[Toro]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

5. National child care. See point one above.

The NDP-Liberal proposal is a poor plan. Its better to just give families money.

$1:

The Liberals and the NDP have recycled their promises of a national daycare program:

$1:

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said if elected, his party would scale up spending on child care spaces to reach $1.25 billion in four years time, money that he said would fund 165,000 new spaces...

NDP Leader Jack Layton made a similar promise, vowing to create 150,000 spaces across the country within the first year of a mandate at a cost of $1.4-billion.

Both parties offer the same choice to parents. Call it the Rumpelstiltskin model: they are willing to provide money, but you must surrender your child in return. I realise that it is unfair to compare the Liberals and the NDP to a villain of a fairy tale. Unfair to Rumpelstiltskin, that is: he at least brought something - his ability to spin gold from straw - to the table. The Liberal-NDP position is based on reallocating gold spun by taxpayers.

This is not an exaggeration. Remember Scott Reid's "beer and popcorn" crack in 2006? It was a gaffe in its purest form - the inadvertent revelation of the truth. And when I listened to Olivia Chow insist on 'publicly-provided, not publicly-funded' daycare, I wondered if it had ever occurred to ask herself why.

The awfulness of the Liberal-NDP position is not restricted to its unapologetic paternalism. (Will I get through this post without using the expression "nanny state"? Apparently not.) It is also inegalitarian, regressive and inefficient.

From an editorial in the Toronto Star:

$1:

The Harper government has taken creative licence to an extreme in dubbing the $100-a-month cheques it sends to families with young children a "universal child-care benefit."

It may be universal for children under age 6 (although the fact it is taxable means some families keep very little of it). But with a single day of infant care in some licensed daycare centres costing $70 or more, it doesn't even begin to cover the staggering child-care costs that burden many families.

Let's do a little back-of-the-envelope arithmetic. According to this editorial, the total cost of sending $100 cheques each month is $2.4b/yr; that works out to 2m children. The NDP program calls for $1.45b to finance 150,000 daycare places, which works out to about $800 per month. That's certainly an improvement over the existing $100/month - but only if you happen to be one of the 7.5% of families who will benefit. The other 92.5% will see nothing. This project is profoundly inegalitarian: it will create a small class of insiders who have generous access to public funds, and it will do absolutely nothing for everyone else.

If those 7.5% were families at the very bottom of the income distribution, that could be sold as a progressive policy. But it's not; it's being sold as a step towards a universal daycare program. If the aim of the policy is to help out low-income parents, our experience with the Quebec model isn't very encouraging. As explained in great detail over here, the average subsidy to families in the highest income quartile is more than twice that received by families in the lowest quartile.

And then there are efficiency considerations. It is well known that cash transfers are a better way of redistributing income than providing in-kind goods and services.

A lesson for the Liberals and the NDP: if you want to help low-income families, give them money. It really is that simple.

http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhil ... troll.html

[Reverend Blair]

$1:

I'll see what I can find on him,

Pay attention to his premiership of Saskatchewan. That's where he had control of the economy.

$1:

No. I believe in the greater good, even when the greater good doesn't benefit me.

Yeah, that's kind of the point. I have no kids and I'm sure as hell not going to start now. According to 2Cdo, and a lot of Conservatives, that means I shouldn't worry about child care or education. I'm not old and don't need care for the elderly, so I shouldn't worry about that either. I don't own a farm so I shouldn't worry about the CWB. I own trucks, so I should be against all controls on CO2 emissions. I own an older house, so I should be against CO2 reduction programs. I don't smoke dope, so I should support locking up all the dope smokers. I never went to university, so I should hate intellectuals. I'm not a woman, so I shouldn't worry about women's issues. I'm not and aboriginal, so I should be against their causes.

It's the politics of division and personal greed. There's no vision there, no concept of the greater good.

[2Cdo]

Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:

But they haven't had a cut yet...that happens with their next returns. If they raise their prices by two percent because they have to pay the same as they did before, that pretty much proves Jack's point.

Also, they aren't known for passing the savings on, and your theory is dependent on them having dropped consumer prices by the same amount they got in tax breaks. These are the same guys who raised their prices when the GST cut came and took forever...in many cases are still taking forever...to pass on the benefits of a higher dollar.

Don't blame Layton for the corporations ripping you off...they've been doing it since the invention of corporations.

Never blamed Jack entirely but his raising the rates back will just give corporations an excuse.

$1:

Except post-secondary education is expensive and jobs that pay enough to cover it are few and far between. Your elitist roots are showing.

The loan system is fine the way it is. I'm giving you an alternative, some will take it and some won't. Not really elitist is it.

$1:

Okay, I'm not sure alternate universe you live in, but that's just stupid. There are a lot of cases of deadbeat dads out there. There are a lot of people who are single parents because their spouses died or were incapacitated.

I know you, from your little elitist perch in that alternate universe you inhabit, would like to think that everybody in financial difficulty is there because they like it, but that simply doesn't match the facts.

And with this post you resorted to personal insults, which shows you have run out of any decent rebuttal.

$1:

Except I never said that and neither did Layton. You made it up...pulled it out of your ass.

People have children for a variety of reasons and circumstances change.

Besides, we're talking about money that will go directly back into the economy in most cases, so it's also an economic driver.

You must have missed where i said "if" they were. And there have been cases of people having more babies while on welfare and getting more money for them.

$1:

Ah, here we go again. Only the rich work hard. Anybody who isn't rich is a lazy slacking bastard. It comes up again and again in Conservative rhetoric. It's bullshit of course. People in low and medium-paying jobs work hard. Go see what it is they do for a living and ask yourself if you could do that five or six days a week, fifty weeks a year.

You certainly read a lot in my statement. I didn't realise the military was filled with rich people. I agree that people in low and medium paying jobs work hard, I was one of them. I could more than say the same for my job, come see if you could do my job. I don't think you could, but that doesn't make you bad.

I thought I could have a civil discourse with you but I was wrong. You don't like conservatives and let your emotions into the discusion resorting to personal insults. Not that I have issues with insults, lord knows I've thrown a few out over the years, but discussing anything political with you usually ends this way.

[2Cdo]

lily lily:

So 2Cdo, if I read you right, you were able to succeed so everyone else should, if only they try hard enough.

Single parents should just get the other parent to pay... good plan. Too bad a lot won't.

And since your kids had jobs that paid for their education of course every child can and should do the same. I got student loans which I'm still paying off - that was a better plan for me, or I'd still be working for little more than minimum wage, trying to pay my bills while saving for school.


Your original post was pure selfishness... if it doesn't benefit you personally, you don't want it. Who cares about other people, eh?

Is it just me or is anyone else tired of Lily riding in on her high horse?

[tritium]

Christ there are only two parties to choose from in this Canadian election..

NDP or Liberal/Conservative

Liberals and Conservative are both Corporate whores.. U.S. Citizens have had an appifiny as to what happens when a "Conservative" government cowtows to corporate interests and wall street.

This is the main reason I think Obama will win.

This is also the main reason why the NDP is gaining ground on the Liberals and might surprise many in this next election.

Dion is a whimp, not to mention I have no clue what he is saying... when he start to talk and tend to fall asleep.

[2Cdo]

lily lily:

2Cdo 2Cdo:

lily lily:

So 2Cdo, if I read you right, you were able to succeed so everyone else should, if only they try hard enough.

Single parents should just get the other parent to pay... good plan. Too bad a lot won't.

And since your kids had jobs that paid for their education of course every child can and should do the same. I got student loans which I'm still paying off - that was a better plan for me, or I'd still be working for little more than minimum wage, trying to pay my bills while saving for school.


Your original post was pure selfishness... if it doesn't benefit you personally, you don't want it. Who cares about other people, eh?

Is it just me or is anyone else tired of Lily riding in on her high horse?

2Cdo 2Cdo:

And with this post you resorted to personal insults, which shows you have run out of any decent rebuttal.

You came in referring to me as selfish and uncaring, and you're surprised I made a comment back.

[Reverend Blair]

$1:

Is it just me or is anyone else tired of Lily riding in on her high horse?

Lily has a horse? I thought she lived in a city?

$1:

Never blamed Jack entirely but his raising the rates back will just give corporations an excuse.

An excuse for what? And as opposed to what? Steve giving them everything they ask for and more, to no positive effect at all?

$1:

The loan system is fine the way it is. I'm giving you an alternative, some will take it and some won't. Not really elitist is it.

Actually the loan system is bitched, as is the entire system. There are plenty of people from working and middle class families who can't afford to go at all, and plenty who come out so deeply in debt that they can barely contribute to the economy for decades.

$1:

And with this post you resorted to personal insults, which shows you have run out of any decent rebuttal.

No, you yammered something stupid, greedy, and disconnected from reality. I just pointed that out. You never addressed any of the other points I made.

$1:

You must have missed where i said "if" they were. And there have been cases of people having more babies while on welfare and getting more money for them.

There have been cases of army boys selling weapons to bikers. Quick! Better lock up 2Cdo.

Your argument is ridiculous. Yeah, some people will abuse the system. Some people abuse every system. That doesn't mean you toss the system out, nor does it mean that the majority of people in that system are guilty.

Besides, who the hell thinks you can raise a kid on $400 a month?

$1:

You certainly read a lot in my statement.

It isn't just your statement though, it's a long record of Conservative rhetoric. I really don't care if you have a military background or if you worked for the government in some other position or if you cleaned parking lots with a toothbrush all your life. The point is that in your statements, and in so may statements by those who share you political position, the blame is placed on those in difficulty for being in difficulty.

I've known way too many people who have seen their jobs disappear for reasons completely out of their control though, or have seen high-paying jobs have their value eroded over time. I've seen people invest in educations, from the trades to high-level university, when times were good for the profession they were training for, only to graduate just in time for the bottom to fall out of that industry.

You like to pretend that it's their problem, that they should have known better. Of course they were listening to Conservative politicians and economists more often than not, taking the advice of your think tanks and CEOs. They did as they were told and when it worked against them, they were told they were on their own.

I don't like Conservatives, you're right. I've been watching the results of their policies since about 1980, and those policies have done very real harm to very real people. The people who have instituted those policies have never taken responsibility for it though. That's conservatism in a nutshell.

[Toro]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

The loan system is fine the way it is. I'm giving you an alternative, some will take it and some won't. Not really elitist is it.

Students should pay more for their post-secondary education, with some sort of granting process for lower income people.

Generally, the wealthier you are, the more likelier you are to go to university (as well as get accepted to university, which is generally not related to income). And generally, if your parents went to university, the more likely you are to go too.

The gap in income between those who have post-secondary education and those who do not have widened substantially over the past several decades. Yet, lower income individuals are less likely to attend university. Thus, lower income and less educated people are subsidizing the middle and upper classes. That does not make much sense.

To make it more equitable, students should pay more for their education because they will make more over their lifetimes had they not gone to college.

[Reverend Blair]

Ah, more elitism. Thanks, Toro.

[Toro]

Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:

Ah, more elitism. Thanks, Toro.

Good to see your analytical skills are as sharp as ever Blair, given that making university students pay more of their tuition reduces the wealth transfer from the lower income groups and less educated to the middle and upper income groups.

Well done.

[Reverend Blair]

It also makes university less accessible to those with less money, Toro. I know you made passing mention of some sort of program to help the poor, but those programs rarely have much of an effect and are costly to administer. They also tend to be one of those programs that conservative governments love to cut.

You know as well as anybody that more expensive education reduces access for those with less money, and that lack of access keeps those who could advance if they had more education from advancing.

Your plan is elitist at its heart...to allow the wealthy to become more educated and get the better jobs, while relegating the rest to lower paying positions. It doesn't surprise me that you would think of it, or that a conservative would try to advance elitism as being somehow populist, but in the end your plan is to keep education for those with the most money.

[Toro]

Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:

It also makes university less accessible to those with less money, Toro. I know you made passing mention of some sort of program to help the poor, but those programs rarely have much of an effect and are costly to administer. They also tend to be one of those programs that conservative governments love to cut.

You know as well as anybody that more expensive education reduces access for those with less money, and that lack of access keeps those who could advance if they had more education from advancing.

Your plan is elitist at its heart...to allow the wealthy to become more educated and get the better jobs, while relegating the rest to lower paying positions. It doesn't surprise me that you would think of it, or that a conservative would try to advance elitism as being somehow populist, but in the end your plan is to keep education for those with the most money.

Ugh!

Making university cheaper for all transfers wealth from the poor and less educated to the wealthier and more educated. This is frickin' regressive!

$1:

The tuition subsidy is distributed equally across the student population. But the student population is not representative of the population as a whole; upper income groups are over-represented. If we apply Bayes' Rule (is there anything it can't do?) to the information in this graph, we can calculate the percentage of the university student population that comes from each income quartile:

Lowest: 17%
Second: 22%
Third: 25.5%
Highest: 35.5%

So 61% of the tuition subsidy goes to students from the top half of the income distribution, and the proportion of the budget that goes to the top quartile is more than twice as large as the share that goes to the lowest quartile.

http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhil ... _tuit.html
http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhil ... _abou.html

If you want to help the poor, then give them grants or lower tuition fees and offset the costs by increasing tuition for those who come from higher income families. Why do we subsidize law and MBA students?

If you want to subsidize me, fine. But its you who is promoting the elitist policies.

[herbie]

Bell, Rogers, Telus do not need a tax break. I need a tax break. You probably need a tax break too, so that you will have more money in your pocket to spend (or save, unlike the stupid GST reduction) as you so choose.
No party is going to RAISE taxes. The NDP just isn't gonna hand them out to those who deserve them the least. The Liberals are going to counter the carbon tax with reductions elsewhere, but too many Conservative minds just stop dead after the first half of the sentence because that's what Harper tells them to.

I'm going to listen to the NDPs Nathan Cullen speak tonight. The Liberal candidate will be there too. Sharon Smith, the Tory won't attend, but that's okay as anyone with Internet access has seen too much of her already!
I'm just curious about Prince George. Albertans always elect Tories, that's okay as they always get rewarded for it (even if the Liberals win). PG elects Tories no matter how badly those Tories kick them in the nuts. I'm just hoping the entire displaced workforce of Mackenzie knows there's an absentee ballot they can use to dump Jay Hill.

[mtbr]

herbie herbie:

Albertans always elect Tories, that's okay as they always get rewarded for it (even if the Liberals win). .

\


and just how do we get rewarded by either party?

[Reverend Blair]

Making university less expensive to everyone makes it more accessible to everyone. Making it more expensive makes it less accessible.

Saying that you can offer lower tuition rates for those with less money doesn't work...you end up with a two tiered education system where the best universities and the best teachers are only available to those with the most money and a select few from the middle and lower classes who happen to fit the profile the elites are looking for. That's pretty obvious by the way the education system in your chosen country works.

Even in a relatively equitable public education system, we see more and better resources going to the wealthy than to the poor. The result is that kids from the inner city don't get the same education as kids in the wealthy suburbs. That gets worse when you get to the post-secondary level, with wealthier people being more likely to go to university and the less wealthy to community college or straight into the work force. Since education dictates earnings to a large degree, that pattern becomes generational.

Conservatives bitch that the poor don't make themselves rich, but the reality is that the deck is stacked against you if you aren't born into a family with at least a moderate amount of wealth.

Your idea, like most of your ideas, is inherently elitist, Toro.