beanmedic Wrote:cferneyh Wrote:fingernailsonhull Wrote:beanmedic Wrote:i love how everone is freaking out about being called a name, but nobody else is too upset about what really matters.
You misunderstand what is going on. People don't really care about what you have to say or what WHO article you post because of non-sensical comments like those who favour Harper are retarded. Prove that you really want to debate an issue instead of just being a dink and people will listen to what you have to say. Until then, you will do absolutely nothing to further your own cause. In fact, you're hurting it.
Well put.
well put? seriously? a humourous left wing crack, and everyone freaks out. when i made the comment i didnt care to debate, but if im in, im in. debate the issues with me and stop referring to the retarded comment.
Calling someone "retarded" is "humourous"? Actually, it isn't. It's childish. Why would anyone want to debate you? Let's think of the typical beanmedic post:
(a) Assigning tool points to someone you don't like
(b) Bashing DMB
© Calling people "retarded"
Yeah. You rule.
So, what is the debate? Harper has said nothing of cutting social services. He's said nothing of abandoning families who live below the poverty line. You simply have inferred that. Sorry, but I don't debate hypotheticals.
cferneyh Wrote:beanmedic Wrote:cferneyh Wrote:fingernailsonhull Wrote:beanmedic Wrote:i love how everone is freaking out about being called a name, but nobody else is too upset about what really matters.
You misunderstand what is going on. People don't really care about what you have to say or what WHO article you post because of non-sensical comments like those who favour Harper are retarded. Prove that you really want to debate an issue instead of just being a dink and people will listen to what you have to say. Until then, you will do absolutely nothing to further your own cause. In fact, you're hurting it.
Well put.
well put? seriously? a humourous left wing crack, and everyone freaks out. when i made the comment i didnt care to debate, but if im in, im in. debate the issues with me and stop referring to the retarded comment.
Calling someone "retarded" is "humourous"? Actually, it isn't. It's childish. Why would anyone want to debate you? Let's think of the typical beanmedic post:
(a) Assigning tool points to someone you don't like
(b) Bashing DMB
© Calling people "retarded"
Yeah. You rule.
So, what is the debate? Harper has said nothing of cutting social services. He's said nothing of abandoning families who live below the poverty line. You simply have inferred that. Sorry, but I don't debate hypotheticals.
well put :thumb:
it would not be a good platform to announce you are going to cut social services because people would not vote for you.
cferneyh Wrote:Harper has said nothing of cutting social services. He's said nothing of abandoning families who live below the poverty line.
that's the point. you cant make huge sweeping tax cuts and NOT cut services. i want to know what he's going to cut. of course he isnt talking about that, because, as chancellor said, nobody would vote for him if he did.
beanmedic Wrote:cferneyh Wrote:Harper has said nothing of cutting social services. He's said nothing of abandoning families who live below the poverty line.
that's the point. you cant make huge sweeping tax cuts and NOT cut services. i want to know what he's going to cut. of course he isnt talking about that, because, as chancellor said, nobody would vote for him if he did.
Gotcha. So to recap, you are assuming that the services that
might be cut will impact the poor - and the poor only. No one has said this, but it is your assumption. And, anyone who doesn't agree with your assumption which is based on nothing but your own opinion - is a retard.
Boy, that's a great one.
While examining an elderly Albertain, his Red Deer doctor and the old man were talking about Stephen Harper the Leader of the Canadian Conservative Party possibly of being in 24 Sussex Drive just once.
The old gentleman said, "Well, ya know, Harper is a `post turtle'."
Not knowing what the old man meant, the doctor asked him what a post turtle is.
The old man said, "When you're driving down a Albertian country dirt road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's post turtle."
The old man saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to explain, "You know he didn't get there by himself, he doesn't belong there, he can't get anything done while he's up there, and you just want to help him to get down."
I was going to accept beanmedic's proposal to bury the hatchet, but it appears neither side is willing to do that. Okay.
fingernailsonhull Wrote:I was going to accept beanmedic's proposal to bury the hatchet, but it appears neither side is willing to do that. Okay.
i'm not the one that keeps bringing up the 'retarded' thing.
cferneyh Wrote:beanmedic Wrote:cferneyh Wrote:Harper has said nothing of cutting social services. He's said nothing of abandoning families who live below the poverty line.
that's the point. you cant make huge sweeping tax cuts and NOT cut services. i want to know what he's going to cut. of course he isnt talking about that, because, as chancellor said, nobody would vote for him if he did.
Gotcha. So to recap, you are assuming that the services that might be cut will impact the poor - and the poor only. No one has said this, but it is your assumption. And, anyone who doesn't agree with your assumption which is based on nothing but your own opinion - is a retard.
Boy, that's a great one.
i think it's pretty safe to say that cutting any service will negatively affect the poor in some way. i cant think of any examples to contradict this, but maybe somebody else can think of a couple.
all in all, its simple economics -> less money coming in, less money to be spent.
Since the poor are more likely to access social services, I would say that you're safe in assuming that cutting programs would affect them most directly. There will be indirect costs to the country as a whole though.
Obviously, the rich access some social services as well and cuts to those will have an impact on them. The difference is that the rich can 'roll with the punches' better than the poor. For example, if you cut funding to public schools (again), richer Canadians can compensate by sending their kids to private schools, employing tutors or whatever. Poorer Canadians will be stuck with whatever the public school system can give them.
See what I mean?
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.
cferneyh Wrote: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.
cferneyh Wrote: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.
I'm not sure that I follow you. Are you saying that these agencies have suffered cuts in funding in the Liberal tenure? And that these cuts (?) will have less effect on the poor than the rich? Or the same? Or no effect on either?
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. As well, education programs may be curtailed or become more expensive. This could adversely affect poorer constituents since they wouldn't be able to offset the loss through private education.
You see, you have to look past the surface of things and examine the external costs of 'doing business,' so to speak. It's next to impossible to anticipate the longterm and myriad effects of spending cuts, but it behooves us to atleast
try.
Having said all of that, I hope that Harper
is elected. Liberals have been quietly running this country like Conservatives for the last 15 years. We've lost more social services under them than we did under Mulroney, but the media never seems to talk about it.
Now, if Harper was elected, the media would be on his cuts like white on rice. Then Canadians might actually get pissed off about something other than their cable bills. It would be better if Harper was like Ralph Klein though - a bit more arrogant about the spending cuts.
Sam Wrote:Having said all of that, I hope that Harper is elected. Liberals have been quietly running this country like Conservatives for the last 15 years. We've lost more social services under them than we did under Mulroney, but the media never seems to talk about it.
Now, if Harper was elected, the media would be on his cuts like white on rice. Then Canadians might actually get pissed off about something other than their cable bills. It would be better if Harper was like Ralph Klein though - a bit more arrogant about the spending cuts.
Or Mike Harris, for that matter.
Okay, cfernyeh, not all program cuts will impact the poor. However, every program cut will impact
someone, which is why Harper is pretending that it can all be taken out of the surplus.
Some cuts are invisible. Under Mike Harris, cuts to Ontario's Ministry of Natural resources were so deep that the Ministry was prevented from carrying out its most basic functions -- while programs and services still remained on the books as part of its mandate.
Sam Wrote: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.