Poor children have smaller brains than wealthy children

TimG · May 24, 2015

Yes, but I think it's safe to say that Canadians will decide to cut the first three things I mentioned before healthcare.

Except "corporate welfare" is a meaningless buzz word. If, instead, you said eliminate movie production tax credits or wage subsidies via EI for seasonal industries which are forms of corporate welfare you would find people would not be so quick to call for cuts. A similar issue exists for the F35. Ask people if that program should be cancelled and you may get support but new planes need to be bought. They may not cost $35 billion over 40 years but it will likely be at least $20 billion which limits the potential savings.

It's not even a new program really because reducing impoverishment amongst children IS healthcare spending

Its a new program that needs a new bureaucracy to manage. Edited May 24, 2015 by TimG

eyeball · May 24, 2015

There's no such thing as corporate welfare.

Absolute rubbish.

The biggest impediment to getting out of poverty is education.

Apparently, given the absolute rubbish that many people retain.

Edited May 24, 2015 by eyeball

eyeball · May 24, 2015

Except "corporate welfare" is a meaningless buzz word.

Absolute rubbish.

If, instead, you said eliminate movie production tax credits or wage subsidies via EI for seasonal industries which are forms of corporate welfare you would find people would not be so quick to call for cuts.

No, they'd probably start calling for a guaranteed income.

A similar issue exists for the F35. Ask people if that program should be cancelled and you may get support but new planes need to be bought.

There's no need that I can see or agree with or feel like investing in. IMO a big part of how we address our health needs should be to come up with different or even old ways of financing less prioritized things. I'd suggest we bring back war bonds for example.

Its a new program that needs a new bureaucracy to manage.

I don't think so.

jacee · May 24, 2015

Yet you still have not explained what programs should be cut to pay for such things. Money does not grow on trees.

Neither do children. :/

We can do without putting taxpayer money into the pockets of corporate CEO'S.

Put food in children's mouthes instead. It pays off in savings later.

.

bush_cheney2004 · May 24, 2015

Yes, but I think it's safe to say that Canadians will decide to cut the first three things I mentioned before healthcare.

Just take the riches from Canada's obese children and feed the poor skinny ones.

http://www.childhoodobesityfoundation.ca/statistics

TimG · May 24, 2015

Absolute rubbish.

It *is* meaningless because there is no "corporate welfare" line item in government budgets. If you want to reduce what you call "corporate welfare" you need to identify the specific programs which you want cut. If you do not identify specific programs to cut then the only one spouting rubbish is you.

No, they'd probably start calling for a guaranteed income.

A hugely expensive program that would have to paid for by cutting other programs and not funding new programs like the on in this op. IOW, you are arguing that people will likely have priorities other than funding this program. Edited May 24, 2015 by TimG

jacee · May 24, 2015

Just use google. It isn't that hard, omg.

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#US_Black-White_gap

Review articles by Rushton and Jensen (2005 and 2010) stated that in the United States, Blacks and Whites have been the subjects of the greatest number of studies. These studies have shown that the Black-White IQ difference is about 15 to 18 points or 1 to 1.1 standard deviations (SDs).

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

Lynn and Vanhanen (2006) accorded a national IQ of 69 to Nigeria on the basis of three samples (Fahrmeier, 1975; Ferron, 1965; Wober, 1969)

It is white supremacist to suggest that nutrition affects IQ and using evidence in differences in IQ between African-Americans & Subsaharan-Africans, or North Koreans and South Koreans to help justify this claim?

Is WestCoastRunner a White Supremacist too for also suggesting that nutrition affects cognitive ability?

It's crap research.

Again: What test in what language and what cultural context and how can it be equated to other languages and cultural contexts?

Are you not getting it?

It's garbage 'science' ... racism.

From your link:

Lynn and Vanhanen's research on national IQs has attracted widespread criticism of the book's scores, methodology, and conclusions. The book was positively received by some long time supporters of Lynn's research, including J. Philippe Rushton.[citation needed]

The book received a mixed reception with most academics dismissing the work.

.

Edited May 24, 2015 by jacee

eyeball · May 24, 2015

It *is* meaningless because there is no "corporate welfare" line item in government budgets. If you want to reduce what you call "corporate welfare" you need to identify the specific programs which you want cut. If you do not identify specific programs to cut then the only spouting rubbish is you.

Shut the front door, you just used the term corporate welfare yourself.

A hugely expensive program that would have to paid for by cutting other programs and not funding new programs like the on in this op. IOW, you are arguing that people will likely have priorities other than funding this program.

Yes that's what I'm arguing. I'd like to see how Canadians priorities line up if they're presented with the idea of funding war with war bonds. Surely you'll be able to come up with corporate sponsors for this. I bet all it would take is for a few to blow the lid off any trepidation Canadians have, especially if the resulting peace dividend is plowed directly into health care, including child impoverishment.

We may not have to raise taxes at all.

TimG · May 24, 2015

Shut the front door, you just used the term corporate welfare yourself.

To show how you could make the term "corporate welfare" mean something by listing actual programs. But it appears you don't want to do that and would rather just throw around meaningless phrases.

Yes that's what I'm arguing. I'd like to see how Canadians priorities line up if they're presented with the idea of funding war with war bonds.

Why stop there? Why not have Canadians buy "health bonds" for health care or "education bonds" for education. "pension bonds" to pay for civil servant pensions (I would not expect a lot of takers). Even better, privatize healthcare and education and let people pay provider that they want (let me guess - you did not think through logical implications or "build your own" government spending plan). Edited May 24, 2015 by TimG

bush_cheney2004 · May 24, 2015

....Why stop there? Why not have Canadians buy "health bonds" for health care or "education bonds" for education. "pension bonds" to pay for civil servant pensions (I would not expect a lot of takers). Even better, privatize healthcare and education and let people pay provider that they want (let me guess - you did not think through logical implications or "build your own" government spending plan).

Aye...thou dost cut to the quick !

Je suis Omar · May 24, 2015

A must harder question: despite whatever illusions you may have resources are not infinite. So what should be but to pay for this program?

See what a good lunch program might have helped.

Je suis Omar · May 24, 2015

DELETED

Edited May 24, 2015 by Je suis Omar

Je suis Omar · May 24, 2015

You still don't understand.

That's one of your commonly employed avoidance tactics.

eyeball · May 24, 2015

To show how you could make the term "corporate welfare" mean something by listing actual programs. But it appears you don't want to do that and would rather just throw around meaningless phrases.

It's only meaningless to people who love it.

Why stop there? Why not have Canadians buy "health bonds" for health care or "education bonds" for education. "pension bonds" to pay for civil servant pensions (I would not expect a lot of takers). Even better, privatize healthcare and education and let people pay provider that they want (let me guess - you did not think through logical implications or "build your own" government spending plan).

Canadians already pay health premiums and I wouldn't expect a lot of takers for education. As for pension bonds to pay for civil servant pensions...I bet if they were for politicians Canadians would give a huge thumbs up to the idea.

As for war though I say we stop at the point where you start using tax revenues to pay for sending our military on offensive missions around the world. That's where privatization and bonds should come in. Put your own money where your mouth is (that includes paying for replacement of any equipment and soldiers you break). Posters who are paying attention will note I've explained why I think the only way to resolve the endless quibbling over what defence and offence means is to put the question of whether to send our military abroad to a public referendum - one that requires a super-majority before passing. I think the incredible importance of the decision to go kill people in other countries should require a super majority of somewhere between 65% - 75%...of a mandatory vote that comes with a heavy fine for not participating.

And a nod to the quick, please note that paying for sending patients abroad would come out of MSP premiums which of course is not a tax.

BTW what do you mean "build your own" government spending plan? That sounds like a pretty intriguing idea coming from someone who's usually such a stick in the mud about governance.

TimG · May 24, 2015

It's only meaningless to people who love it.

Show me any government budget that has 'corporate welfare' as a line item. You won't find it. The term has no meaning in the real world. If you want to cut spending to must identify the specific programs that you think should be cut. Why is this concept so hard for you to grasp? Perhaps because as soon as you actually identify the programs people might realize that "corporate welfare" often provides benefits to segments of the voting public that would object to the removal.

As for war though I say we stop at the point where you start using tax revenues to pay for sending our military on offensive missions around the world. That's where privatization and bonds should come in.

As I said: there is no reason to stop there. Why do should you be the final arbiter of what services should be privatized? Why should people who have a problem with abortion be forced to fund a healthcare system that provides it? Why should fit non-smokers be forced to pay for the costs of obese smokers? The "people should put their money where their mouth is" principle is a pandora's box that I am surprised you would want to open it. Edited May 24, 2015 by TimG

jacee · May 24, 2015

Investing in children's health saves money.

TimG · May 24, 2015

Investing in children's health saves money.

Maybe. At some point in the future. That does not change the fact that the program costs money today and that money has to be taken from existing programs.

eyeball · May 24, 2015

Show me any government budget that has 'corporate welfare' as a line item. You won't find it. The term has no meaning in the real world. If you want to cut spending to must identify the specific programs that you think should be cut. Why is this concept so hard for you to grasp? Perhaps because as soon as you actually identify the programs people might realize that "corporate welfare" often provides benefits to segments of the voting public that would object to the removal.

It has lots of meaning in the real world. Entire sections of public libraries are devoted to the subject. The search string corporate_welfare yields 551,000 results on google. It's meaningfulness to even you is evident in the way you immediately tie it to cutting spending you even refer to it as being a specific program(s) and having benefits. Reread your own post if you don't believe me.

As I said: there is no reason to stop there. Why do should you be the final arbiter of what services should be privatized?

No there probably isn't and if you hadn't ignored why I said referendum you wouldn't have asked this question.

Why should people who have a problem with abortion be forced to fund a healthcare system that provides it?

They aren't, they are perfectly free to move to countries that don't provide it.

Why should healthy non-smokers be forced to pay for the costs of obese smokers?

Because that's the cost their society pays for agreeing that tobacco should be legal. If they don't like it they can pack up and move somewhere smoking and obesity are illegal too.

The "people should put their money where their mouth is" principle is a pandora's box that I am surprised you would want to open it.

I'm all for opening it with public referendum - the point at which you usually slam the brakes on the principle.

Edited May 25, 2015 by eyeball

Freddy · May 25, 2015

This is a perfect example of why socialist can't be trusted to govern.

eyeball · May 25, 2015

Just to democratic for you I guess. You wouldn't trust your fellow voters to do the right thing?

Freddy · May 25, 2015

Just to democratic for you I guess. You wouldn't trust your fellow voters to do the right thing?

The idea that simply giving more money to poor parents could magically raise intelligence in their children, is by far the most absurd idea I've seen in the past little while.

It fails all basic logical analysis.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Freddy

Freddy · May 25, 2015

Now.....

If you told me poor parents need help to become successful adults and you suggest helping them get a better education. Training them for specific high valued skills

Then I'd say you're on to something.

The success will likely be transferred to the children. Getting a fat government check in the mail is very different then living a successful adult life, and you're children witnessing how you behave to achieve that success.

Monkey see, monkey doo

Edited May 25, 2015 by Freddy

jacee · May 25, 2015

One idea is a National Food program to feed kids in school, to address the lack of good nutrition many kids experience.

It would help to get the best outcomes possible for all kids.

.

Bonam · May 25, 2015

Maybe. At some point in the future. That does not change the fact that the program costs money today and that money has to be taken from existing programs.

Not necessarily. The government can always simply borrow more. If the expected payoff of a new program exceeds the expected costs of servicing the associated debt, then an argument can be made for implementing it even without cutting anything else.

Not that I'm a fan of borrowing more... just wanted to point out there are other options.

TimG · May 25, 2015

Not necessarily. The government can always simply borrow more.

I look at it from the perspective that the government has a finite ability to borrow and tax and there are plenty of existing programs that need additional funding. This means that additional borrowing and/or taxes that are directed to this program comes at the expense of other programs that could have received it instead.