TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Federal Election 2008 Thread
Pages (16): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 »

If you're still not decided....

Click here: http://www.ctv.ca/mini/election2008/quiz/game.html

Don't click the flash game below, click above. I wasn't able to fix the code to grab the quotes to work on TA, but below gives you an idea of what the link is.

I ended up with Liberal....which doesn't really surprise me.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced I ended up with Liberal....which doesn't really surprise me.

I thought my answers varied, but I guess I was labeled Liberal overall.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT - Quarterly $1000 grant for students, paid with or around the time of the GST rebates. This partially alleviates fronting all costs and waiting for a tax refund in the spring. - the $1000 is reduced to $250 for those with jobs (I think that's what he said)

Errrr... doesn't that effectively discourage students from getting jobs? What a strange incentive. If the aim is to provide incentives for education then employment status should be irrelevant.

quote:

- $5000 in OSAP is *guaranteed*, regardless of family income. - loan interest rates capped at Prime + 0.5% - interest free grace period following graduation is extended from 6 months to 2 years.

I went to school. I know what most students actually do with that money. Our education is subsidized enough already; the more "accessible" you make it, the more lazy deadbeats you attract who are only interested in the lifestyle and the gravy train.

Maybe I'm old-fashioned but I don't see education as a right. It's a tool, an investment. People take their studies much more seriously when it's their own money on the line. Yeah, sometimes people's parents pay their way and it's "unfair", but some people's parents also pay for cars and rent. So what? That's their prerogative. Most of the time, when parents are paying the bills, they also want to see results, which is its own motivator, and isn't similarly true for the government.

I've always believed that heavily subsidized education lowers the quality of the education and attracts a lower quality of student. I think this premise is supported by the fact that private schools and universities tend to have higher standards and higher graduation rates than public schools and subsidized state colleges. I don't have more proof than that, but nevertheless, I'm not impressed by Dion's plan, and I wouldn't be impressed if it were coming from a Conservative either.

quote:

Originally posted by rabbitjoker This is only for CMHC insured mortgages. There are other insurers who will provide insurance for those with 35+ year amort and < 620 FICO.

unfortunately...no. Genworth and AIG have followed suit.

despite being private insurers, their insurance is still backed by gov't bonds or something like that (I'd love to pretend to know the ins and outs, but I don't).

so this will impact the entire industry, outside of lenders not governed by the Bank Act, like Wells Fargo who charge exhorbitant rates.

quote:

Originally posted by Abercrombie If you're still not decided....

Harper, surprise surprise.

A lot of the quotes from Dion make some sense too, but he babbles and wavers too much on them and gives noncommittal answers.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Errrr... doesn't that effectively discourage students from getting jobs? What a strange incentive. If the aim is to provide incentives for education then employment status should be irrelevant.

not really, since the "grants" apparently replace the tax credits. i.e. you get money now, rather than waiting for your (or your parents') tax return. so if you have a job and get less, you (presumably) retain the tax credits on the "grant" that you don't get, because you have a job.

the intent seems to be to provide cash flow during the year vs. waiting for tax time.

even if it was indeed a grant, and didn't impact the tax credit, presumably you make more than the 3k/year you'd be missing out on by having a job (unless you had a shit job, lol).

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I went to school. I know what most students actually do with that money. Our education is subsidized enough already; the more "accessible" you make it, the more lazy deadbeats you attract who are only interested in the lifestyle and the gravy train. Maybe I'm old-fashioned but I don't see education as a right. It's a tool, an investment. People take their studies much more seriously when it's their own money on the line. Yeah, sometimes people's parents pay their way and it's "unfair", but some people's parents also pay for cars and rent. So what? That's their prerogative. Most of the time, when parents are paying the bills, they also want to see results, which is its own motivator, and isn't similarly true for the government. I've always believed that heavily subsidized education lowers the quality of the education and attracts a lower quality of student. I think this premise is supported by the fact that private schools and universities tend to have higher standards and higher graduation rates than public schools and subsidized state colleges. I don't have more proof than that, but nevertheless, I'm not impressed by Dion's plan, and I wouldn't be impressed if it were coming from a Conservative either.

dude, you read my mind...

basic, general education is a right and a *clear* benefit to society, IMHO.

but upper-level education, particularly that which increases income potential vs. everyone else (and especially graduate level education), is not a right, IMHO.

one SHOULD have to pay for that themselves. Increasing accessibility to loans is as far as I go, because that at least levels the playing field for anyone who CHOOSES to pay for this PRIVILEGE.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper I know relative to the US, our education is cheap in absolute dollars (particularly with a par dollar) but that doesn't change the fact that if you want to encourage post-secondary education in this country, it needs to be accessible and loans only increase the accessibilty to DEBT. The expectation that you need to take on the equivalent of a down payment on a house (or the principal on a house if you're a professional student) is absurd and shouldn't be considered encouraging.

sorry, no sympathy!

people should be saving for their education. I didn't...and I paid the price by having to go into debt. I was also one of the not-so-lucky people whose household income rendered me ineligble for OSAP, but my parents and I didn't have savings beyond most of the tuition for first year. I paid the rest with a student line of credit at bank rates and it took me some time to pay it off. I take responsibility for being in that position.

professional student? surely you don't mean graduate students, like MBA, law, medicine, etc? because then I have even less sympathy, lol.

so someone pays 80k for my MBA from a top business school? boo hoo, now they earn close to that (or often more, immediately or eventually) in one year! or someone pays a couple hundred grand (or more) to go through med school? they have a meal ticket that pays six figures per year for life! law school? ditto! you "suffer" for a while to get out of debt and then are WAY above the average income.

why should taxpayers should FURTHER subsidize that education?

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper As for OSAP, I believe the loan is interest free during your school year. During the "grace period" post-grad, you are not required to make principal or interest payments but the interest you WOULD have paid during that period is simply added to your total amt owed. Therefore if students take advantage of a longer grace period, they are only going to end up handing over more interest to the government on the loan when all is said and done.

I honestly don't know if the interest is waived or added to the principle.

the gov't indeed just guarantees the loans though, with the banks still lending the money (and profiting).

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT one SHOULD have to pay for that themselves. Increasing accessibility to loans is as far as I go, because that at least levels the playing field for anyone who CHOOSES to pay for this PRIVILEGE.

Well, we seem to agree on part of this... I just don't think that lowering or capping the interest rates or extending the grace period is really increasing accessibility - it's just costing taxpayers more money. I remember reading a few years ago that OSAP also has an awful recovery rate, and in many ways it is almost like a handout, but that may have changed.

As for the "grants", I'd have to see how it interacts with the tax credits. If it's all coming out of the same bucket then I guess it's harmless - pointless, but harmless.

The only part that really makes sense to me is the $5000 OSAP allowance regardless of family income (although - isn't that up to the province?). I always thought the "family income" bit was not only unfair but also terrible economics - the loan effectively targets people who are the highest credit risks.

But, I'm not a student anymore, and when I do have kids (in, say, the year 2108), I'll have no reservations about paying for their education if they want to do something worthwhile. So even if it makes sense, it's irrelevant to me and he's still not getting my vote.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I've always believed that heavily subsidized education lowers the quality of the education and attracts a lower quality of student.

What lowers the quality of students is when there is not enough competition amongst applicants to get in and stay in. More subsidization = more interest = more competition, same number of spots.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT professional student? surely you don't mean graduate students, like MBA, law, medicine, etc? because then I have even less sympathy, lol. so someone pays 80k for my MBA from a top business school? boo hoo, now they earn close to that (or often more, immediately or eventually) in one year! or someone pays a couple hundred grand (or more) to go through med school? they have a meal ticket that pays six figures per year for life! law school? ditto! you "suffer" for a while to get out of debt and then are WAY above the average income.

Unfortunately, this country needs far more doctors, lawyers and business grads than it does liberal arts grads. Yah, I said it.

And while there is a brighter salary eventually somewhere down the line for professional students, take it from me, the only professional students graduating with guaranteed jobs right now are med students. It is a scary, scary time to be carrying six figures of student loans and trying to find a job as an MBA or LLB in this market, particularly when you need to support living costs in a major city, where you're most likely to find a job.

80K does not go very far when you've got at least that in student debt and living in Toronto. Professional schools are one area where applicants get a little more critical about how much debt they have to take on - and when that happens, the number of applicants go down and the quality of grads suffers.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper What lowers the quality of students is when there is not enough competition amongst applicants to get in and stay in. More subsidization = more interest = more competition, same number of spots.

You forget that universities are businesses, with interest in making money.

Just look at what happened during the double cohort year. Universities met the demand by increasing courses offered and class sizes.

Where there is a demand, supplier will try to meet it.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Errrr... doesn't that effectively discourage students from getting jobs? What a strange incentive. If the aim is to provide incentives for education then employment status should be irrelevant. I went to school. I know what most students actually do with that money. Our education is subsidized enough already; the more "accessible" you make it, the more lazy deadbeats you attract who are only interested in the lifestyle and the gravy train. Maybe I'm old-fashioned but I don't see education as a right. It's a tool, an investment. People take their studies much more seriously when it's their own money on the line. Yeah, sometimes people's parents pay their way and it's "unfair", but some people's parents also pay for cars and rent. So what? That's their prerogative. Most of the time, when parents are paying the bills, they also want to see results, which is its own motivator, and isn't similarly true for the government. I've always believed that heavily subsidized education lowers the quality of the education and attracts a lower quality of student. I think this premise is supported by the fact that private schools and universities tend to have higher standards and higher graduation rates than public schools and subsidized state colleges. I don't have more proof than that, but nevertheless, I'm not impressed by Dion's plan, and I wouldn't be impressed if it were coming from a Conservative either.

There is a flip side to this argument dude. While yes, this does give incentives for the blowjobs to continue to be blowjobs and go out to bars every single night without doing a thing in school.... there is also the cash-strapped student working their ass off whilst their marks suffer because they are being run into the ground. It's tough to say how many students fall into each camp, but from observation I would say that it's probably more equally split than most think. I think these incentives would lessen the middle ground of students pushing them either towards failing out, or achieving more. Financial burden is something that can weigh heavily on a students mind and cause them to lose a great deal of focus when it comes down to academics. The extent to which financial issues play on ones mind are quite significant. I think easing the burden is a good thing and will create more productive and better prepared students. The way I look at it is that the kids who are going to fuck around in school are going to find a way to fuck around regardless of grants, loans, no grants, whatever....their destiny is set from day one. The kids who are being held back because of financial burden as well as taking on too much will be able to put more of a focus on school and in the end be better off.

For the people that argue that they had to work through school, still got good grades, and were able to come out with good jobs. Good for you, honestly. But, you have to realize that everyone out there is not like you and students need time to develop to create the necesary skill sets to be able to pull stuff like that off. Balance is a skill, not an instinct.

quote:

Originally posted by slingshot There is a flip side to this argument dude. While yes, this does give incentives for the blowjobs to continue to be blowjobs and go out to bars every single night without doing a thing in school.... there is also the cash-strapped student working their ass off whilst their marks suffer because they are being run into the ground. It's tough to say how many students fall into each camp, but from observation I would say that it's probably more equally split than most think. I think these incentives would lessen the middle ground of students pushing them either towards failing out, or achieving more. Financial burden is something that can weigh heavily on a students mind and cause them to lose a great deal of focus when it comes down to academics. The extent to which financial issues play on ones mind are quite significant. I think easing the burden is a good thing and will create more productive and better prepared students. The way I look at it is that the kids who are going to fuck around in school are going to find a way to fuck around regardless of grants, loans, no grants, whatever....their destiny is set from day one. The kids who are being held back because of financial burden as well as taking on too much will be able to put more of a focus on school and in the end be better off. For the people that argue that they had to work through school, still got good grades, and were able to come out with good jobs. Good for you, honestly. But, you have to realize that everyone out there is not like you and students need time to develop to create the necesary skill sets to be able to pull stuff like that off. Balance is a skill, not an instinct.

I wonder for an avg student when they start university, how many of them are actually ready mentally? (because if you're in uni, you're pretty much considered an adult)

You do what you gotta do in order to succeed in life. Meeting challenges of uni life is just that. There is no written rule saying you do your 4 yrs straight and get out. If you need the money, take an yr off and work your ass off. (Not to mention that support network for poor cash strapped student is well developed enough for day to day living)

I dunno... Make things too easy to get and people do not appreciate hardwork and take things for granted. Enough kids take their OSAP loans and spend it on unecessary things and have wrong priorities in life. Already I see too many young 'adults' break from little mental pressure. Is making money more easily accessible going to fix this?

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper What lowers the quality of students is when there is not enough competition amongst applicants to get in and stay in. More subsidization = more interest = more competition, same number of spots.

That logic is predicated entirely on the assumption that there is a non-trivial number of students who don't apply for the sole reason that they don't think they can afford to go. Do you, personally, know anybody that fits into this category? Because I don't, and I would be very surprised if you could even find more than a few examples, let alone an actual statistic.

Artificial, subsidized, unaccountable competition is not productive competition. Simply having more applicants guarantees nothing, and makes as much sense as a hospital expanding their search for brain surgeons to include candidates without medical licenses because, by your logic, they'll get a higher quality staff that way.

Besides, most universities already accept less than a third of their applicants for programs that are not bird programs. There's a surplus of students, not a shortage.

quote:

Originally posted by slingshot ...there is also the cash-strapped student working their ass off whilst their marks suffer because they are being run into the ground. It's tough to say how many students fall into each camp, but from observation I would say that it's probably more equally split than most think. I think these incentives would lessen the middle ground of students pushing them either towards failing out, or achieving more.

And for that there are scholarships, bursaries, loans, and so on and so forth...

There are people who risk a lot more money and have to deal with much bigger problems in life than a "cash-strapped student" at the same age. There are always options available for those willing to work for it. If these students are really smart and diligent then they will get by just fine without government aid.

Ask your parents how they got by. I know for a fact that my dad was juggling CGA, a full-time job, and 3 kids at the same time, and he somehow made it through.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Do you, personally, know anybody that fits into this category? Because I don't

If I did, would you consider that support for an argument? Of course not.

I do believe there are people out there that could be successful university students but aren't because of their financial situation. It may not be their only situation - only a compounding issue - but it's still an issue.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper I do believe there are people out there that could be successful university students but aren't because of their financial situation. It may not be their only situation - only a compounding issue - but it's still an issue.

Generic handouts attract just as many freeloaders as they do serious candidates. This tends to hurt rather than help the people who really need them because it creates unnecessary competition and doesn't really distinguish between competitors.

Handouts that are specifically targeted toward the most qualified and serious candidates already exist, and they are called scholarships. There are tons of those, many of them unclaimed year after year because people don't apply or don't meet the requirements.

I still think you're all socialists!

quote:

Originally posted by rabbitjoker I still think you're all socialists!

this centrist is outraged!

quote:

Originally posted by malek he's on track with his ideology, less money to the government for a smaller govt...

I'm not sure how you can say this. Program spending has increased by over 14% (inflation and population growth account for approx 2%) in the two years Harper has been PM... that's not smaller government.

(Related!)

I'm translating a news article and after working for so long with transitioning verb tenses, restructuring the setences, and matching up idioms, sometimes it makes total sense to me - but sounds very incoherent to others.

Please read and give your thumbs up or tell me where I have gone FOB





With two intellects at the top of the principal parties battling it out in this campaign, we have the right to anticipate a bit of substantive debating. Well, not just yet. A nasty tone is at work in place of enlightening discourse. Stephen Harper is accusing Gilles Duceppe of having no power, other than his ability to criticize. Yesterday, the Conservative leader also dug up a spectre, reminding everyone of the economic catastrophe that comes hand-in-hand with the sovereignist plan; it has certainly been a while since we last heard that� In addition, honest efforts are being put forth to �work� the candidates. Thus, we are bearing witness to extreme transformations such as Stephen Harper, the good father with the warm, loving family; and St�phane Dion, the good guy, laid-back and humourous, who is hoping to �have fun� in the coming 37 days. Have fun? This is not what is being heard on the Liberal front, this time around�

Dion commits $70-billion over 10 years for infrastructure


CAMPBELL CLARK
Globe and Mail Update and The Canadian Press
September 18, 2008 at 1:18 PM EDT

TORONTO � Liberal Leader St�phane Dion took a ride on a Go Train to Toronto to underline his pledge to devote all annual surpluses of more than $3-billion to public infrastructure, but at a time when surpluses are disappearing, he proposed no new funds in the short term.

Mr. Dion has pledged the Liberals would spend infrastructure money differently, with more emphasis on environmentally-friendly projects.

The Liberals say they will create a 10-year, $70-billion "plan" for building infrastructure, although they are not proposing any additional new money in the next four years.

They have proposed one new initiative, essentially lifted from U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama: an infrastructure bank.

That would see the government set up a crown corporation so that provinces and municipalities could borrow at lower interest rates to finance infrastructure projects. Canadians would be able to buy shares in the bank or "green bonds," while the debt would be backed by government guarantees.

In addition, the Liberals said they would devote any surplus over $3-billion to infrastructure, rather than debt.

Mr. Dion said Canada is facing an infrastructure deficit in the hundreds of billions of dollars and he promises to invest �aggressively� to address the problem.

He said government must make investments that will increase competitiveness and create good, well-paying jobs.

Mr. Dion said the Liberals would honour existing framework agreements between Ottawa and the provinces, and adjust the gas tax transfer to help municipalities stay ahead of rising infrastructure costs.

�Canada's cities and towns are the engines of our economy,� said Mr. Dion. �Without significant long-term investments in infrastructure, our economy and environment will suffer.

�This plan will provide Canada's economic engines with the support they need, and is an important part of our efforts to reduce Canada's environmental footprint.�

Mr. Dion made the statements in Toronto, where he appeared alongside Toronto-area candidates and former leadership rivals including Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae, Gerard Kennedy, and Martha Hall Findlay.

And at a time when Mr. Harper's minister is under fire � and Mr. Dion's own leadership performance has been criticized � the Liberal Leader did not hesitate to play up his team.

�I have an extraordinary team. He has a lamentable team. I work with a team. He works alone,� he said.

On Wednesday, Green Leader Elizabeth May said she would raise the GST one point to six per cent to pay for municipal infrastructure.

quote:

Originally posted by smuncky On Wednesday, Green Leader Elizabeth May said she would raise the GST one point to six per cent to pay for municipal infrastructure.

Is she an amateur? I guess she is.

Only idiots talk about raising taxes before getting elected

quote:

Originally posted by smuncky Dion commits $70-billion over 10 years for infrastructure

What a fuckin goof. He wants to create a publicly funded corporation to fund infrastructure projects? How about taking actual tax dollars and putting them where they are supposed to be? The only reason he is doing this is because he has promised so many other projects, and there just isn't enough money.

I was listening to the press conference, and I could barely understand what he was saying. I know he was speaking English, but fuck. Get this guy some speech therapy.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.