What I want to see in political platforms next year

[Argus]

Why "1.5% of GDP"?

This is me being reasonable. NATO has asked all members to raise spending to 2%. We're currently at 1%, after Harper's cuts. I'm willing to go halfway -- for now.

An artificial percentage does nothing to redress issues encompassing waste and inefficiency found within DND

Kind of hard to put that in an election platform.

I have no issue with purchasing used equipment off allies (as this current Government has done) to meet operational needs, but "off-the-shelf" (very subjective term) is not viable in most instances, and in many, would actually cost more to integrate into our current force structure.

I'm fine if it's not ridiculously cheaper, to build our own. But I'm pretty sure we could buy frigates off the shelf, or even ones the US is mothballing, at a fraction of what it's going to cost us to prepare for and design new frigates, never mind actually building them.

[Derek 2.0]

This is me being reasonable. NATO has asked all members to raise spending to 2%. We're currently at 1%, after Harper's cuts. I'm willing to go halfway -- for now.

If your home needs urgent repairs, do you determine your budget prior to receiving quotes from contractors?

Kind of hard to put that in an election platform.

"tackling Government waste" is hardly a new party plank.

I'm fine if it's not ridiculously cheaper, to build our own. But I'm pretty sure we could buy frigates off the shelf, or even ones the US is mothballing, at a fraction of what it's going to cost us to prepare for and design new frigates, never mind actually building them.

In some instances, ala interim options, purchasing used makes sense.......purchasing used to fill a requirement out until the 2050s-2060s does not. Likewise, purchasing an "off-the-shelf" American (or British...or French etc) designed frigate/destroyer would require extensive modifications to be brought into Canadian service or require extensive changes to existing systems to allow us to operate said design.

For example, the ships helicopter and ASW suite.......A current American design (like the DDG-51 destroyer) would require extensive mods to allow our new Cyclone Helicopters to be operated off of (including expansion of the ships hangers and haul down system). Added would be extensive changes to the ships ability to conduct ASW warfare....Or we purchase different helicopters (MH-60R) well bringing forth over 50 years of doctrinal changes to how we conduct ASW warfare.....Not easy

[jacee]

jacee, I'm not racist.

Oh yes you are.

I just don't want to live where crime and drugs are being dealt. Is it only coincidence that the more new immigrants move to an area, the more crime and drug dealing goes on in todays world?

As I say compare Mississauga and Brampton of the 1970's when it was over 95% white to today when it is only about 25% white. Much more crime and drug dealing, murders today then in the 1970's. These are facts. I'm not trying to point the finger at any one group, just presenting the facts as they are. It just seems like they go hand in hand to me. So that's why people who can afford it move away from these areas when they become saturated with crime and drug dealing The worst areas of any city in Toronto are predominately "black" areas. It's sad that this is true but those are the facts.

"any city in Toronto"??

The "worst" areas of any city are the poorest areas.

New immigrants often struggle upon arrival.

They used to be the Irish, Polish, etc.

Bigots often blame colour, ethnicity, religion etc rather than the poverty that new immigrants struggle to overcome.

Your rant is just another example of the anti-immigrant prejudice that has always existed in Canada.

.

Edited December 24, 2014 by jacee

[Moonbox]

Your rant is just another example of the anti-immigrant prejudice that has always existed in Canada.

.

That has always existed everywhere for all of human history. If anything, Canada is far more tolerant than most places.

The "worst" areas of any city are the poorest areas.

New immigrants often struggle upon arrival.

They used to be the Irish, Polish, etc.

Bigots often blame colour, ethnicity, religion etc rather than the poverty that new immigrants struggle to overcome.

Some groups of immigrants generally struggle less than others. A lot of that has to do with the circumstances of their arrival, but the fact remains. Refugees from troubled nations, unfortunately, are often ill-prepared in comparison.

[Moonbox]

A study by the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, which reviews analyses on the issue, presents a similar picture, stating that on average, the impact of an aging population could account for 0.95% to 1.3% of the growth in future total health care spending in Canada.25

..

Frankly, the referenced material doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The above quote is noted, but on the same page we see them say:

Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) has estimated that people aged 65 and over accounted for approximately 50% of hospital expenditures by provincial/territorial governments in Canada during 2008, whereas this age group makes up 13.7% of Canada’s population.

along with a good number of other quotes indicating that seniors account for much more health spending relative other age groups.

The 0.95-1.3% figures are also, upon doing a little outside research, heavily debated. with other studies showing that age accounts for up to 10% or more of increased health care spending.

Lastly, one of the most troubling things to consider about these studies is that when the academics are downplaying the effects of age on health care spending, they're doing so by explaining that things like inflating costs of diagnostics and treatments make up a larger portion of increased spending. If this is to be believed, then it's not so much that aging doesn't have much of an effect as it is that inflating costs have more of an effect. The aging population, therefore, will magnify the problem of these inflated costs.

[Michael Hardner]

These are facts.

Facts, but again with no cites whatsoever. Furthermore, this is only one platform that one poster wants to see next year. Of course it's controversial, and it is going to attract all the attention the poster wants it to. So be it, but let's do that on another thread since there are far more pressing, realistic, and meaningful issues that may actually come into play in 2015 that matter to the posters here.

[Argus]

The "worst" areas of any city are the poorest areas.

New immigrants often struggle upon arrival.

Why? Aren't we carefully selecting them now from the vast multitude who want to come to Canada?

Why would immigrants fill up slums? Maybe we ought to be looking at other source areas for our immigrants, eh?

[Michael Hardner]

Why would immigrants fill up slums?

I suppose the government could support better integration into society by subsidizing them to move in next door to people like Mr. Canada...

[Argus]

Some groups of immigrants generally struggle less than others. A lot of that has to do with the circumstances of their arrival, but the fact remains. Refugees from troubled nations, unfortunately, are often ill-prepared in comparison.

Then perhaps we'd be better off using the funds we must pay to support them here to support them back in some third world country instead. I bet for what we pay for welfare for a refugee they could live like a king in a lot of other places.

[Argus]

I suppose the government could support better integration into society by subsidizing them to move in next door to people like Mr. Canada...

Or it could ship them home again if they turn out to be economic failures.

You know, that used to happen a lot. Oh, the government didn't ship them home. But a lot of immigrants couldn't make it here so they took the long voyage home again. Now, in the days of welfare, pogey, free houses, food banks, free health care, and government training, language and skills programs they stay here so we have to pay their way.

[Michael Hardner]

Or it could ship them home again if they turn out to be economic failures.

Except that you have already indicated that you feel earning minimum wage constitutes economic failure, when there's no indication that the government feels that way at all. In fact, they previously expressed interest in a foreign worker program that brought in workers for lower rates than the market.

[Argus]

Except that you have already indicated that you feel earning minimum wage constitutes economic failure, when there's no indication that the government feels that way at all. In fact, they previously expressed interest in a foreign worker program that brought in workers for lower rates than the market.

So I'm not allowed to disagree with crappy government policy? Have I not previously made my opinion fairly clear on the TFW program?

If we're bringing in foreigners for economic reasons - and ALL the justification I've ever seen has been economic - then it behooves us to bring in immigrants which can support themselves, and don't live in slums and government housing.

Otherwise, what the hell are we bringing them here for?

Edited December 24, 2014 by Argus

[jacee]

Frankly, the referenced material doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The above quote is noted, but on the same page we see them say:

Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) has estimated that people aged 65 and over accounted for approximately 50% of hospital expenditures by provincial/territorial governments in Canada during 2008, whereas this age group makes up 13.7% of Canadas population.

along with a good number of other quotes indicating that seniors account for much more health spending relative other age groups.

The 0.95-1.3% figures are also, upon doing a little outside research, heavily debated. with other studies showing that age accounts for up to 10% or more of increased health care spending.

It all makes sense in its proper context:

Of course seniors use more health care.

But the issue being addressed is the impact of the aging baby boom generation on health care costs. It's not as large and scary as some suggest.

Lastly, one of the most troubling things to consider about these studies is that when the academics are downplaying the effects of age on health care spending, they're doing so by explaining that things like inflating costs of diagnostics and treatments make up a larger portion of increased spending. If this is to be believed, then it's not so much that aging doesn't have much of an effect as it is that inflating costs have more of an effect. The aging population, therefore, will magnify the problem of these inflated costs.

That's one issue they addressed.

See data to verify their estimates yourself.

.

[Michael Hardner]

So I'm not allowed to disagree with crappy government policy? Have I not previously made my opinion fairly clear on the TFW program?

I don't think it would have been clear to others here what you meant by 'economic failure'.

If we're bringing in foreigners for economic reasons - and ALL the justification I've ever seen has been economic

Not true - refugees are brought into Canada on humanitarian grounds. You want to bring in immigrants who can afford better than the lowest priced housing, then it's a pretty big overhaul of the system. And the reasons for such an overhaul aren't really clear, given that the Liberal and Conservative governments have continued the same policies, for the most part, and there isn't much political will to change things.

[Argus]

I don't think it would have been clear to others here what you meant by 'economic failure'.

Not true - refugees are brought into Canada on humanitarian grounds. You want to bring in immigrants who can afford better than the lowest priced housing, then it's a pretty big overhaul of the system. And the reasons for such an overhaul aren't really clear, given that the Liberal and Conservative governments have continued the same policies, for the most part, and there isn't much political will to change things.

That's because they see the immigration system as nothing more than a source of new recruits and voters. That's why they don't care who comes in or how successful they are, just so there's lots of them.

[Michael Hardner]

That's because they see the immigration system as nothing more than a source of new recruits and voters. That's why they don't care who comes in or how successful they are, just so there's lots of them.

You have backed that up to an extent but I for one don't think Harper follows the same playbook as Mulroney. He sure doesn't go for the centre in other ways. I just want your position to be clear with respect to economic success or failure.

[Argus]

You have backed that up to an extent but I for one don't think Harper follows the same playbook as Mulroney. He sure doesn't go for the centre in other ways. I just want your position to be clear with respect to economic success or failure.

My position is if you can pay your own way -- which does NOT mean your income is so low you pay no income taxes, or that you're on welfare, then that is an economic success.

If you are, in terms of governmental balance sheets, a net drain on taxpayers, then why did we bring you here?

[Michael Hardner]

If you are, in terms of governmental balance sheets, a net drain on taxpayers, then why did we bring you here?

The bigger picture is that individuals generate more for their economic footprint than their salaries.

[Argus]

The bigger picture is that individuals generate more for their economic footprint than their salaries.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. If your existence depends on the generosity of the state, then generally no.

And whatever economic footprint you are making, it's not as much as some of the guys (or girls) who we didn't bring over here because we brought you instead.

[Michael Hardner]

it's not as much as some of the guys (or girls) who we didn't bring over here because we brought you instead.

We don't bring over engineers instead of fast-food workers - we bring over engineers and fast food workers.

[Argus]

We don't bring over engineers instead of fast-food workers - we bring over engineers and fast food workers.

We don't need fast food workers. Bringing them over is nothing but a direct business subsidy by the taxpayers. Without low skilled immigrants willing to take crappy jobs for crappy wages there'd be fewer crappy jobs with crappy wages, and fewer fast food workers not paying any taxes. The businesses would have to raise wages - which is what capitalism is all about.

Edited December 24, 2014 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

We don't need fast food workers. Bringing them over is nothing but a direct business subsidy by the taxpayers.

Most right-wingers LIKE pro-business policies...

Without low skilled immigrants willing to take crappy jobs for crappy wages there'd be fewer crappy jobs with crappy wages, and fewer fast food workers not paying any taxes. The businesses would have to raise wages - which is what capitalism is all about.

Again, not a right-wing argument. It has its merits, but there's at the heart of it the matter of productivity.

[Argus]

Most right-wingers LIKE pro-business policies...

Only if they don't think things through. If business brings in cheap labour and pays them nothing, given the way our progressive tax system works, it means the state has to subsidize those workers. Real conservatives don't support that kind of state subsidy for business.

Again, not a right-wing argument. It has its merits, but there's at the heart of it the matter of productivity.

I believe in Capitalism, even when it works in favour of ordinary workers instead of business.

[TimG]

Only if they don't think things through. If business brings in cheap labour and pays them nothing, given the way our progressive tax system works, it means the state has to subsidize those workers. Real conservatives don't support that kind of state subsidy for business.

There are three scenarios that could be at work:

1) Raising wages would cause the business to close because it has a limited ability to recover costs from customers;

2) The business needs specific skills and can't find them and can't train because it needs a worker with the skills to do the training.

3) The business simply wants to increase profitability by increasing supply and lowing wages.

1) and 2) are legitimate uses for the TFW. 3) is not. How do you have a program that addresses 1) and 2) but blocks 3)?

[Argus]

There are three scenarios that could be at work:

1) Raising wages would cause the business to close because it has a limited ability to recover costs from customers;

2) The business needs specific skills and can't find them and can't train because it needs a worker with the skills to do the training.

3) The business simply wants to increase profitability by increasing supply and lowing wages.

1) and 2) are legitimate uses for the TFW. 3) is not. How do you have a program that addresses 1) and 2) but blocks 3)?

1) is not a legitimate use of TFW or of bringing in low skill immigrants. These businesses are almost all service oriented. They don't produce anything, in other words. They serve US. If they have to raise wages and then raise the cost of the service, then fewer people will spend their money on that service and their will be fewer such businesses. In which case people will spend their money on something else. An equilibrium will be reached at which the businesses can attract sufficient workers at a higher wage while still attracting enough customers for a decent profit.

But it's not like the economy will miss those closed businesses. People will spend their money on something else and other businesses will benefit.

2) is rare. Most of the time the point in bringing in a skilled immigrant to do the work is to save the company the time (and money) of training the necessary workers themselves. Such investment in people is considered less secure nowadays because people have less loyalty to their employer (reflecting the lack of loyalty by employers to workers) and once trained might decide to simply take their newly acquired skills elsewhere.

You either believe in capitalism or you don't. I don't see the government rushing to relax import restrictions on goods which are expensive so that people can get them cheaper. Why, then, should they pour in new workers to keep wages depressed?

Edited December 24, 2014 by Argus