Edmonton Western-made terror attack

[eyeball]

On 10/2/2017 at 8:29 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Saying that people wanted an attack is a hysterical response.  You have time to consider your post before you hit reply.  Why not do that?

That said, there are examples of people hoping for a galvanizing event to justify doing something controversial - that just as often galvanizes others in return.  See Wolfowitz et. al.

[eyeball]

On 10/2/2017 at 12:00 PM, blackbird said:

It will prove to be a nut case attack.  Worst one in history.

Well, thank god it wasn't terrorism or we might have to spend a trillion dollars and suspend everyone's rights or something in response.

[PIK]

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau responded to news of a Somali refugee’s terrorist attack in Edmonton by sharing a call to “end white supremacy” and insisting “our diversity is our strength.”

[PIK]

And I’m never going to shy away from standing up for what I believe in, whether it’s proclaiming loudly to the world that I am a feminist, whether it’s understanding that immigration is a source of strength for us and Muslim Canadians are an essential part of the success of our country today and into the future,” Trudeau said.

[Omni]

46 minutes ago, PIK said:

And I’m never going to shy away from standing up for what I believe in, whether it’s proclaiming loudly to the world that I am a feminist, whether it’s understanding that immigration is a source of strength for us and Muslim Canadians are an essential part of the success of our country today and into the future,” Trudeau said.

So your choice would be to continue being a misogynist and let the Canadian population simply die off as we age and continue not to have babies? Neither are good ideas.

[PIK]

. And let's make it affordable again to have babies in this country. IMO 80% immigration from non european countries is not the answer either. This country will explode.

Edited October 4, 2017 by PIK

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, PIK said:

. And let's make it affordable again to have babies in this country. IMO 80% immigration from non european countries is not the answer either. This country will explode.

You're tacitly acknowledging a need for economic growth.  Ok.  What's the plan for subsidizing babymaking ?  Let's cook up some numbers, hm ?

[eyeball]

How about subsidizing grandparents to raise their grandkids so their parents can concentrate on their careers and making money?  The grandkids benefit from being raised by more experienced loved ones who aren't distracted by the stress of concentrating on making the most of their most productive years, advancing their careers growing their families wealth and interests and thereby the community they live in.  The grandparents of course get to spend more time with the grandkids and the parents have more free time...to make a few more babies, especially if they knew the grandparents would have their backs. 

I think, if I recall correctly, that farming the grandkids off to the grandparents is not uncommon amongst some Southeast Asian cultures.  Makes a lot of economic sense - I think this sort of diversity is more relevant than a diversity of foods down at the local Food Court.  Same idea but hopefully more profitable.  Not for everyone I'm sure meaning we'd still need new immigrants but...I'm just putting it out there.

Edited October 5, 2017 by eyeball

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

How about subsidizing grandparents to raise their grandkids so their parents can concentrate on their careers and making money?  The grandkids benefit from being raised by more experienced loved ones who aren't distracted by the stress of concentrating on making the most of their most productive years, advancing their careers growing their families wealth and interests and thereby the community they live in.  The grandparents of course get to spend more time with the grandkids and the parents have more free time...to make a few more babies, especially if they knew the grandparents would have their backs. 

I think, if I recall correctly, that farming the grandkids off to the grandparents is not uncommon amongst some Southeast Asian cultures.  Makes a lot of economic sense - I think this sort of diversity is more relevant than a diversity of foods down at the local Food Court.  Same idea but hopefully more profitable.  Not for everyone I'm sure meaning we'd still need new immigrants but...I'm just putting it out there.

Don't give my kids ideas, for Pete's sake. 

[Argus]

19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You're tacitly acknowledging a need for economic growth.  Ok.  What's the plan for subsidizing babymaking ?  Let's cook up some numbers, hm ?

Subsidized child care. I'm not talking government run child care which would be hideously expensive given every child care worker would have to be unionized, get a $70k salary with long holidays and a golden pension. Instead of simply handing out cash to parents as it currently the case with government benefits, 

This article in the Economist illustrates what works best for encouraging more babies.

https://www.economist.com/news/international/21659763-people-rich-countries-can-be-coaxed-having-more-children-lazy-husbands-and

[Michael Hardner]

59 minutes ago, Argus said:

Subsidized child care. I'm not talking government run child care which would be hideously expensive given every child care worker would have to be unionized, get a $70k salary with long holidays and a golden pension. Instead of simply handing out cash to parents as it currently the case with government benefits,  

Ok - what I got from the article is Nordic countries are spending up to 4% of GDP on family welfare and that sounds like a lot.  They're still below 2% fertility rate.  I think paying our parents directly, as Singapore has done could work:

Quote

In Singapore couples receive S$6,000 ($4,450) for having one child, another S$6,000 for a second child and a further S$8,000 for a third. 

Singapore's fertility rate is just 1.2%.  

Subsidized child care, I presume, is a payout to the parents to be used for daycare or alternately banked ?

[PIK]

21 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You're tacitly acknowledging a need for economic growth.  Ok.  What's the plan for subsidizing babymaking ?  Let's cook up some numbers, hm ?

Well I wondered about that, do we need so many people, when we don't even have jobs for the ones that are here? Is this just a conspiracy from the liberals for more votes? That is the question do we need more people.

[Michael Hardner]

14 minutes ago, PIK said:

Well I wondered about that, do we need so many people, when we don't even have jobs for the ones that are here?

That's called the pie fallacy or somesuch.  Jobs are generated by economic activity.  If we have productive immigrants (if) then adding them to the economy is helpful.  There are a lot of tech jobs open, which is why tech immigrants are generally brought into Canada and the US.

 

14 minutes ago, PIK said:

Is this just a conspiracy from the liberals for more votes? That is the question do we need more people.

The economic orthodoxy says yes, but there are opponents to that point of view such as David Suzuki.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok - what I got from the article is Nordic countries are spending up to 4% of GDP on family welfare and that sounds like a lot.  They're still below 2% fertility rate.  I think paying our parents directly, as Singapore has done could work:

Singapore's fertility rate is just 1.2%.  

Subsidized child care, I presume, is a payout to the parents to be used for daycare or alternately banked ?

The article makes clear that simply paying money to families when they have children does not encourage them to have more children than they would already have. I think the subsidies are paid directly to the child care providers, as in Quebec.

Edited October 5, 2017 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

I think the subsidies are paid directly to the child care providers, as in Quebec.

Ok, well numbers don't lie and the Nordic countries I guess are seeing results when they do this, correct ?

But you're not advocating for a Quebec-like system are you ?

[Argus]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok, well numbers don't lie and the Nordic countries I guess are seeing results when they do this, correct ?

But you're not advocating for a Quebec-like system are you ?

There are problems with the highly structured and supervised nature of Quebec daycare. It is also screwy in that it taxes the daycare benefit at the end of the year, but if you instead of taking a subsidized spot go your own way the government pays you a fee per child to do with what you want. Quebec, like Ontario, also has an ideologically based opposition to for-profit daycares, and discriminates against them. I would not hold Quebec's system up for admiration. I think daycares should be private and it shouldn't matter if they're for-profit or not to the government. The government should means test the support it gives, paying a percentage of the daycare costs, and let parents select from there. In Norway the government sets a maximum fee which can be charged per month at about $450. The daycares themselves can claim some expenses like heat/hydro/water based on number of children, and then I believe they get a % of the fee the daycare charges from government based on income level of the parent.

[Michael Hardner]

Ok, interesting.  I'll have a look.  Thanks to Conservative posters like you, it's possible to put a shape to these suggestions.

Notable that the original poster shut up when I asked him for ideas, and was left holding his pants as usual, while you came in with some lucid thoughts.  Thanks again.

[Charles Anthony]

Guys, 

Avoid trolling for thread drift. 

[Altai]

If you want to guess the next country who will suffer of terrorism, just follow the countries who get US and Britain mad in politics.

For example recently France had a meeting with an Iraqi statesmen in Paris. This will get US mad and its highly possible that there will be another terror attack in France.