Just remember that as the population grows, so will the costs of some of these basic services like heath care and education. Look at the population of Calgary -- almost 1 million people. Who gets the bulk of the "new" health money?
Cowman, if as you suggest, we are producing kids that don't know much of anything when they're done school, then doesn't it behoove those that are in charge of the educational curriculum to ensure that it does? Schools are funded in part, based on what courses they can offer kids. Some classes have 10 to 12 students in them because they are options and not everyone likes the same things. Should we have all these options just so that a school can get more money, to pay teachers with classrooms that are less than half full, when the biggest complaint teachers have is class size? Wouldn't that money be better spent on enough teachers to teach the basics and forget all the optional under-utilized classes? Yes, variety is good, but there should be a limit as to how much is a good thing.
As the baby boomers age, this is where we see more and more need for health care because things just wear out after a while, or a tune-up is in order. People are living longer, so they require services for longer.
Don't forget that back when we got on this "fiscal restraint" bandwagon, there were many services that were completely hacked away and I would say that all these recent spending announcements will help us to get where we should have been, had we not had all these cuts in the first place. At first glance it may seem like a lot is getting put back, when I would say that it is merely keeping us where we would have been had things been allowed to evolve as a matter of course.
(By the way, cowman, how am I doing?) ;-)
Cowman, if as you suggest, we are producing kids that don't know much of anything when they're done school, then doesn't it behoove those that are in charge of the educational curriculum to ensure that it does? Schools are funded in part, based on what courses they can offer kids. Some classes have 10 to 12 students in them because they are options and not everyone likes the same things. Should we have all these options just so that a school can get more money, to pay teachers with classrooms that are less than half full, when the biggest complaint teachers have is class size? Wouldn't that money be better spent on enough teachers to teach the basics and forget all the optional under-utilized classes? Yes, variety is good, but there should be a limit as to how much is a good thing.
As the baby boomers age, this is where we see more and more need for health care because things just wear out after a while, or a tune-up is in order. People are living longer, so they require services for longer.
Don't forget that back when we got on this "fiscal restraint" bandwagon, there were many services that were completely hacked away and I would say that all these recent spending announcements will help us to get where we should have been, had we not had all these cuts in the first place. At first glance it may seem like a lot is getting put back, when I would say that it is merely keeping us where we would have been had things been allowed to evolve as a matter of course.
(By the way, cowman, how am I doing?) ;-)
Comment