Harper's End of Year Speech

[Keepitsimple]

JDobbin....you're somewhat amusing to observe. You never seem to be able to partake in substantial debate....just unfailingly support your Liberal Party and views which by coincidence (?) are mostly anti-Conservative. But I must admit, you are tenacious.

[capricorn]

You never seem to be able to partake in substantial debate

I can't recall him putting forward an original thought or analysis of anything in any of his posts.

But I must admit, you are tenacious.

He is very repetitious and seems to have his talking points down pat even if they're off topic. I find this very boring and I learn nothing from it.

Edited December 26, 2007 by capricorn

[jbg]

I can't recall him putting forward an original thought or analysis of anything in any of his posts.

Qute true on this topic, but in other contexts he appears to have a wide-ranging knowledge. He is more than a bit doctrinaire.

He is very repetitious and seems to have his talking points down pat even if they're off topic. I find this very boring and I learn nothing from it.

I wish he would show otherwise, because I know otherwise.

But here, he reads like a man with a mission.

[jdobbin]

Really? Was it his vindictiveness to those who dared disagree with him you liked? His habit of strangling small men who got in his way? The way he siced the police on political opponents? Perhaps the corruption struck your fancy? All that money he had put into his riding - and gave to his friends? Or perhaps the ludicrously bad lies he told? What exactly did you like about this man?

That happened early on due to the GST and resurging economy. Then what? What about all those years of health care and education deterioating while Chretien and Martin played accounting games to try to hide all the huge surpluses? What did he do with his whopping majority and huge surpluses while the country's social fabric fell apart? Nothing.

A newspaper report that he "reportedly raised the issue" is essentially meaningless. There's no evidence he ever raised the issue at all, and on the surface of it, given his cozy relationship with the Chinese government and his evident lack of concern about human rights even in Canada, it seems unlikely.

I don't disagree that he could be vindictive. He was also charismatic and personable. As I said, I never voted for him as leader.

I've criticized the huge surpluses and have always advocated for tax cuts. I'm glad we started to see them in 2005. The problem of the offloading to the provinces was that they decided to lower their taxes at the same time and cut back on their own healthcare funding.

As for your dismissal of the newspaper story, I have no idea what Chretien said in private. I do know that he talked about human rights prior and after his visit. I never thought it was enough but there you go.

Edited December 26, 2007 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

delete

Edited December 26, 2007 by jdobbin

[Argus]

Sorry if you have not been able to find it in the links I showed you

Your links provided no details.

Ken Dryden outlined the plan in 2004.

Did he indeed? Well, you know, I've read through much of your links, including the funding agreements with the provinces, and I'm still left with no details of this "National Child Care Program".

Perhaps you would like to summarize what the program involves.

Because, all I get from these links is a lot of hot air about how important children are, and that the feds agree to handing over money to the provinces to spend as they see fit. If there was a National Child Care Program, then we'd see national guidelines and national requirements similar to those in other national programs. I don't see that here. I see them giving money to the provinces - ironic, given that the Liberals deeply reduced transfer payments to the provinces for health, education and public welfare, but I do not see anything which could be honestly termed a "National Child Care Program".

[jdobbin]

Perhaps you would like to summarize what the program involves.

Because, all I get from these links is a lot of hot air about how important children are, and that the feds agree to handing over money to the provinces to spend as they see fit. If there was a National Child Care Program, then we'd see national guidelines and national requirements similar to those in other national programs. I don't see that here. I see them giving money to the provinces - ironic, given that the Liberals deeply reduced transfer payments to the provinces for health, education and public welfare, but I do not see anything which could be honestly termed a "National Child Care Program".

That's not my reading of the agreements but to each his own. Seems to me that there was money, a plan to disseminate and share information on daycare spaces and an agreement to let the province operate the program. You said nothing was done. This shows that there a program in place and the Tories kept it operating for a year after they were in power.

The Tory plan that replaced it didn't create anywhere near the daycare spaces it promised and those that were created seem to include the time the Liberal program was in place.

[Argus]

That's not my reading of the agreements but to each his own. Seems to me that there was money, a plan to disseminate and share information on daycare spaces and an agreement to let the province operate the program. You said nothing was done. This shows that there a program in place and the Tories kept it operating for a year after they were in power.

The Tory plan that replaced it didn't create anywhere near the daycare spaces it promised and those that were created seem to include the time the Liberal program was in place.

It's very difficult to measure the creation of such spaces in the private sector due to parents having more money. It's far easier to measure "official" daycare spaces as provided by government.

The problem I have with government run daycare is it's hideously expensive. Like most of my generation, when my parents went off to work I and my sibling were left in the company of a variety of mostly trustworthy young women to take care of. The cost was not terribly onerous. In fact, most of the young women I know who have young children have private daycare. Big fancy daycare centres only hire people with official education in early childcare education and such, and they cost a hell of a lot more - which is beyond what many young people can afford. In Quebec they have lots of big fancy daycare spaces which are heavily subsidized, but the cost is so great there isn't nearly enough of it.

But at least it IS a daycare program. Simply handing money out to the provinces is nothing of the sort. At best it's returning some of the transfer payments the Liberals eliminated years back.

[jdobbin]

It's very difficult to measure the creation of such spaces in the private sector due to parents having more money. It's far easier to measure "official" daycare spaces as provided by government.

The problem I have with government run daycare is it's hideously expensive. Like most of my generation, when my parents went off to work I and my sibling were left in the company of a variety of mostly trustworthy young women to take care of. The cost was not terribly onerous. In fact, most of the young women I know who have young children have private daycare. Big fancy daycare centres only hire people with official education in early childcare education and such, and they cost a hell of a lot more - which is beyond what many young people can afford. In Quebec they have lots of big fancy daycare spaces which are heavily subsidized, but the cost is so great there isn't nearly enough of it.

But at least it IS a daycare program. Simply handing money out to the provinces is nothing of the sort. At best it's returning some of the transfer payments the Liberals eliminated years back.

Part of the reason why Solberg was able to tell how many daycare spaces were created was because of the agreement to share and disseminate information. The provincial governments are best equipped to manage daycare programs in their regions.

If there was enough private daycare, we wouldn't be having this problem of people being desperate for space. I don't think you can say the expense is mainly because of the high cost of the employees. Their pay is woefully low despite requirements placed on them by provincial government.

I agree the program was a transfer program. It was specifically earmarked for daycare spaces and operations and it came with strings attached and a deadline for renewal. Most programs don't come with those type of conditions. One other condition that was made that amendments could be made along the way to improve the delivery of the daycare program.

The Tory program of tax credits was too small to get private companies interested in building daycare spaces. Ontario Conservatives several years back tried to encourage private companies to build daycare spaces with a $10 million fund. Only $500,000 of it was ever used because of lack of interest. The program was cancelled.

I know the Tories are generally in favour of tax credits or incentives for private business for the delivery of services. In the case of daycare it is not working. It is an important issue, one that appeals to women in particular and the Tory program is not doing particularly well even according to its own minister.

I think that what trips the Tories up is that they want to give money to stay at home moms under the guise of the tax credit for choice in daycare. The problem it doesn't build daycare spaces.

[jbg]

I think that what trips the Tories up is that they want to give money to stay at home moms under the guise of the tax credit for choice in daycare. The problem it doesn't build daycare spaces.

And why shouldn't people be encouraged to raise their own children rather than handing them off to the government, Cuban style? Why should the system, by subsidizing only "professional" day care, encourage people to work if their earnings do not cover the "opportunity costs" of child rearing as well as giving them an incentive to work?

My wife, for example, stopped working full-time when the after-tax cost of child care + the cost of commuting to New York City came within 10% of her earnings. Governments should not foster economicaly irrational choices by unleveling the "playing field".

[Kitchener]

And why shouldn't people be encouraged to raise their own children rather than handing them off to the government

I'm sure there was an answer to this... what was it?

Oh, right -- because this would be "encouraging" them to raise their children poor -- perhaps in poverty -- because they'd be single-income families in households many of which are already struggling with two or 1.5 incomes. Sorry, I had to think seriously for two seconds to remember that rather obvious fact. Clearly not a barrier to posting the question, though.

Maybe I was also distracted by the daft line about "handing them off to the government", since "the government" would not be doing daycare under anyone's plan -- just guaranteeing the creation of spaces, on the defunct Liberal proposal. Again, basic accuracy not a condition for posting, it seems.

Cuban style

Awesome. Now maybe a crack about how Stalin or Hitler was in favour of federally guaranteed daycare spots...?

[jdobbin]

Maybe I was also distracted by the daft line about "handing them off to the government", since "the government" would not be doing daycare under anyone's plan -- just guaranteeing the creation of spaces, on the defunct Liberal proposal. Again, basic accuracy not a condition for posting, it seems.

The Conservatives promised their plan would create 125,000 daycare spaces. Where are those spaces?

[kengs333]

Let's hope this is Harpers last. Unfortunately, none of the alternatives are any better. Dare I say future historians will recognize this era (the end of the Chretien reign, his usurper Martin, and the Harper minority) as the beginning of Canada's decline. Canada was such a good thing, victim to the age old problems of corruption, bad leadership, and social balkinization.

[Michael Bluth]

Let's hope this is Harpers last. Unfortunately, none of the alternatives are any better. Dare I say future historians will recognize this era (the end of the Chretien reign, his usurper Martin, and the Harper minority) as the beginning of Canada's decline. Canada was such a good thing, victim to the age old problems of corruption, bad leadership, and social balkinization.

Depending on the historian you can find 'beginning of the end' naysayers for the: Diefenbaker/Pearson era, Trudeau era or the Mulroney era.

Canada is doing pretty well and we've been head in the right direction for the last 20 to 25 years, except for the third Chretien term and the Martin abomination.

[kengs333]

Depending on the historian you can find 'beginning of the end' naysayers for the: Diefenbaker/Pearson era, Trudeau era or the Mulroney era.

Canada is doing pretty well and we've been head in the right direction for the last 20 to 25 years, except for the third Chretien term and the Martin abomination.

Doing quite well, I guess, if your inclined to see the country swallowed up by some sort of North American union.

[Michael Bluth]

Doing quite well, I guess, if your inclined to see the country swallowed up by some sort of North American union.

Ahhh the newest chestnut in the *scary* *scary* *scary* parade.

Thankfully the vast majority of the conspiracy theorists who believe in NAU are true tinfoil hatters.

[kengs333]

Ahhh the newest chestnut in the *scary* *scary* *scary* parade.

Thankfully the vast majority of the conspiracy theorists who believe in NAU are true tinfoil hatters.

Excuse me? This has nothing to do with "conspiracy theorists". The general trend seems to be that our economic elite would prefer full integration & political union with the United States. This is something that has been around for awhile, and isn't exactly something that is within the realm of "conspiracy theory."

[Michael Bluth]

Excuse me? This has nothing to do with "conspiracy theorists". The general trend seems to be that our economic elite would prefer full integration & political union with the United States. This is something that has been around for awhile, and isn't exactly something that is within the realm of "conspiracy theory."

If it truly were a 'general trend' wouldn't you be able to provide us with a link to one of our 'economic elite' making an argument for political union with the United States?

Until then it remains 'conspiracy theory'.

[jbg]

Excuse me? This has nothing to do with "conspiracy theorists". The general trend seems to be that our economic elite would prefer full integration & political union with the United States. This is something that has been around for awhile, and isn't exactly something that is within the realm of "conspiracy theory."

Kengs333,

.

[kengs333]

If it truly were a 'general trend' wouldn't you be able to provide us with a link to one of our 'economic elite' making an argument for political union with the United States?

Until then it remains 'conspiracy theory'.

for starters try "The Canadian Revolution" by Peter C. Newman, pgs. 108ff., in particular pgs. 112ff where he discusses Canada's move into the "post-national world". He eventually states that "none" of the trends that he discusses will result in "the end of Canada"--but that's debateable. We've comes so far in being Americanized, that it's really just a matter of time.

[margrace]

On the news this morning no cuts to income taxe, evidently the government can't afford it. It is interesting reading this, mothers should stay home and raise their own children. I would have loved to have done that, unfortunately we needed a roof over our heads and foot. There are people who make big money and live in ivory towers, they have no idea how the rest of the world lives.

There have always been Americans who thought and still think that Canada belongs to them. Go back and read your history. There are Canadians who agree with them, but they come from the class that can afford to fly south for the winter. Most of us can't and really don't want to.

[bush_cheney2004]

...There have always been Americans who thought and still think that Canada belongs to them. Go back and read your history. There are Canadians who agree with them, but they come from the class that can afford to fly south for the winter. Most of us can't and really don't want to.

...except when the CHA can't accommodate their medical needs in a timely manner, then they really do want to. They think the US belongs to them, eh?

[jbg]

On the news this morning no cuts to income taxe, evidently the government can't afford it. It is interesting reading this, mothers should stay home and raise their own children. I would have loved to have done that, unfortunately we needed a roof over our heads and foot. There are people who make big money and live in ivory towers, they have no idea how the rest of the world lives.

What I said was that the government shouldn't unlevel the playing field in a way that encourages mothers to work when, economically, they're not replacing the cost of their child care.

There have always been Americans who thought and still think that Canada belongs to them. Go back and read your history. There are Canadians who agree with them, but they come from the class that can afford to fly south for the winter. Most of us can't and really don't want to.

I know very few Americans that want Canada to belong to the US. Relax.

[kengs333]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Union

[Drea]

On the news this morning no cuts to income taxe, evidently the government can't afford it. It is interesting reading this, mothers should stay home and raise their own children. I would have loved to have done that, unfortunately we needed a roof over our heads and foot. There are people who make big money and live in ivory towers, they have no idea how the rest of the world lives.

What they don't seem to understand, Margrace, is that if the mom were to stay at home, the gov't would then lose $10,000 per year in income tax (that is how much I paid last year after write-offs).

Obviously they are thinking with their little heads instead of the ones on their shoulders.

Is it cheaper for the govt to provide $7000 per year in child care expenses for 5 years or losing $10,000/year for 25 years?

Hmmmm let's add it up... $35,000 for childcare vs $250,000 in potential tax income.

This goverment is an idiot.