NDP Baby Bonus

[independent]

Did not!! Sorry stand corrected Mulroney works for a Canadian Law firm. So many news reports had him in the states I thought wrongly that he worked and lived in The States.

lol

[kengs333]

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.

The projection--before the current economic uncertainty--was a $3.3 billion surplus, down from about $14 billion several years ago. I think $3.3 billion qualifies as "near deficit". The Cons even ran a deficit for the first two months of this fiscal year.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...me=&no_ads=

Edited September 29, 2008 by kengs333

[independent]

The projection--before the current economic uncertainty--was a $3.3 billion surplus, down from about $14 billion several years ago. I think $3.3 billion qualifies as "near deficit". The Cons even ran a deficit for the first two months of this fiscal year.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...me=&no_ads=

What the Conservatives did is eliminate the cushion the Liberals had in place. If anything goes wrong like a drop in expected revenue the conservatives would have to make panic changes too their budgets. One of the Liberal promises is to put the cushion back in.

[White Doors]

The projection--before the current economic uncertainty--was a $3.3 billion surplus, down from about $14 billion several years ago. I think $3.3 billion qualifies as "near deficit". The Cons even ran a deficit for the first two months of this fiscal year.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...me=&no_ads=

The projection of 3.3 billion was for 12 months.

They got 2.9 billion in 4 months.

I know you can do the math

[White Doors]

What the Conservatives did is eliminate the cushion the Liberals had in place. If anything goes wrong like a drop in expected revenue the conservatives would have to make panic changes too their budgets. One of the Liberal promises is to put the cushion back in.

A 12.9 billion surplus simply means we are grossly over taxed!

2.9 billion surplus is 4 months is still too much of a 'cushion' in my opinion.

[Renegade]

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

Sorry, I'm not getting the relevance of this cite. That jailing people cost a lot. Sure I agree. That harsher sentences will result in more people in jail? Sure I agree. But how does it prove that giving people more money will reduce their crime enough to offset the additional cost?

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

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

Assuming the numbers are accurate all it shows is that certain kinds of social benefits may be more cost effective than others. IE it seems to conclude that the cost of social spending on cheap or free housing is less that the cost of providing health and other social benefits down the road.

It doesn't all all addresss your point of whether it is cost effective to spend on those social beneifts AT ALL. (ie how much would would we spend on other areas (eg policing) if we didnt spend on social spending at all).

[kengs333]

The projection of 3.3 billion was for 12 months.

They got 2.9 billion in 4 months.

I know you can do the math

If you're suggesting that this means the surplus is going to be in the range of $8.7 billion, you've got to be joking. It just doesn't work like that.

[kengs333]

A 12.9 billion surplus simply means we are grossly over taxed!

2.9 billion surplus is 4 months is still too much of a 'cushion' in my opinion.

Oh, don't worry, Harper wants to lower corporate taxes, which is why we're already hovering near a deficit.

$2.9 billion doesn't even buy four Globemasters nowadays, so I would hardly think that it's "too much" of a cushion.

[independent]

Sorry, I'm not getting the relevance of this cite. That jailing people cost a lot. Sure I agree. That harsher sentences will result in more people in jail? Sure I agree. But how does it prove that giving people more money will reduce their crime enough to offset the additional cost?

Assuming the numbers are accurate all it shows is that certain kinds of social benefits may be more cost effective than others. IE it seems to conclude that the cost of social spending on cheap or free housing is less that the cost of providing health and other social benefits down the road.

It doesn't all all addresss your point of whether it is cost effective to spend on those social beneifts AT ALL. (ie how much would would we spend on other areas (eg policing) if we didnt spend on social spending at all).

You do the math bud. A lot of information out their on the internet. I made the point that those costs should be factored in and it could make sense too help lower income family even if you are heartless. Myself I do not want 14 year olds in Jail and am willing too pay my fair share to help these kids so they do not get too the point where incarceration may be necessary. I do not believe in helping people that can help themselves. I believe in helping people to help themselves if they do not have the means or the ability to do it.

[White Doors]

If you're suggesting that this means the surplus is going to be in the range of $8.7 billion, you've got to be joking. It just doesn't work like that.

Oh, silly me for having an opinion based on facts.

[blueblood]

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

How is having money in the bank bad for the economy, pray do tell...

How is business's making and spending money bad for the economy, please explain...

[White Doors]

You do the math bud. A lot of information out their on the internet. I made the point that those costs should be factored in and it could make sense too help lower income family even if you are heartless. Myself I do not want 14 year olds in Jail and am willing too pay my fair share to help these kids so they do not get too the point where incarceration may be necessary. I do not believe in helping people that can help themselves. I believe in helping people to help themselves if they do not have the means or the ability to do it.

Wow, how elistist can you get? You think only poor people commit crimes?

WOW

[independent]

Wow, how elistist can you get? You think only poor people commit crimes?

WOW

Never said that in the least. Some of the biggest crooks are well to do. We were discussing social problems caused by insufficient means and ability. Not about the greed of rich people. Different discussion all together.

[Renegade]

You do the math bud. A lot of information out their on the internet.

I'd like to do the math and have been trying for some time. As I've said before. I have yet to see numbers that add up which show an economic case.

Show me these numbers you you alude to on the internet. The cites you posted do not show that.

I made the point that those costs should be factored in and it could make sense too help lower income family even if you are heartless.

Yes I agree the cost should be factored in. That is "could" make the case, doesn't mean that it DOES make the case. What I'm looking for is some evidence is that it DOES make the case.

Myself I do not want 14 year olds in Jail and am willing too pay my fair share to help these kids so they do not get too the point where incarceration may be necessary.

I do not believe in helping people that can help themselves. I believe in helping people to help themselves if they do not have the means or the ability to do it.

OK, But isn't that what charities are for? You can express economically what YOU believe in by donating to the charities which are aligned to those beliefs.

Edited September 29, 2008 by Renegade

[kengs333]

Oh, silly me for having an opinion based on facts.

No factual basis for your opinion means that your opinion is not based on fact.

[kengs333]

Wow, how elistist can you get? You think only poor people commit crimes?

WOW

Yeah, the poor impoverished Noob Brunswicker wails again. Please take your meek Maritime whining somewhere else.

[independent]

I'd like to do the math and have been trying for some time. As I've said before. I have yet to see numbers that add up which show an economic case.

Show me these numbers you you alude to on the internet. The cites you posted do not show that.

Yes I agree the cost should be factored in. That is "could" make the case, doesn't mean that it DOES make the case. What I'm looking for is some evidence is that it DOES make the case.

OK, But isn't that what charities are for? You can express economically what YOU believe in by donating to the charities which are aligned to those beliefs.

No it up to you find the information if you want it. It is of little use to me. I will vote for the party that BEST aligns with my views. On my own I would not be able to deal with all the problems and I have no problem having a government that forces you to pay your fair share.

I suggest you check out the Liberterian party for support.

[White Doors]

Never said that in the least. Some of the biggest crooks are well to do. We were discussing social problems caused by insufficient means and ability. Not about the greed of rich people. Different discussion all together.

So poor people are criminals and rich people are greedy.

Any more?

Edited September 29, 2008 by White Doors

[White Doors]

No factual basis for your opinion means that your opinion is not based on fact.

I provided facts, you provided nothing except eye rolling humour.

[White Doors]

Yeah, the poor impoverished Noob Brunswicker wails again. Please take your meek Maritime whining somewhere else.

And you hate maritimers. Wow, you must really hate Maritimers who have native ancestry.

lol

See, apparently you are so thin-skinned that you think this hurts my feelings or something but really all it does is show how morally bankrupt you are.

From what you post all you have going for you is that you are white and from Ontario.

Well, let me be the first to say congratulations! You rock man! Keep up the good work!

Edited September 29, 2008 by White Doors

[independent]

So poor people are criminals and rich people are greedy.

Any more?

Tell me what you think about crime and what should be done about it. I most definely should not be sterotyping and sorry I have come out that way. It is not that simple. I certainly would like to prevent the causes of crime instead of having to put people in Jail. I apologise for any misunderstanding and look forward you input.

[fellowtraveller]

$400 per month per kid?

I may have to consider getting the vasectomy reversed and moving to Bountiful, BC.

[Renegade]

No it up to you find the information if you want it. It is of little use to me.

Yes. I continue to find my own information but I have stated I have yet to find any that supports the statement you made. Apparently you don't have any evidence to offer either. Still, thank-you for the suggestion to find it myself. It's something I have been doingand will continue to do.

I will vote for the party that BEST aligns with my views.

Of course, and I fully expect you to, as I will. What I had hoped was that you had some evidence that your view was supported by factual data. It doesn't appear you do.

I have no problem having a government that forces you to pay your fair share.

Neither do I, presuming we can agree on what "fair" means.

Also please elaborate on your postion. You have stated that you will pick the party aligned wth your views. You have also stated that it is YOUR view that people should be helped out via social programs. You now seem to say that you have no problem with a government that sees thing your way forcing others to pay based upon what you think is fair. Do you realize that what you think is "fair" is not necessarily what others do?

I suggest you check out the Liberterian party for support.

I'm pretty confident that they would support my position, and I can state that for the most part that I support theirs.

Edited September 29, 2008 by Renegade

[Oleg Bach]

$400 per month per kid?

I may have to consider getting the vasectomy reversed and moving to Bountiful, BC.

Sorry to hear about the regretful snipping of your atonmical heritage makers.. Bountiful...are they still hireing out there?- $400 dollars eh? Now if I went out in my old age and convinced some hot babe to have 5 kids - I could buy a high def TV...Frankly I don't get Layton---NDPers are servants - and seem to be happy working for the man as long as they get a day care to dump their kids in and forget about them...and $400 bucks ---talk about settling for a few crums in life. Maybe they NDP could be called the dog at the table party?

[peter_puck]

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.

Who will then be poor and have more babies of their own.

I have a bunch of people in my family with Phd's but no kids. Someone I went to grade school with failed grades twice and had 6 kids by the time she was 24. (I think I went to high school with her before she dropped out in grade 9 ).

While these are extreme examples, the truth is the individual on welfare has more kids than the person with the Phd. This is only going to encourage the trend.

Someone I wonder how Darwin would look at this situation. Survival of the laziest.