Billions spent on Socialist programs! Can we afford them?

[Alta4ever]

If we can't afford 9 billion on protecting our nation's sovereignty can we really afford the billions more we spend on sacred cow socialist programs?

[TimG]

If we can't afford 9 billion on protecting our nation's sovereignty can we really afford the billions more we spend on sacred cow socialist programs?

I think problem is we can afford th $9 billion. The question is are their better uses for the money. This is a question I wish would be asked about almost every government spending project.

[Alta4ever]

I think problem is we can afford th $9 billion. The question is are their better uses for the money. This is a question I wish would be asked about almost every government spending project.

So in other words because this kind of spending does not fit your agenda its not needed.

[eyeball]

So in other words because this kind of spending does not fit your agenda its not needed.

Conversely it must be needed if it does fit your's, right?

[TimG]

So in other words because this kind of spending does not fit your agenda its not needed.

Actually it does. I just think it is perfectly legimate to question spending priorities.

[William Ashley]

If we can't afford 9 billion on protecting our nation's sovereignty can we really afford the billions more we spend on sacred cow socialist programs?

such as?

[Bonam]

such as?

Welfare, EI, CPP, Healthcare, Education.

[BubberMiley]

And what about those high wages? Who's supposed to pay for them? In my day, you were happy living in a tent city with a can of beans! All this socialism has gotten us is the highest living standard of any population in history! It was better before when children starved, I say.

[Smallc]

Welfare, EI, CPP, Healthcare, Education.

EI and CPP aren't very good examples, since they come from completely different pot than the rest.

[Bonam]

EI and CPP aren't very good examples, since they come from completely different pot than the rest.

It doesn't matter what "pot" they come from. It is money that the government collects from the people and then spends. You can put it in a different column on a spreadsheet, but to a person paying taxes it makes no difference... the money is still coming off their paycheque.

[Smallc]

It doesn't matter what "pot" they come from. It is money that the government collects from the people and then spends. You can put it in a different column on a spreadsheet, but to a person paying taxes it makes no difference... the money is still coming off their paycheque.

The CPP isn't like that at all though. It has nothing to do with taxes, nor does EI (it hasn't for a couple years). The government can't touch it.

The CPP is controlled by an investment board. It's a pension, not a tax.

Edited July 21, 2010 by Smallc

[Bonam]

The CPP isn't like that at all though. It has nothing to do with taxes, nor does EI (it hasn't for a couple years). The government can't touch it.

The CPP is controlled by an investment board. It's a pension, not a tax.

It comes off your paycheque now. You may not want to call it a tax. But reality is, there is no way to be sure that 40 years down the road the CPP program will still exist, or that the retirement age will still be the same, or that I will still be alive, or that I will need or want a pension, or that I will reside in Canada, or that Canada will still exist, or that money will still exist, or that humans will still exist.

You can pay with semantics all you want, but it is money that comes off the paycheque, that you cannot use, that you may well never be able to use.

Perhaps the allocation and investment of the funds is not in direct control of the government but some "investment board" as you say. But it is nevertheless the government's decision that such a program should exist.

[Smallc]

Well yes, it's a government decision (which means it was a decision of the people), but I think you're stretching quite a bit to call it a tax.

Edited July 21, 2010 by Smallc

[Bonam]

Well yes, it's a government decision (which means it was a decision of the people), but I think you're stretching quite a bit to call it a tax.

I don't necessarily "call it a tax", I recognize the semantic and technical difference in the definitions. My point is simply that to any given person who isn't about to retire, it doesn't in practice feel any different than a tax.

[Smallc]

I'll certainly give you that.

[William Ashley]

Welfare

- IT IS NOT A FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY - it is provincial

EI

Should be crown corporation - technically this is a pay into service. It could be run as a crown corp - but unemployment is a provincial issue

CPP

same as above. While a retirement fund can be run - like any life or retirement program such as freedom 55 - one must make sure the programs are economically viable - these programs should generate income, not loose federal income. The government ought to look at the cost of a program like freedom 55 vs cpp, and try to create a program that is good, or contract private companies to provide pension provisioning.

Healthcare

- provincial issue. I'll comment even though this isn't the right forum (should be provincial - I support a health public safety branch that the federal government sets standards on imports. I think it is the provinces responsibilities to set standards on products allowed within a province. The federal government would also be responsible for setting "hazardous goods", and restricted goods etc.. Military health personnel would be deployed in emergency settings within Canada - or when not backlogged with military service requests they would be put to public clinics - if possible or private practice. The federal government could also retain and recruit doctors for profit operations. I support crown corporations that provide health services offered at lower than a private physician may charge, to offset medical costs to the economically disadvantaged - akin to cuba and their treatment for glaucoma etc.. Suggesting an education policy that promotes a medically knowledgeable youth, and investing into technology development such as Cognative Intelligence for non personnel pathology or robotic surgery are good investments for the future and establishing crown corps to make profitable products that would reduce health care costs and create revenue for the federal government are mindful applications. Healthcare is a provincial issue though, and provinces should develope health strategies based upon their unique needs and capacities. PEI may not have the same health care needs as B.C., or Nova Scotia. The available options for smaller provinces may be in going out of province for healthcare, other than emergency care, or perhaps only have one or two specialists and a number of general practitioners. If there is a military base also then it makes sense for provinces to contract military medical personnel for service delivery or to utilize military hospitals for specialized care that would be too expensive for the 3 or 4 cases per year they have - yet the military might be required to have the personnel just to maintain operations - but with a lot of waste. On a provincial level I support pay into health insurance - eg. a public health insurance like BC's public auto insurance, private plans would still be allowed, but everyone would be required to have a plan - eitehr the public plan or a private plan - or they would need to pay out of pocket for their health services. Health care costs are too high, people are over medicated, and abuse the health care system, while neglecting their own health - health care need not be expensive, and we need not abandon the disadvantaged, people who honestly can't afford a plan would hopefully be covered by provincial health plans as part of service supports or a poverty line threshhold, and subsidy for individuals earning under $30,000 with a dependent threshold up to $40,000 or $50,000 eg. $4000 more per dependent so if they have 4 children they would be eligible for a subsidy up to $46,000, etc.. the actual cost of the plan could be adjusted by monthly costs, with fluctuations in rates based on use. For example if you don't use your plan, the costs slowly decrease, if you use your plan a lot they increase. I don't support income taxes, I support a pay for subscribership system of "public services". You want a service the government provides you pay for it. Some previous pay services like parks etc.. would become free though for general use - with chances for reserve as pay for and non citizenship usage. I would also require travel insurance for all visitors to Canada that would allow them access to public health services, with an option for level of coverage - something simple like 10$ might cover airlift out of country in a medical emergency - so for every 1000 travellers a 10,000 evacuation would be covered by the plan or or perhaps 10,000 visitors - depending on the cost of the airlift, depending on country of origin. There would be a point of course individuals would prefer domestic service. There are already travel plans and private companies could compete with government health insurance and domestic travel insurance plans. The travel insurance would be a federal - public safety issue. the provision of the public health plan could be a federal crown corp program run for profit or cost recovery. Money raised through the system as a private insurance provider might earn, could go to providing health services, or subsidizing the poor.

Education

- provincial issue.

[Bonam]

Umm, whether we can afford something or not is as much a provincial issue as a federal issue. Just because healthcare and education are provincial issues does not mean we should refuse to consider whether we are spending enough, too much, or too little on these programs.

[Bryan]

As long as the provinces receive transfer payments in order to maintain those services, Provincial responsibilities are still Federal responsibilities from a fiscal perspective. Especially where federal laws require the provinces to maintain those programs.

[Moonlight Graham]

Conversely it must be needed if it does fit your's, right?

ditto

[Smallc]

As long as the provinces receive transfer payments in order to maintain those services, Provincial responsibilities are still Federal responsibilities from a fiscal perspective. Especially where federal laws require the provinces to maintain those programs.

Voluntary federal laws.

[Jack Weber]

If we can't afford 9 billion on protecting our nation's sovereignty can we really afford the billions more we spend on sacred cow socialist programs?

Like the subsidies to your precious oil companies in the oil patch?

Just make sure the oil,gas,and,cattle's to market,okay?

Keep your Albertan "sanity" to yourself...

[William Ashley]

Umm, whether we can afford something or not is as much a provincial issue as a federal issue. Just because healthcare and education are provincial issues does not mean we should refuse to consider whether we are spending enough, too much, or too little on these programs.

It is not just spending.

Under the current system the money is recycled to a certain extent.

For instance if health costs are 30% medical personnel 30% technology and 40% staffing - money comes back in from income tax on medical personnel but it may go 60% to the federal government and 40% to the provincial government etc.. The money that goes into those sectors comes back out and gets moved around.

I think there is room for improvement. I do think a lot is spent, what we ought to do is look at ways of reducing costs without weakening the benefits. My provincial approach and federal approach are not identical.

I think provinces need to provide for social enterprise - the provinces are suppose to manage the social institutions - while the federal international trade, security, and order - Canada is suppose to develope undeveloped areas for transit, security, and economic purposes that effect the generalaity of Canada - the wholeness of Canadians, rather than local issues, and concerns.

Canada is suppose to take a panoramic view of Canadians needs to faciliate them in the world, and from the world, and from each other.

All this gibberish said. My provincial education belief is a primary education system - for social skills development, a secondary education system - for occupational training and apprenticeship. But at younger ages. Eg primary to 10 years old. and occupational to 15 or 16. Individuals could do a prep 2 year "governmental training program - that is a public service period" if they don't enter the workforce. I think many people are overqualified for their jobs in todays employment marketplace, and this is unfortunate. Finally I think there should be specialist and management schools (both private and public) - and finally some specialized institutes/schools/program for very specialized "qualified" professions such as medicine, law, etc.. (do not confuse the law thing with access to the courts - the legal profession and rights of petitition are NOT and should not be seen as the same. Right of petition/redress is about sharing concerns and hoping for resolve even as a lay based on chancery issues/equity - presenting motions before a court is a procedural activity - and while I do advocate for simplication and reconsolidation of statutues in application - and drastic overhaul of some laws especially laws in violation of the constitution or abused and non ethical practices - long story short. Yes, education is good BUT I think that it is too easy - kids arn't dumb, and they shouldn't have curriculums that a monkey can learn. We need to challenge our youth and be realistic with those who are capable and those who are developmentally issued - (even if my own child or myself is - and it may be), this does not mean limiting their ability to learn or participate, but teachers should have more prorogitives on who and what is taught within an overall developmental context - and parents should have the capacity to know about and choose their children's teachers. That is why I support public subsidies to self funded education eg. the public system provides a certain amount based on the cost of public education in a geographic area (district) enough to pay for public education - while that same subsidy could be applied to a private school or a home tutor. This would be up to 10 years old.

The occupational would be a lead in co-op, volunteerism, and apprenticship program where youth actually help build their communities. Though helping, and learning skills "in actual work settings" eg. why is this math important - give a real life example of how it is used. Want to learn about science such as photosynthesis do it while planting trees or participating in a gardening co-op teaching both occupational skills AND life skills, while helping in local communities for other social programs, like food banks, social housing (construction) etc.. I am not saying have 10 year olds building sidewalks or handling cement or climbing up public building chimneys, but I am saying they might be able to level the cement, or collect fire wood. No I'm not saying don't teach them anything - I am saying teach them stuff while doing. Finally the prep would be for those who continue with education - this is the optional 2 year prepatory for post secondary studies (like a cegep sorta) I think 15 and 16 year olds are mature enough, honestly though I think people younger tend not to have a very well formed world view with some exceptions, so it is important to build their world view from a local perspective befor opening the world up. The way education had worked for me is being exposed to the world while feeling ears and trunks, but what I should have been doing was petting fur and shaking paws. I think there is a logical progression to social and occupational training. Social traning is not complex - and should in large part be parental - but with the destruction of the family unit in large part with two income earning families often with little actual exposure time with their children - generally neglectful and non involved parents being widespread, the education system has filled that role a bit - but I think there is a line where education ought to be indoctrination - and that really is at the primary level - primary is not about learning, it is about social skills training. Routines, etc.. this doesn't mean kids can't learn, but young kid are better doers than learners, they can learn dramatically well in immersed environments while formal environments they may not excell as easily. Education ought to reflect those realities.

(there is too much emphasis on grades instead of passing based on actually knowing something fully) cut the grades and "percentages of correctness" either they know it or they don't. Instead of saying 70% you can say :mastered xy and z... partial knowledge of a b and c etc.. with actual files on what they have learned and where they left off with their learning - not just some number their next teacher can only guess at. The way it works is that schools are somewhat independent organizations with only a loose oversight. It is largely a municipal issue - not even really provincial.

I do think though that anyone who will ever be something useful in time will be ordered enough by 15 or 16 to plan for their post adolescence. This doesn't mean they will never amount to something if not by this age - but as far as socially manageable, I think this age. A lot of people who are great people don't follow the academic plan vs. a general plan in school likewise people who choose higher education plans - very well may not even need it for their desired carear path. There is thus a lot of fluff. The strategy should reflect this. I think that there are many learning systems that don't require the same devotion of time and resources. Eg. One teacher doing lectures could teach many classrooms rather than just 1, while local or classroom teachers could task students to independent studies. I'm not saying how teachers should teach but there are ways of enhancing the learning enviornment. No one wants to hear cuts, job loss etc.. so I'm not saying that here, but it is clear that providing choice to teachers and parents is important. When students are of the age of majority or no longer minors, it is their choice in what they'd like to learn. Should education at this level be free - I think it should be if they perform public service for it.

So that is why i think that public education should be public service oriented - while providing learning.

As far as health is concerned - I spoke about it a bit above. I personally think that more resources go into health care spending,than are required to. There are cost reductions that are available, programs, especially at the provincial level that could be reduced. I think private and public health plans are important. I am not saying that a hospital should be run like X, I think those are corporate decisions, and legal decisions, and questions of rights. If public health care costs are to be reduced 1. I think public paid into health insurance - not from tax dollars - that is what are people willing to pay - how much are they willing to pay befor private health insurance is more attractive? I can say that paying for private health insurance health care costs would be lower in Ontario, if everyone in ontario bought private health insurance and the insurance companies paid for it.

Something ain't right with that. Do I think health care has to be a public program - no definately not. Do I think private health care is better, no I don't. I think that the provincial government should insure, that basic humanitarian and emergency services are available to the public in crisis times - and where it is less costly to run hospitals, or it generates money to- then the government coudl retain those assets - and if it is less cost effective for private companies providing those services to the public - then well there you go. That is part of the problem with a public monopoly - lack of competition to reduce prices. The other side is to allow private health insurance but have a monopoly on service provision - the reverse for generating revenue. I'm not well enough versed on this issue to fully comment though - each province and area, would really need to address this, but if you can shut a hospital down to reduce regional costs, or allow a private company to operate the to be closed down hospital - what is the reason for not letting the private company lease the hospital, or even buy it?

Edited July 21, 2010 by William Ashley

[Shwa]

I think problem is we can afford th $9 billion. The question is are their better uses for the money. This is a question I wish would be asked about almost every government spending project.

And you don't think it is from Parliament with respect to some projects, to the senior officers and bureaucrats in crown corporations and departments, even right down the members of project teams or the recipients or targets of the projected benefits?

[punked]

Guns or butter. It is hard to have them both.

[bebe]

TimG, on 20 July 2010 - 09:15 PM, said:

I think problem is we can afford th $9 billion. The question is are their better uses for the money. This is a question I wish would be asked about almost every government spending project.

I agree ... and I also think those questions are asked in budget deliberations.

Perhaps what we need, and could have in this electronic age, is accerss to better information about alternatives under consideration.

Anybody who wants to can locate and wade through government budget decisions, line by line.

But perhaps it's the discussions about those budget decisions that we need more information about.

As a government manager, I often prepared for discussion/decision progressive drafts of papers outlining various options along with costing, pros and cons, etc. However, once the decisions were made, only the rationale for the final decision appeared. Perhaps public access to such discussion papers would help people to understand how budgeting process and decisions are carried out.