[cferneyh]

You guys kill me. Yeah, the only places where the government can cut is programs and services that impact the poor. There are no inefficiences or redundancies anywhere else. Take a look at this page and tell me that everything listed here directly impacts the poor:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.canada.gc.ca/depts/major/depind_e.html">http://www.canada.gc.ca/depts/major/depind_e.html</a><!-- m -->

Atlantic Pilotage Authority Canada?
Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation?
Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics?
National Battlefields Commission?

And those are but a few of the dozens and dozens that I see there.

Such a weak argument.

Brilliant rebuttal. Weak how? Oh right, weak because you don't like it.

[Summiteer]

Actually, cutting funding to the Museum of Civilization (for example) may adversely affect the poor in that rates for admission may be raised - thereby removing the Museums from the reach of the poor.

Call me crazy, but if I'm poor and I'm struggling to feed my family, I'm fairly certain that the last place I'd be looking to spend money is by going to the Museum of Civilization. But maybe that's just me.

:lol:

[beanmedic]

Actually, cutting funding to the Museum of Civilization (for example) may adversely affect the poor in that rates for admission may be raised - thereby removing the Museums from the reach of the poor.

Call me crazy, but if I'm poor and I'm struggling to feed my family, I'm fairly certain that the last place I'd be looking to spend money is by going to the Museum of Civilization. But maybe that's just me.

That's not the point. Museums=Education. Education=Social Determinant of Health.

[cferneyh]

Actually, cutting funding to the Museum of Civilization (for example) may adversely affect the poor in that rates for admission may be raised - thereby removing the Museums from the reach of the poor.

Call me crazy, but if I'm poor and I'm struggling to feed my family, I'm fairly certain that the last place I'd be looking to spend money is by going to the Museum of Civilization. But maybe that's just me.

That's not the point. Museums=Education. Education=Social Determinant of Health.

Uh, actually, it is the point. Do you actually think the poor and impoverished go to museums? I don't run one, but I'm guessing they don't. And let me put it to you another way - if you asked the poor and impoverished if they'd like to see $10 more at the end of the month in their own pocket, or if they would prefer that the Museum of Civilization continues to be run by the government, what do you think the vast majority would choose? But, if I understand your position correctly, the poor and impoverished go to the Museum of Civilization to get educated, which helps their health. No stretch there.

[Sam]

Actually, cutting funding to the Museum of Civilization (for example) may adversely affect the poor in that rates for admission may be raised - thereby removing the Museums from the reach of the poor.

Call me crazy, but if I'm poor and I'm struggling to feed my family, I'm fairly certain that the last place I'd be looking to spend money is by going to the Museum of Civilization. But maybe that's just me.

You may or may not choose to take you family to the Museum - or library or art gallery or whatever. Heck, you could be rich and never set foot in a museum or library or art gallery or whatever. But, public museums, libraries and art galleries must be that - public. That means, no one should be kept out for the price of admission. A civilization's history should not be the exclusive domain of those rich enough to access it.

In any case, I used the Museum example because you suggested it, not because I thought admission to the Museum of Civilization was the most pressing issue facing poor Canadians. You suggested (I think ) that cuts to the Museum wouldn't affect the poor and I showed you that they would.

Obviously, the more important issue is access to social services like health care, education and welfare. Cutting funding to those services will adversely affect the poor before the rich. It will also have the effect of making middle-class people poorer. Everyone likes to flatter themselves that they are somehow immune to poverty, but the middle-class is getting poorer all the time. Keep picking away at services that were previously paid for through taxes and we'll all feel the lack in time.

You can continue to deny it until the cows come home. It won't change my mind - and I suspect that I won't change your mind either.

[cferneyh]

It won't change my mind - and I suspect that I won't change your mind either.

Agreed. :thumb:

Though I have to say that the argument put forth that poor people going to the Museum of Civilization makes them healthier is my highlight of the day.

[fingernailsonhull]

It won't change my mind - and I suspect that I won't change your mind either.

Agreed. :thumb:

Though I have to say that the argument put forth that poor people going to the Museum of Civilization makes them healthier is my highlight of the day.

It's because beanmedic is making an inferred argument that I'm guessing was never intended by his WHO article. Education is a determinant of health - but this has to do with the introduction of universal primary education in impoverished nations, not the public funding of a museum in an advanced industrialist state. A stretch indeed.

[Sam]

It won't change my mind - and I suspect that I won't change your mind either.

Agreed. :thumb:

And that's the frigging beauty of living in a democracy! And on January 26th, we'll celebrate the joy by heading out to our local polling stations.

Education is a determinant of health - but this has to do with the introduction of universal primary education in impoverished nations, not the public funding of a museum in an advanced industrialist state. A stretch indeed.

While the education/health correlation is made in developing countries, it holds true in industrial countries as well. The greatest indication of a family's health is the education level of the mother or primary caregiver - true in Addis Ababa, true in Toronto.

I was most shocked to discover that men's health was directly benefited by their spouse's education level. You see, I've been to graduate school but my husband is convinced that he's dying of asbestosis. Doesn't he understand that he'll live forever with me as his wife? Sheesh.

[cferneyh]

The greatest indication of a family's health is the education level of the mother or primary caregiver - true in Addis Ababa, true in Toronto.

Is this in Freakenomics? I keep meaning to pick that book up, but Santa has suggested I hold off for a couple of weeks.

[j-monster]

While I must now give beanmedic credit for actually properly debating the issues, when he defended his "retarded" comment this way...

a humourous left wing crack, and everyone freaks out

... he's missing an essential point. I've seen far too many people on the left-wing side of the political spectrum make insensitive comments and not fear reprisals... but when somebody on the right says anything mildly controversial, well then the attack dogs are brought out at full speed (no offense intended, skippy :wink: )!

I'm not saying that right-wingers are completely innocent, but I think people are deluding themselves if they don't at least somewhat agree with this point.

The other thing I'll say to bean is, it's easy to constantly call for more government spending on social problems... and who knows, perhaps in certain targeted instances it actually does make sense. But at some point a government which has too many programs and too much taxpayer money sunk in those programs is essentially saying to it's citizens, "We don't trust you or think you are smart enough to know how to spend your own money on your health/family/etc., only we can do that for you". I don't know about you, but I'd prefer government to be less involved in my life overall, not more.

[VioletlightHeron]

You may or may not choose to take you family to the Museum - or library or art gallery or whatever. Heck, you could be rich and never set foot in a museum or library or art gallery or whatever. But, public museums, libraries and art galleries must be that - public. That means, no one should be kept out for the price of admission. A civilization's history should not be the exclusive domain of those rich enough to access it.

Agreed, but don't you think that musuems are more likely to cut back on administration, research and curator positions and other things before they cut back on hours or increase the price? Having open access for all people is part of their mandate and it seems unlikely to me that they will jack up the price of admission as their first move. The other alternative for musuems losing some public funding is to be more aggressive in their fundraising and corporate/foundation sponsorship of programs and such.

Obviously, the more important issue is access to social services like health care, education and welfare. Cutting funding to those services will adversely affect the poor before the rich. It will also have the effect of making middle-class people poorer. Everyone likes to flatter themselves that they are somehow immune to poverty, but the middle-class is getting poorer all the time. Keep picking away at services that were previously paid for through taxes and we'll all feel the lack in time.

Some social services, like education, health care and welfare services, are vital to giving lower and middle income people fair access to things that richer people treat as a given, that's true. But my main disagreement with government funded social services is not the programs themselves, but how they are managed. Featherbedding the administrative aspects of these social services does nothing to help the people they are designed to help. Alot of liberal/progressive thinkers seem to think that cuts in funding or changes in how the programs are run will lead to less access to these resources for lower-middle income people but I think the key is finding better ways to get rid of the bureacracy and being more efficient in distributing the social services that are needed.

[Sam]

...but don't you think that musuems are more likely to cut back on administration, research and curator positions and other things before they cut back on hours or increase the price?

Having worked at a museum, I can assure you that administration is the last thing they cut. It's a funny thing that happens when you put administrators in the charge of deciding who/what gets cut. Programs and frontline people get the heave first. And, yes, I saw admission prices and program enrolment prices go up before middle management was finally cut.

Alot of liberal/progressive thinkers seem to think that cuts in funding or changes in how the programs are run will lead to less access to these resources for lower-middle income people but I think the key is finding better ways to get rid of the bureacracy and being more efficient in distributing the social services that are needed.

Form your mouth to God's ears! But see my comments re. cuts at the museum above. I don't think there is any political will to 're-vamp' social programs in a meaningful way. Cut the funding, get the photo op and walk away - that's the political action for you. By the time they cut nurses' hours to meet the funding cuts to hospitals brought on by reduced commitment to healthcare, the PM has already left on a trade mission junket to China.

And that's the greatest waste of taxpayer's dollars ever. Why the government has to fund trade "missions" to foreign countries is beyond me. Selling yourself to foreign markets is part of the price of doing business that shouldn't be 'externalized' on to Canadian taxpayers. If Bombardier wants to open a plant in China, I don't see why Chretien should be stumping for them or we should be paying for the sell.

Taxpayer dollars - however you want them spent - should be benefitting Canadians not corporate executives and shareholders.

Would I rather that the gov't spent my tax dollars paying for a poor child's education or another freaking trade 'mission?' The answer is obvious and easy for me. Spend the money in a way that benefits my country, not your financial supporters.

[tommygunn]

And on January 26th, we'll celebrate the joy by heading out to our local polling stations.

January 23rd! :wink:

[sherpahigh]

And that's the greatest waste of taxpayer's dollars ever. Why the government has to fund trade "missions" to foreign countries is beyond me. Selling yourself to foreign markets is part of the price of doing business that shouldn't be 'externalized' on to Canadian taxpayers. If Bombardier wants to open a plant in China, I don't see why Chretien should be stumping for them or we should be paying for the sell.

Taxpayer dollars - however you want them spent - should be benefitting Canadians not corporate executives and shareholders.

There is of course the argument that helping Canada become more successful in forign trade strengthens our economy, thus benefitting Canadians.

I work for a manufacturing company and deal a lot with expanding into foreign markets. We've developed new markets which has resulted in more work for the company overall. This created the need for more workers to help with the extra work. Now, we're small fries when it comes down to it, but I would argue that more trade business is a good thing for Canadian companies. It doesn't stop at our factory either, we need more raw material and supplies, and on and on.

Free trade has a big effect on our economy and is something worth growing, especially with a country like China.

[cferneyh]

I work for a manufacturing company and deal a lot with expanding into foreign markets. We've developed new markets which has resulted in more work for the company overall. This created the need for more workers to help with the extra work. Now, we're small fries when it comes down to it, but I would argue that more trade business is a good thing for Canadian companies. It doesn't stop at our factory either, we need more raw material and supplies, and on and on.

Free trade has a big effect on our economy and is something worth growing, especially with a country like China.

You capitalist pig! How dare you talk about job creation. What we need to do is send more poor people to museums so that they can get healthier. :lol: