP polices when the government itself is brandishing the magical money tree (something I told Jacob not to long ago didnt exist).

To top it all off the NDP has come out today essentially restating all the arguments the right has and should be making.  ie, there is no magic money tree, we need to be prudent etc etc etc.

I despair