NDP Baby Bonus

[kengs333]

If this isn't blatant vote buying, I don't know what is, but it remains to be seen whether or not this $5,000 dangling carrot will have time to make an impact with just about two weeks left in the election. Some things that come to mind about the "baby bonus":

1) in a way, this is essentially paying young girls to have babies; poor girls who get pregnant because they have no other purpose in life, now have an added incentive.

2) why are "families" with incomes in the $188,000 range receiving anything at all? At most, a family should be earning $60,000 or so to qualify for a minimum $100/month.

3) Layton is insane if he thinks he can eliminate poverty by 2020, if at all.

4) Did Layton just undermine his claim to be the alternative to the Liberals?

[independent]

If this isn't blatant vote buying, I don't know what is, but it remains to be seen whether or not this $5,000 dangling carrot will have time to make an impact with just about two weeks left in the election. Some things that come to mind about the "baby bonus":

1) in a way, this is essentially paying young girls to have babies; poor girls who get pregnant because they have no other purpose in life, now have an added incentive.

2) why are "families" with incomes in the $188,000 range receiving anything at all? At most, a family should be earning $60,000 or so to qualify for a minimum $100/month.

3) Layton is insane if he thinks he can eliminate poverty by 2020, if at all.

4) Did Layton just undermine his claim to be the alternative to the Liberals?

Stay tuned the conservatives give their promises tomorrow. You know parties very seldom come through with their promises especially when they have no hope of getting into power anyways. Is there no tax back policy in that plan?

[capricorn]

Jack has become light-headed from seeing the rise of the NDP in the polls. Jack is suffering delusional thoughts that he truly has a chance at being the next PM. This whole thing about helping families and the middle class is a lame attempt at turning the NDP into something it isn't.

I think his promise of $400. per month per child under 18 years of age is preposterous. It's just another example of how incompetent he would be in managing this country's economy.

[Smallc]

Jack has become light-headed from seeing the rise of the NDP in the polls. Jack is suffering delusional thoughts that he truly has a chance at being the next PM. This whole thing about helping families and the middle class is a lame attempt at turning the NDP into something it isn't.

I think his promise of $400. per month per child under 18 years of age is preposterous. It's just another example of how incompetent he would be in managing this country's economy.

There are examples of the NDP moving to the center in both Saskatchewan and Manitoba, so its not impossible.

Also, the $400 benefit isn't as expensive as it seems because he would cancel the other two (at least) current benefits in order to implement it.

[capricorn]

There are examples of the NDP moving to the center in both Saskatchewan and Manitoba, so its not impossible.

That would be a good thing. I'm looking for a strong opposition to the Conservatives and I have given up on the Liberals. The problem with the present federal NDP is that it clings to a socialist ideology. The NDP has a long way to go to reposition itself anywhere near the centre.

Also, the $400 benefit isn't as expensive as it seems because he would cancel the other two (at least) current benefits in order to implement it.

The single largest expenditure in the NDP's multibillion-dollar platform is a new monthly cheque of up to $400 that would replace three existing child benefits. It will cost $500-million in 2009, double for each of the next two years and then more than double to $4.4-billion by 2012.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...l_gam_mostemail

In your universe this may seem like a small expenditure. In my universe it spells d-e-f-i-c-i-t.

[Smallc]

In your universe this may seem like a small expenditure. In my universe it spells d-e-f-i-c-i-t.

It's not in my universe either. Wow....I didn't realize it was that high. I liked what they were talking about up to this point as much of it was Liberal like policy. It looks like I will have to shift my support back to the Conservatives.

Edited September 29, 2008 by Smallc

[capricorn]

It's not in my universe either. Wow....I didn't realize it was that high. I liked what they were talking about up to this point as much of it was Liberal like policy. It looks like I will have to shift my support back to the Conservatives.

I was shocked too when I saw the cost.

[unspoken]

By some miracle if Jack gets in, he won't be able to represent working families anymore. Because nobody will be working.

Seriously though, more money for kids? There should be none. Having children is a choice and those who choose to do it should accept the consequences/responsibilities alongside the benefits. It's not like the system doesn't discriminate against the single/childless enough already.

[Vancouver King]

If this isn't blatant vote buying, I don't know what is, but it remains to be seen whether or not this $5,000 dangling carrot will have time to make an impact with just about two weeks left in the election. Some things that come to mind about the "baby bonus":

1) in a way, this is essentially paying young girls to have babies; poor girls who get pregnant because they have no other purpose in life, now have an added incentive.

2) why are "families" with incomes in the $188,000 range receiving anything at all? At most, a family should be earning $60,000 or so to qualify for a minimum $100/month.

3) Layton is insane if he thinks he can eliminate poverty by 2020, if at all.

4) Did Layton just undermine his claim to be the alternative to the Liberals?

Imagine it, a proposal to benefit citizens who actually need it instead of already profitable, faceless corporations. What revolutionary policy, channeling funds to families who will spend every dime in new economic activity instead of tax reductions for big banks and oil companies.

I think Jack might be onto something.

[Argus]

I was shocked too when I saw the cost.

But it's FREE money! It's not buying us with our own money at all! It's GIVING us someone else's money! Those rich c-o-r-p-o-r-a-t-i-o-n-s we all hate! The NDP will take their money away and give it to us! yayyyy!

Where's the downside!? Dirty corporations! Phtt! Ptui! That'll teach them to try and make profits!

Edited September 29, 2008 by Argus

[independent]

By some miracle if Jack gets in, he won't be able to represent working families anymore. Because nobody will be working.

Seriously though, more money for kids? There should be none. Having children is a choice and those who choose to do it should accept the consequences/responsibilities alongside the benefits. It's not like the system doesn't discriminate against the single/childless enough already.

Too a point you are correct. Families should take consequence's/responsibility for their children.

However even if you are heartless it could be in your best interest to assist those without sufficient means too handle their responsibility's. There are huge social costs involved in not helping parents with their duties. Imagine the huge cost of throwing 14 year olds in prison.

Any money given to low income families goes directly back to the economy.

The trouble is all the parties try to buy votes so they throw out money to everybody rather than targeting needs.

[blueblood]

Imagine it, a proposal to benefit citizens who actually need it instead of already profitable, faceless corporations. What revolutionary policy, channeling funds to families who will spend every dime in new economic activity instead of tax reductions for big banks and oil companies.

I think Jack might be onto something.

Jack is onto bankrupting the country. He's also onto communism.

[blueblood]

Too a point you are correct. Families should take consequence's/responsibility for their children.

However even if you are heartless it could be in your best interest to assist those without sufficient means too handle their responsibility's. There are huge social costs involved in not helping parents with their duties. Imagine the huge cost of throwing 14 year olds in prison.

Any money given to low income families goes directly back to the economy.

The trouble is all the parties try to buy votes so they throw out money to everybody rather than targeting needs.

Any money that business's keep goes directly back into the economy, what's your point??

[Renegade]

However even if you are heartless it could be in your best interest to assist those without sufficient means too handle their responsibility's.

Perhaps a better solution is not to let those who undertake responsibilies they cannot live up to, from doing so in the first place.

There are huge social costs involved in not helping parents with their duties. Imagine the huge cost of throwing 14 year olds in prison.

Maybe, maybe not. I have yet to see a compelling economic argument which shows that giving money away to parents has a lower cost than enforcement. How much less crime does $4.4B/year buy?

[independent]

Any money that business's keep goes directly back into the economy, what's your point??

Not so any money in excess of what is needed goes into savings. Low income people buy goods and services and do not retain money.

[independent]

Any money that business's keep goes directly back into the economy, what's your point??

Not so any money in excess of what is needed goes into savings. Low income people buy goods and services and do not retain money.

[White Doors]

savings are bad all of a sudden?

lol

[blueblood]

Not so any money in excess of what is needed goes into savings. Low income people buy goods and services and do not retain money.

So that money doesn't get spent at all, it just sits in a bank account.

Last time I checked the reason people want to make money is so they can spend it.

[kengs333]

So that money doesn't get spent at all, it just sits in a bank account.

Last time I checked the reason people want to make money is so they can spend it.

check again.

[kengs333]

Any money that business's keep goes directly back into the economy, what's your point??

Oh, yeah, sure it does. Yeah, it goes right back into the economy...

[independent]

Perhaps a better solution is not to let those who undertake responsibilies they cannot live up to, from doing so in the first place.

Maybe, maybe not. I have yet to see a compelling economic argument which shows that giving money away to parents has a lower cost than enforcement. How much less crime does $4.4B/year buy?

http://www.thecoast.ca/Articles-i-2008-03-...il_failure.html

52,000/person in a provincial jail 87,000/person in a federal jail

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/st...59d&k=77775

every homeless person costs 55,000 per person according too the vancouver sun.

[independent]

delete

Edited September 29, 2008 by independent

[kengs333]

savings are bad all of a sudden?

lol

Harper seems to think so, the way he was spending in the months leading up to his illegal election call. You'd think that a party that preaches fiscal responsibility would want to go into an election with a legacy of not spending Canada into a near deficit in an effort to buy votes.

[White Doors]

Harper seems to think so, the way he was spending in the months leading up to his illegal election call. You'd think that a party that preaches fiscal responsibility would want to go into an election with a legacy of not spending Canada into a near deficit in an effort to buy votes.

near deficit = surplus. A 2.9 billion surplus in the first 4 months of this fiscal year.

thanks for coming out though. Your posts are usually good for a snicker.

[White Doors]

Brian Mulroney took his money and went too the states with it.

Did not!!

lol