What Does It Mean to Be Conservative?

[geoffrey]

That's why I said some trades.

Intellectually gifted by that definition doesn't mean genius level, it makes capable of making money with your intelligence. Simple as that.

Name *two* trades a retard could actually do.

I thought intellectually gifted meant the ability to go to university? Or is it the ability to mae money with your intelligence? Are the two the same thing?

Guess I'm not *intellectually gifted* enough to follow your line of reasoning....

The two generally go hand in hand, not neccessarily university, but post-secondary of some sort. It's tough getting a job that is mentally based without any post-secondary training.

Everyone has access to schooling up to grade 12 on Joe Taxpayer. If they choose not to take advantage, why should we feel sorry for them? Why should I have to pay the consequences for their actions on my tax bill? Why should I feel bad when they do not make enough money? They had the same opporunity I had.

Actually in Canada everyone has equal access to all levels of education. Our very generous student loans program will cover post-secondary for anyone who can't financially afford it on their own. It goes above and beyond the minimum level of acceptable education, and makes motivation the only factor in what level of education you acheieve.

All we guarnatee is equality of opportunity -- not equality of outcome. Expecting that is unreasonable. For the vast majority of people, their life is what they make of it. If they don't make anything of it, that is not my problem, nor should it cost me a dime.

To an extent I agree, everyone should have access to the same levels of education. But many 'equality of opportunity' programs end up being very discriminatory... where we see underqualified Indians taking the spots of more qualifed white people in the RCMP or where middle-class students are denied student loans to allow more funding for possibly lesser qualified students that come from working class families.

Programs should apply equally to all people, regardless of their background, race or financial status. It's about equality of right, not neccessarily opportunity. Everyone has a right to pursue as far an education at they want to and are able to intellectually. Leave it at that, develop programs that ensures that all qualified students get in. No exceptions for visible minorities or poor people, judge everyone by the same standard.

[Hicksey]

All we guarnatee is equality of opportunity -- not equality of outcome. Expecting that is unreasonable. For the vast majority of people, their life is what they make of it. If they don't make anything of it, that is not my problem, nor should it cost me a dime.

To an extent I agree, everyone should have access to the same levels of education. But many 'equality of opportunity' programs end up being very discriminatory... where we see underqualified Indians taking the spots of more qualifed white people in the RCMP or where middle-class students are denied student loans to allow more funding for possibly lesser qualified students that come from working class families.

Programs should apply equally to all people, regardless of their background, race or financial status. It's about equality of right, not neccessarily opportunity. Everyone has a right to pursue as far an education at they want to and are able to intellectually. Leave it at that, develop programs that ensures that all qualified students get in. No exceptions for visible minorities or poor people, judge everyone by the same standard.

Equality of opportunity to me does not include any programs that promote any race over another while recuiting. IMO that is state-sponsored racism. Equality of oppotunity means we all get the same opportunity regardless. We should not be artificially advancing people beyond their abilities--period. If you can't make the grade, it serves no purpose to allow a person to continue to get in over their head. It is a waste of a good opportunity.

We should be making oppotunities available on an ability alone. Just about anyone can achieve anything when they apply themselves. If they do not want to put in the effort why should we reward them?

[Figleaf]

no good reason to participate anymore

[Hicksey]

Correct, you can't choose your parents. That's why we give everyone access to free education... we even remove all financial barriers to post-secondary for poor students (while imposing barriers for middle-class students, but that's another topic). Being born to less well off parents doesn't disadvantage you in Canada.

No, of course not ... yet, being born to better off parent gives you substantial advantages. Funny, that.

In any event, I wasn't thinking of financially at that point, I was thinking in terms of quality of upbringing, attention, love, etc. Some people are good parents, some people are not and what sort you get is completely out of your hands.

Why is it that people are always looking for others to bear the blame for what they haven't made of their lives? Why not just buck up and do something about it? There does come a time where you are your own man and that no longer becomes a valid excuse.

[Figleaf]

[herwise.

[Hicksey]

Correct, you can't choose your parents. That's why we give everyone access to free education... we even remove all financial barriers to post-secondary for poor students (while imposing barriers for middle-class students, but that's another topic). Being born to less well off parents doesn't disadvantage you in Canada.

No, of course not ... yet, being born to better off parent gives you substantial advantages. Funny, that.

In any event, I wasn't thinking of financially at that point, I was thinking in terms of quality of upbringing, attention, love, etc. Some people are good parents, some people are not and what sort you get is completely out of your hands.

Why is it that people are always looking for others to bear the blame for what they haven't made of their lives? Why not just buck up and do something about it? There does come a time where you are your own man and that no longer becomes a valid excuse.

Sometimes fate or luck is to blame for a circumstance. In those cases there is no sense pretending otherwise.

Like I said earlier, if you plan and make smart decisions you can all but take luck out of the equation. I can list a plethora of examples in life that an analogy can be made to, but that has already been done.

The problem here is that people do not want to take responsibility for their actions. Every time I make a what I see as a mistake in life I look back to see how it happened. When I do, I always find a place where I could have done something different or got lazy. It is truly amazing you can learn by taking an honest look within.

I find it much more rewarding to admit when I have made a mistake in judgement because there is so much to learn from it. IMO, I have made strides in the last 10 years. I do not always make the right judgement call even today, but I am getting much better than I was even 5 years ago.

People seem to look everywhere but within to assign responsbility for their lives. The more I learn, the more I make of my life. I am not where I want to be, but it is manageable now. There are a lot of things in life I could use as excuses to mitigate where I am not today. And I have learned that every time I used those as excuses and did what I wanted instead of what was the right thing to do it got me in trouble. In my experience it is best to forgive and forget what has sidetracked you and do whatever it takes to stay on track.

I am not saying in the least that it is an easy thing to do. There are days I wonder why I get up in the morning because the journey to dig myself out from underneath the problems I have created for myself has taken so long to traverse and has been even harder than I imagined it to be. But, I can see the light at the end of the tunnel.

If I can do it -- anyone can. I am not highly educated -- I have an OSSD and a year of college. I have been on EI twice, welfare three times and been sent to retraining in the last 10 years. The culture of entitlement cultivated in society today takes away the resolve it takes to perservere. We need to recreate that perserverence in people.

[Topaz]

Gee, this is a hard one because when the Progressive Conservative party was around, you knew what it stood for, BUT today, the Conservative party means that two losers party came together as one...one party that couldn't get elected and the other, that lost the people's confidence. So now we have what kind of party? IF the conservative are define by Harper..... I'll vote any other party but Conservative, BIG mistake joining the Alliance!

[newbie]

Gee, this is a hard one because when the Progressive Conservative party was around, you knew what it stood for, BUT today, the Conservative party means that two losers party came together as one...one party that couldn't get elected and the other, that lost the people's confidence. So now we have what kind of party? IF the conservative are define by Harper..... I'll vote any other party but Conservative, BIG mistake joining the Alliance!

Right on man.

[Argus]

Gee, this is a hard one because when the Progressive Conservative party was around, you knew what it stood for,

Basically... nothing.

That was the problem. They wanted to be all things to all people, had no coherent policies or strategy, and their best leadershp was ... Joe Clark ... a national joke who when faced with any difficult decision invariably chose wrong.

BUT today, the Conservative party means that two losers party came together as one...one party that couldn't get elected and the other, that lost the people's confidence.

Drivel. The "progressive" wing had taken full control of the party it had merged with decades earlier, and all real conservatives had left the party. Now the two have merged again, but with the conservative wing in charge. That's all.

So now we have what kind of party?

One which appears to be relatively honest, capable and with a larger measure of integrity than we've seen from a federal government in some time.

IF the conservative are define by Harper..... I'll vote any other party but Conservative, BIG mistake joining the Alliance!

Don't worry. I'm sure the Liberals will find a sleazy, corrupt, two-faced weasel without morals or integrity who to lead them. He'll say all the right mushy words to reassure the weak-minded, but won't actually ever accomplish anything bur enriching his friends.

You can follow him around and applaud enthusiastically.

[August1991]

Correct, you can't choose your parents. That's why we give everyone access to free education... we even remove all financial barriers to post-secondary for poor students (while imposing barriers for middle-class students, but that's another topic). Being born to less well off parents doesn't disadvantage you in Canada.

Eventually people grow up to be adults and they need to make real choices about their success. You don't need to be born rich, smart or beautiful to make money or have personal success. Trades jobs can pay well over six figures, many don't require you to have an IQ over 50. Everyone that is intellectually gifted can go to university, there are no real financial barriers with Canada's extremely generous student loans program.

That's how this works, giving people a minimum standard of health care and open access to primary and secondary... and post-secondary... education is all we need to do. Then you leave it up to the people to choose how successful they want to be.

Bump.

[geoffrey]

Don't throw me to the wolves like that.

[Saturn]

Actually in Canada everyone has equal access to all levels of education. Our very generous student loans program will cover post-secondary for anyone who can't financially afford it on their own. It goes above and beyond the minimum level of acceptable education, and makes motivation the only factor in what level of education you acheieve.

Yipee, geoffrey is up in the clouds again. geoff, have you ever applied for a student loan?

The very generous Ontario student loan program provided a maximum of $9K per year when my tuition was $7K/yr. Somehow the remaining $2K don't pay the rent, food and books for the year. Of course if you earned $5K in the summer, your loan was reduced by that amount, so in effect you couldn't have more than $9K/yr and get anything in loans. If your parents earned over $50K, you couldn't get a loan either. Of course parents are happy to collect handouts for their children but when it comes to passing some of it to their children for education many kids are out of luck (according to the latests stats only 40% of parents who want their children to acquire post-secondary education have made any sort of financial arrangements for that). From my own and my peers' experience with the student loan program, I can say that anyone who claims that "our very generous student loans program will cover post-secondary for anyone who can't financially afford it on their own" clearly has never had any dealings with said "generous program".

[geoffrey]

Yipee, geoffrey is up in the clouds again. geoff, have you ever applied for a student loan?

I don't qualify for any, but I have applied. I got the nice 'you don't not qualify' letter. I have a bank student line of credit that I use in tight times but I run the balance at $0 most of the year.

Of course parents are happy to collect handouts for their children but when it comes to passing some of it to their children for education many kids are out of luck (according to the latests stats only 40% of parents who want their children to acquire post-secondary education have made any sort of financial arrangements for that).

Do kids not save for their own education anymore? I did, my whole family is encouraged to. You'd be suprised how much you can save from those high school evening/weekend jobs to go to university. I didn't do so well, I was silly and bought a car. My fault, my responsibility. My sister though has saved enough for two years of university tuition working at a coffee shop. It can be done.

From my own and my peers' experience with the student loan program, I can say that anyone who claims that "our very generous student loans program will cover post-secondary for anyone who can't financially afford it on their own" clearly has never had any dealings with said "generous program".

I'm sure the amounts have been adjusted since you've attended school to more accurately reflect the current cost situation, if your parents made less, you would have received more.

And tell me again, what is wrong with a student waiting tables or something during school??? You can make a good thousand a month doing that (with tips) and still have plenty of time to study and party. Make a few more thousand over the summer months and your set.

[PolyNewbie]

And tell me again, what is wrong with a student waiting tables or something during school???

Not enough tables for everyone. Time is better spent studying than serving coffee. Those jobs should be reserved for people who like doing it (and many do) and those who don't want to go to school.

[geoffrey]

And tell me again, what is wrong with a student waiting tables or something during school???

Not enough tables for everyone. Time is better spent studying than serving coffee. Those jobs should be reserved for people who like doing it (and many do) and those who don't want to go to school.

Time is better spent studying??? On who's dollar?

You think you should tax the waitress to fund university students education instead of the students getting a job? All so the University student makes more in the end? That's what is proposed by students asking for a handout here.

And Poly, what the hell are you talking about. You've told me my education is worthless because it's controlled by UNESCO and the bankers. Why are we funding the great banker/UNESCO/Rockefeller/Bilderberg coverup?

[Saturn]

And tell me again, what is wrong with a student waiting tables or something during school??? You can make a good thousand a month doing that (with tips) and still have plenty of time to study and party. Make a few more thousand over the summer months and your set.

What's wrong is that the minimum time requirement for my program was around 100hrs/wk, which is the equivalent of 2.5 full-time jobs (and it wasn't enough for me personally). Not even one of my classmates had a job for that very reason. Now, I don't know what you are studying to have time to work full-time but not everyone is on vacation at school handing in one assignment a term. Secondly, many universities are located in small towns (not in Calgary) and jobs in those places are few and far between relative to the number of students in town looking for them. Get off your self-righteous pedestal - if every student had a well-paying full-time job available and the time for it, the student loans program would not even exist.

[Canuck E Stan]

Get off your self-righteous pedestal - if every student had a well-paying full-time job available and the time for it, the student loans program would not even exist.

Sounds like you're the one on the "no one helped me pedestal"

If you're bitchin about 100 hours a week, get into another program.

If you're bitchin about not having money,take a year off and earn some.

If you want to go to school badly enough ,use your head and figure out a way.

Thousands of others have done it before you, and many more will do it after you.

Excuses are just that,excuses.

[geoffrey]

What's wrong is that the minimum time requirement for my program was around 100hrs/wk, which is the equivalent of 2.5 full-time jobs (and it wasn't enough for me personally). Not even one of my classmates had a job for that very reason. Now, I don't know what you are studying to have time to work full-time but not everyone is on vacation at school handing in one assignment a term.

I'm taking a full course load in a Bachelors of Commerce in Accounting with a minor in Economics. Between work and school I put in around 70 hours a week, I use my vacation at exam time (like now, with midterms) and I work more during slow times.

I can promise you that most students aren't putting in 100hrs/wk... I have tons of friends in flakey programs that put in maybe 20, 30 hours tops. This is my concern, I don't want to fund that education, nor do I think anyone else should.

What program actually takes 100hrs a week? That barely leaves enough time for sleep. I can easily imagine that there are some out there, and we need to take a look at those specifically. But not a BA in Philosophy or Interpretive Dance.

Secondly, many universities are located in small towns (not in Calgary) and jobs in those places are few and far between relative to the number of students in town looking for them. Get off your self-righteous pedestal - if every student had a well-paying full-time job available and the time for it, the student loans program would not even exist.

Something people need to consider when they make their choice. I did that very thing, I declined a few offers from better schools in order to be in a place with more employment opportunities.

Taxpayers (most of which never attended University) should not be subsidizing an investment that gives people like you and I many hundreds of thousands in increased earnings over our lifetimes.

[Saturn]

Sounds like you're the one on the "no one helped me pedestal"

If you're bitchin about 100 hours a week, get into another program.

If you're bitchin about not having money,take a year off and earn some.

If you want to go to school badly enough ,use your head and figure out a way.

Thousands of others have done it before you, and many more will do it after you.

Excuses are just that,excuses.

I did just fine. But I can definitely say that the student loans program is everything but "generous". If anyone says it is, he is either lying or doesn't know a thing about it.

That's precisely the attitude of most babyboomers when their kids decide to go to school - we made it ourselves (at less than 1/3 of the costs), not it's up to you. This is precisely why parents' income should not be taken into account in the student loan formula. This is also why money should not be handed out to parents to blow on beer and popcorn but should be used for the benefit of children (by improving the availability of loans, scholarships and bursaries) not for the benefit of their selfish parents.

[geoffrey]

That's precisely the attitude of most babyboomers when their kids decide to go to school - we made it ourselves (at less than 1/3 of the costs), not it's up to you. This is precisely why parents' income should not be taken into account in the student loan formula. This is also why money should not be handed out to parents to blow on beer and popcorn but should be used for the benefit of children (by improving the availability of loans, scholarships and bursaries) not for the benefit of their selfish parents.

I couldn't agree with you more there Saturn, parental income shouldn't matter. My parents make over the limit for loans, but they don't contribute a dime for my school or living or whatever. They've got that attitude that 'oh, I paid for University in a much more expensive city, you can do it without our help.' Which I agree with in most cases, but not all, and no University costs many times what it did 30 years ago. Why am I prevented from getting loans because of this (when I applied back in my first year, I was denied on this basis, and I was making ~$15,000 a year then at a sad little retail job)? When my dad had a heart attack and took a year off, I thought it would be a good time to apply... but nope, they then looked at parental assets. How ridiculous. Big problem I agree. I struggled through it though.

If you wanted to take parents income/assets out of the equation, I agree with you. Students are adults, a seperate entity from parents. But other than that, I believe in the current loans structure. Student income and the ability to earn should be calculated. Someone taking 5 dance courses should be expected to work more than you in your 100hr/week program.

But we should be looking only at loans, as university is an investment that will pay off. Handing people free university is needless, people will go when they see the worth of it.

[Saturn]

I'm taking a full course load in a Bachelors of Commerce in Accounting with a minor in Economics. Between work and school I put in around 70 hours a week, I use my vacation at exam time (like now, with midterms) and I work more during slow times.

So if you work full-time at 40hrs/wk and spend 15hrs/wk in class, you spend 15hrs/wk on your studies outside of class??? Maybe there is some truth to the claim that universities have been handing out degrees lately just for paying your tuition.

What program actually takes 100hrs a week? That barely leaves enough time for sleep. I can easily imagine that there are some out there, and we need to take a look at those specifically.

Engineering, math, science, some business programs, etc. After complaining that after attending classes and doing five 15-20pg assignments every week we have 2-3hrs/day left for sleep, we were told to work in groups (as if that's somehow more efficient - I just didn't do all of it). The problem here was that my faculty was "forced" (by the provincial government freaking out over shortages in certain areas) to accept 30% or so more students than it could support, so they had to kick about 20+% out by the end of first year. It's pretty ridiculous that so many students were squeezed out thanks to impossible demands from a stupid government.

Something people need to consider when they make their choice. I did that very thing, I declined a few offers from better schools in order to be in a place with more employment opportunities.

Nice to say in retrospect but by the time I graduated my tuition, other fees and housing had doubled. It's not easy to foresee such things.

Taxpayers (most of which never attended University) should not be subsidizing an investment that gives people like you and I many hundreds of thousands in increased earnings over our lifetimes.

I'd much rather subsidize students than snowbirds and Disneyland vacations. Education requires a lot of effort and sacrifice on behalf of the student and by 2020 over 2/3rds of jobs will require some level of post-secondary education. Education is a requirement for the new generation, not a luxury. It is also a requirement for a competitive and healthy economy - so it is a worthy investment. The cost of student loans programs is not even a tiny spec compared to the cost of funding seniors and handing out money to parents who tell their kids they may be able to give them some funds for education when their retirement savings hit a million but until then, they are on their own. If children are the future (like so many hypocrites claim), why are we constantly cutting education (at all levels) and dumping the money into old age benefits and health care, 4/5ths of which goes to retirees? Are those retirees the ones who will be productive and keep our economy going? What kind of an investment is that?

[geoffrey]

I'd much rather subsidize students than snowbirds and Disneyland vacations.

That's not a valid argument for subsidizing students.

The cost of student loans programs is not even a tiny spec compared to the cost of funding seniors and handing out money to parents who tell their kids they may be able to give them some funds for education when their retirement savings hit a million but until then, they are on their own. If children are the future (like so many hypocrites claim), why are we constantly cutting education (at all levels) and dumping the money into old age benefits and health care, 4/5ths of which goes to retirees? Are those retirees the ones who will be productive and keep our economy going? What kind of an investment is that?

I agree with you on the retirees and all that, why are we spending money there when it can be spent on the future growth of our economy instead, perhaps tax cuts. But why are we subsidizing a good investment for the student. It makes financial sense for them to pay for school, they will earn that back. School has a positive NPV.

If you want to provide student loans to bridge that time between school and their earnings, then so be it, I think that's reasonable. We also then ensure that no one falls between the cracks.

Do we not have an issue with student loans in that students just declare bankruptcy upon graduation, and the asset-less student escapes from paying anything? Big trouble. The government (the taxpayer essientially), needs some form of guarntee on these loans. The government can take your house, take your money, take your life. So it shouldn't be hard to form something like that into the loan so that people don't just bail on them after post-sec is over.

[imatitlover]

What does it meen to be Conservative?

Well first and foremost you must be racist

[Saturn]

If you wanted to take parents income/assets out of the equation, I agree with you. Students are adults, a seperate entity from parents. But other than that, I believe in the current loans structure. Student income and the ability to earn should be calculated. Someone taking 5 dance courses should be expected to work more than you in your 100hr/week program.

The current student loan program doesn't take most of this into account at all.

The student loan formula is roughly

min{maximum amount, tuition+incidental fees+$400/mth for rent and food (if you live on your own)+$1000 for books} - any assets/earnings you have - clawback for parents' income. Do you see anything here about earning ability, about the cost of tuition (because every program will put you above the loan amount whether your tuition is $5K or $10K or $30K), or about time requirements? Anyone who qualifies, gets the same amount - regardless of what they are studying or where they are studying.

In Ontario, the maximum amount you could borrow was around $9,500 in 2000 and it was at that same level since 1990. In the meantime many programs were "deregulated" meaning that the universities could charge whatever they wanted, causing fees to skyrocket in these fields. Residences were also "deregulated" and universities had a special exemption to increase rents as much as they wanted (something other landlords cannot do). Since the student loans office was flooded with applications and the government was questioned about skyrocketing student debt levels, they simply tightened the eligibility requirements and started refusing loans for any stupid excuse they could find.

I applied for a loan once and was refused because there was a discrepancy in my earnings between my tax return and my loan application ($500 more on my loan app. than on my T1 because that was the exemption on scholarships for income tax purposes). It took them 3 months to process my app and by the time they told me I was trying to cheat them by reporting more income to them than to the CRA, it was too late to resolve the issue (the deadline for getting the loan had passed). From talking to others it was pretty clear that they were trying to find some absurd excuse to send your app back, and if you had time to re-submit they would pick on something else and send it back again and again allowing deadlines to pass and you'd fail to get a loan because you missed deadlines, not because they had a good reason to refuse you. The retards even sent me a note 4 years later (and a couple after I had graduated) to tell me that my loan account was suspended and that would not be able to apply for another loan until I resolved the $500 discrepancy.

In conclusion, the student loan formula is junk to begin with and administrative delays and tricks are used to reduce loan availability beyond that formula. Neither the structure, nor the application of the student loans program makes sense and it badly needs to be improved.

[Saturn]

I'd much rather subsidize students than snowbirds and Disneyland vacations.

That's not a valid argument for subsidizing students.

Actually, it is. Education is an investment in our economy and claiming that there is no money for it in the budget while we waste many times more on complete garbage is well, complete garbage.

Chronic underfunding of Canadian universities means that they are turning more an more to what provides more funds, not what's good for our economy. They expand in the arts and humanities because the funding they receive is sufficient for big classes and cheap instructors in these disciplines. They are not expanding in engineering, science, and technology because these programs require more facilities, equipment, and more expensive instructors (since they have to compete with other employers in these areas of high demand). Canada is falling relative to other developed nations in most areas of education but at the highest rate precisely in those areas, which are the ones that matter the most. It's not a pretty situation and will come back to bite us.

I agree with you on the retirees and all that, why are we spending money there when it can be spent on the future growth of our economy instead, perhaps tax cuts. But why are we subsidizing a good investment for the student. It makes financial sense for them to pay for school, they will earn that back. School has a positive NPV.

Two reasons:

1) Most students don't have $20K/yr sitting around for education. By its nature, education must come first and earnings come second.

2) Increasing the cost of education means that students must earn more later to pay for it. In other countries where education is free or nearly free, employers don't have to pay that premium+interest. Lower salaries are a huge incentive for employers to set up shop in jurisdictions that offer them. You have to remember that we don't have the luxury of a closed economy - we have to compete globally and on an increasing scale and in more areas.

Do we not have an issue with student loans in that students just declare bankruptcy upon graduation, and the asset-less student escapes from paying anything? Big trouble.

I don't know about you but in Ontario you cannot declare bankruptcy within 10 years of graduation. By then they can cease wages and assets to ensure repayment. So unless you plan to stay unemployed and own nothing for 10 years, you are paying back that loan.