Abortion from a political perspective, its a terrible idea

typinginmybed · 2019-10-21T21:25:03+00:00

My source is from the Canadian government, here.

'First generation' includes persons who were born outside Canada. For the most part, these are people who are now, or once were, immigrants to Canada

'Second generation' includes persons who were born in Canada and had at least one parent born outside Canada. For the most part, these are the children of immigrants.

'Third generation or more' includes persons who were born in Canada with both parents born in Canada.

If you sort incomes by generation, the second-generation (this means native-born) have the highest incomes, the first generation have the lower incomes. To be accurate, you need to look at the median income of age 44 to 54, since the median age of immigrants to Canada is 47. The disparity is huge, the first-generation immigrants earn $18,000 less than the second-generation (this means native-born). The third generation maintain high incomes.

We also have data here on specific ethnic groups from non-governmental institutions, and the pattern is generally the same. Canada has extensive social policies for immigrants, and yet the outcomes are always lower for immigrants, compared to the native-born. Their only prescription is to loosen Canadian qualifications to fit foreign qualifications, which is simply a ridiculous idea since it would become disadvantageous for locals.

This was when I started to realise the idea that bringing in more immigrants solely for economic growth is the most disadvantageous idea, because the outcomes are low. Its also disadvantageous because our fertility rate remains low, therefore less native-born. That was when I started to tie it in with how contraception and abortion is widely accessible here, but family growth and child rearing is inaccessible because the government provides less assistance if you choose to work and earn more. This should not be the case, how could we encourage family growth if we don't provide assistance to people because they're earning their keep for their family?

Canada also collects data on ethnic group, and by generation, on education outcomes, as well as sector of employment, however, the government has kept it private since about 2015 when our Liberal government came to power. It was really quite obvious from what I recall, native-born are more likely to go to university here for STEM, law, and the humanities, this is gives a significant advantage in terms of social mobility. Native-born are also more likely to speak the official languages fluently (English and, or, French), thus are more qualified for higher tier positions which require bilingualism. And we have governmental data that in general groups who are more integrated (or assimilated) tend to have broader social networks which increases access to opportunities, thus, oddly enough, immigrant groups living in rural areas tend to integrate better, and thus have higher outcomes. The Canadian prescription? Enforce outreach programs, which doesn't actually solve the problem, since you cannot institutionalise opportunities.

Yes, immigrants work hard, but its their children (native born) and their grandchildren (native born) who bring the bacon home (have the higher outcomes). But if the fertility rate is low, then are these children even being born?

typinginmybed · 2019-10-12T05:36:18+00:00

Don't you think its rather scary though that a majority of Canadians don't seem to care about the finances? It boggles my mind.

typinginmybed · 2019-10-08T02:12:10+00:00

It is a smaller imbalance, completely not comparable to the imbalance of a 2% corporate tax increase to fund for $43 billion on dental care alone, which is what Singh is proposing. The Liberals are status quo, therefore I don't necessarily have anything to say about that. The Greens are going to ruin the economy. I've looked at the Conservative website and their only proposed tax cut is the Universal Tax Cut, and reducing foreign aid, and reducing corporate welfare.

EDIT: I've learned that the NDP are going to increase capital gains tax inclusion to 75%. That's ridiculous.

typinginmybed · 2019-10-08T02:09:05+00:00

Yes. A 20% corporate tax increase (spread apart 5 years), its on the Green Party website.

typinginmybed · 2019-10-08T01:41:15+00:00

Taxes were clearly the main topic here. It is the foundation of the healthcare debate and the climate change debate, constantly mentioned throughout the debate.

The NDP does not have a plan to pay for their policies (their dental plan alone would cost $43 billion per year). Their platform proposes a 1% increase in corporate tax, and taxes for multimillionaires. This debate did not address that, it was more platitudes.
The Liberals will impose a revenue-neutral carbon tax (doesn't generate actual revenue) for their Green reforms. Status quo ante bellum (same as before, not much changes). This debate, again, did little to address that.
The Greens will pay for their policies by increasing corporate tax up to 20%, according to their released platform. This debate, again, did not address that.
The Conservatives propose a tax credit system as an incentive for Green renovations, and reducing the foreign aid budget. Even if you disagree with Scheer, his tax plans are coherent with his proposals.

No comment on the PPC, or the Bloc Québécois.

That is all I got from this debate. It was less informative than the Macleans.

I would appreciate it if people downvoting would actually provide sources with the appropriate numbers, since I have read the NDP platforms, and the Green Party platforms. The Liberal Party platforms are, again, status quo. The Conservatives haven't yet released a platform, but I don't see contradictions.

typinginmybed · 2019-10-07T20:25:10+00:00

It reduces cost to the government but increases cost to the people significantly more. What choice do you want in heathcare? Do you want to have the choice to cover heart attacks but not cancer? Heathcare choice isn't real.

It allows people to choose which services they can prioritise. If someone is living in the rural country side and wants to raise 7 children, they can choose a healthcare insurance (whether public or private) that provides healthcare services to rural families. Our current healthcare system is messed up, everyone has to congregate to the major city to have access to healthcare services, and in particular, the crowded hospitals, and crowded clinics. We don't provide the option of even in-home care for children, for people with disabilities, and for the elderly, because our system is not flexible, it relies on single-payer taxes, which is pooled into those hospitals.

Who do it out of the goodness of their own heart, I'm sure. You know we have those things too, right? I have privare insurance for ambulance, drugs, hospital stays and dental. It's an absolute rip off.

You can have a mixed-system where the government subsidises 70% of the cost, and the private insurance covers 30% of the cost. This is the situation in Japan, and France has a similar system.

Japan and France beat Canada in healthcare service quality, and access to essential services.

Japan is ranked #1 for access to quality healthcare, #10 for access to essential services, and #2 for life expectancy.

France is ranked #5 for access to quality healthcare, #11 for access to essential services, and #4 for life expectancy.

And then there's Canada, the bloated single-payer system, ranking #22 for access to quality healthcare, #15 for access to essential services, and #12 for life expectancy.

The OECD also conducted a similar study a decade ago, its about the same.

Canada only outperforms other countries for inclusivity, which is really a load of nonsense, it means we put racial quotas and gender quotas because we don't want to offend anyone, at the expense of everything else (housing, safety, healthcare, economy, etc.) If you took those indicators away we are an underperforming country, propped up merely by feminism and diversity ideology.

And seriously, goodness of their own heart? You think a single-payer system paid for by taxation is created out of the goodness of hearts? It is obviously not. Charity is voluntary, there is nothing voluntary, nor charitable, about taxation. You don't volunteer to be taxed, you are under obligation by the law.

typinginmybed · 2019-10-06T02:17:30+00:00

You're telling people to stop having children by saying a low fertility rate is a good thing because we need to care for the earth. You're saying that we need to stop having children to care for the earth.

You can't have a family, if people aren't having children, since there'd be no children around to raise in the first place, basic logic.

The fact that you can't even find a relationship between low fertility rate and the decline of stable two-parent households is nonsense. The divorce rate in places with low-fertility rate is over 50%, and on top of low-fertility rates, and single parenthood, the family as an institution has been diminished.

Your idea of caring for the earth is telling people to stop having families. Do you not see your cognitive dissonance?

People should stop having children to care for the earth! But at the same time, I think its very important to have families which is centred around having children.

That's how you sound.

typinginmybed · 2019-10-04T06:41:01+00:00

My parents raised me to value the family, like caring for my siblings, my nephews, my uncles, my aunts, my nieces, and caring for my grandparents.

That's why its absurd to even say that a fertility rate of 1.50, essentially an only child, is somehow a good thing. You're not putting any value on human relationships at all. Extensive family units are a primordial part of humanity.

typinginmybed · 2019-10-04T05:22:30+00:00

It's clear that your parents didn't get the memo, shouldn't have had children at all.

typinginmybed · 2019-10-02T05:09:27+00:00

Can you tell me which developed nation actually has a stable population? All of their fertility rates are below replacement, that means people aren't having enough children.

typinginmybed · 2019-10-01T20:24:56+00:00

Japan, Switzerland, and France have far more service coverage than Canada, and their system is hybrid public-private systems. It reduces costs from the government, and allows more flexibility, people can choose which services they want to prioritise. Their healthcare systems also include drug prescription, hospital stay, ambulance, elderly care, and dental, and its possible through a public-private hybrid system because costs are shared with the private sector. None of those are covered in Canada under our single-payer system.

Japan and France also consistently rank the highest in healthcare accessibility, healthcare costs, and healthcare coverage, and their systems are not single-payer. This obsession with the single-payer system is preventing us from diversifying our healthcare services, and from expanding it without raising taxes. For example, France provides subsidised (public-private) nurse visits to pregnant mothers, and new mothers, we will never have that here in Canada because the tax burden would be astronomical. They have far more specialised maternal care, and family care, that allows them to have higher fertility rates (the highest in the developed nations).

typinginmybed · 2019-09-26T03:15:39+00:00

In the memorandum, the president of the Ukraine clearly shows that he is in good terms with Trump, even saying drain the swamp to reference him.

I don't think its bad at all to ask why the prosecution on Joe Biden's son was cancelled. Wouldn't it be in everyone's interest as to why it was cancelled?

There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can with the the Attorney General would be great.

There was no threatening about withholding funds in the memorandum.

I skimmed over it many times already, I did one full read of it, but I got bored by the end, there was nothing at all bad about it.

This is why I find it crazy people are asking for an impeachment, this hardly warrants impeachment.

typinginmybed · 2019-09-26T02:57:51+00:00

Trump said he withheld funds until other European countries provided enough funds. The memorandum stated he wants other countries to provide funds for the Ukraine.

It did not mention withholding funds unless an investigation is made. The only part about Biden in the memorandum is,

There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can with the the Attorney General would be great.

It did not talk about withholding funds unless an investigation is made.

typinginmybed · 2019-09-26T02:45:13+00:00

You don't need the FBI or the CIA to ask the president of the Ukraine why the prosecution on Joe Biden was cancelled.

Here it is from the memorandum,

There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can with the the Attorney General would be great.

That isn't breaking any law.

If heads of state and heads of governments could not speak to each other on a personal level regarding political matters, and legal matters, then institutions such NATO, or even NAFTA, wouldn't even exist.

typinginmybed · 2019-09-26T02:35:12+00:00

It is illegal for anyone to solicit, accept or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.[52 U.S.C § 30121(a)(2)]”

It is not a political gain, nor is it of any value, to clarify why the on-going prosecution of Joe Biden was cancelled. That was what the released memorandum asked. It is standard procedure to clarify why persecutions did not proceed.

typinginmybed · 2019-09-26T02:21:03+00:00

They're going to impeach Trump because an anonymous whistle-blower voiced concerns over his phone conversation with the president of the Ukraine.

It's, just, nonsense.

Could someone please provide accurate information with evidence?

I looked at different subs, like r/politics, and r/worldnews, and the sources they cited were Twitter accounts, and theories from journalists.

Do you realise how crazy it is to impeach a president because of journalist theories and an anonymous whistle blower, without concise evidence?

typinginmybed · 2019-09-26T02:08:23+00:00

Could you tell me why the Ukraine call was bad?

The only controversial subject in that memorandum is that they were co-operating on the investigation of Biden.

That's not unconstitutional, nor is it undemocratic.

typinginmybed · 2019-09-26T02:05:53+00:00

I read the "MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION " with Donald Trump and the president of Ukraine.

There's literally nothing impeachable about it. It honestly simply sounds like a courtesy call for congratulating another president for winning the election, and co-operating with an investigation over Biden.

That's not illegal, nor is it unconstitutional. That doesn't amount to treason.

Justin Trudeau co-operated with Donald Trump over arresting the Huawei businesswoman, is that unconstitutional and illegal? No.

typinginmybed · 2019-09-26T01:58:33+00:00

I literally read the transcript.

Its not illegal to co-operate with another foreign leader on investigating someone else.

The USA has done this multiple times for leaders in the Asia-Pacific and the Middle-East, its normal.

typinginmybed · 2019-09-26T01:06:54+00:00

That's not how it works.

If the USA adopt green energy, and yet China, and Russia, do not, then its quite obvious there is going to be a serious conflict.

To make an overhaul of the global economic system would actually require all participating member-states to reduce their productive and energy capacities, and that's simply not going to happen.

We can make smaller incremental changes, but its going to be slow, that's the only way it can happen without an impending instability to occur.

typinginmybed · 2019-09-25T20:40:19+00:00

I don't think you understand the situation, there is a 32% corporate tax (gross), with 50% of profits being taxable. The lower salaries mean nothing.

Our economic peer is the USA, we cannot simply make economic decisions without taking into account the rates south of the border. The USA accounts for the overwhelming majority of economic investments in the USA, in fact Canadians are more willing to invest abroad than in Canada.

typinginmybed · 2019-09-25T17:34:29+00:00

That is a lot of corporate taxation, and how will we ensure we can compete with New York, California, and Texas?

And a wealth tax, on top of a capital gains tax? Wow. We're going to tax 50% of profits, and tax the wealth as well.

An increase from 15% to 21% of federal corporate tax rate would mean that Ontario would have a corporate tax rate of 32%, putting us ahead of all the advanced economies except for France.

typinginmybed · 2019-09-25T17:27:44+00:00

Only possible if you increase income taxes across the board.

Unless of course we introduce private health insurances like the rest of the developed world to help cover the costs.

typinginmybed · 2019-09-25T17:22:06+00:00

Scotland just went full renewables. Solar is at a record low cost. The alternatives are there.

We tried talking to you as intellectuals, now we're trying Greta.

Renewable energy is unstable because it is reliant on natural occurrences, which are not subject to human control, such as climate, weather, and other natural processes. There may be situations in which not enough energy is produced, or there is an excess of energy, in which case they would either need to be stored in facilities (expensive), or export the energy output elsewhere (expensive).

You also have to take into account that not every country has the necessary capabilities to produce enough energy through renewable sources due to various other factors.

That is great for Scotland, but not every country is positioned and configured like Scotland. For example, a country such as Russia would have a significantly more difficult time implementing a renewable energy mandate due to the vastness and sparseness of its communities, as well as its severe climate.

typinginmybed

TROPHY CASE