Signals.Cpl

This was an interesting paper that states free education is not free truly free: http://upi-yptk.ac.id/Ekonomi//Psacharopoulos_The-real.pdf?PHPSESSID=47e28c180b731783ea45dd3740283d5f

Well aside from the students in other provinces and the other provinces that foot the bill for Quebec.

Now justify why we should use the money from this source to pay for higher education to some people rather then pay down our national debt? Quebec might not like that. Define wealthiest, is it people who make 90k/year 150k/year or over a million/year? How are business jets not a business expense? For the rest I agree. Any suggestions how? Ok You mean like teachers telling them how to eat properly? Yeah and he created a 480 billion dollar debt too right? Now, tell me how much money would it take to get free education to all Canadians, how much money you would get from these sources and why shouldn't we use these funds to improve healthcare, infrastructure, pay down the debt, rebuild the military, fix education problems in the primary and secondary level or give us all some tax cuts?

And what do you mean treats all equally? Who is Canada NOT treating equally in this case?

You are going to be a teacher? Thats cute.

I'm saying the value of the study is based on the questions asked, the way the questions were framed, and who was asked. So you are saying that since this is a "respectable" organization we should not ask questions? If you publish a study that states which ranks people's happiness then they should put in the criteria of their ranking system. If your intention was to prove that Denmark is the happiest country in the world, did you twist your questions to fit the desired result? Did you ask the group of people who are most likely to give you the desired answer? Did you disregard people's answers due to their opposition to your desired result?

The federal buildings and property would in the case of a separate Quebec be split based on population I would think. Just like the Federal debt and to some extent the military. There are some things that they would have to foot the bill for, like severance package for all the civil servants no longer required by Canada due to the split.

Since when does any province in Canada not allow protest?

You are trying to prove that a country is happy based on questions asked you do not know about. If I asked a group of anti-war protestors if they support war and I asked a group of pro-war protestors if they supported a war I would get nearly unanimous support for and against. And you have nothing to prove that its NOT a bullshit survey.

I am asking what they did, did they ask 10,000 people or was it an office poll. If they ask 10,000 people in order to get a proper view of the subject its one thing, asking 10,000 quebecers might give a different answer then 10,000 Albertans who might give a different answer from asking 10,000 prisoners. If they don't present the questions asked to the people, define what disposable income means to them, or who they asked then this means NOTHING.

Replace protest with terrorism.

Well then this survey means nothing. I can go out and get massive support for a anything if I ask questions that are framed to get the answer I want.

Look at the Iraq and Syria page on the CIA World Fact book and tell me how bad/good they are just based on the info there.

What questions? Are you happy to be alive? Do you enjoy not being dead? If we don't get the survey we cannot for sure say that they are happy or not. Did they ask 10,000 Canadians from all over the country in all walks of life and make a guess or did they ask people in Toronto right outside the welfare office?

I don't know, we need a definition on why people are happy, a breakdown of sorts. What questions were asked, were they the same to everyone in all countries who are ranked? How many people took the survey? How was it decided who will participate? We can get 90% support for the conservatives if we framed questions to suit different groups, or if we downright ignored the people who do not support the Conservatives.

And yet I haven't heard how they plan to fund that. With ontario having a deficit as it is, and Canada having a deficit as it is, and Quebec having a small deficit as it is I wonder who will pay for it. Do we have to bankrupt the country because people are unwilling to work to pay their way?

What does the CIA analysis prove though? All we get is a snapshot of the country right now. There is not discussion of the problems that the Danes themselves have with the country. I don't know, maybe the Danes are so happy because the unhappy once are working hard and were not available to fill out the survey and only the welfare recipients were free to fill it out.

What do they mean disposable income? Money after taxes or money after my bills are paid? Because I can tell you I don't know many people with $27,000 disposable income. And how do they get Life Satisfaction score?

Thank You.

Can you cite evidence for that outlandish claim?

your source does not work.

I was born in a country with a large gypsy minority, trust me its funny until they steal your things.

It was the NDP...

We need to revitalize our democracy then.

So if all of us chose to collect for three years while working for a year who pays for that? I mean I don't want to work for 4 years so that you can collect EI for 3 years...