TORONTO GENERAL STRIKE 1996
Bob Allisat
Here in Toronto on Friday October
25 you will witness a city shut down
by protesters to a government
that has abandoned the people
in order to
- reap personal profit
- extract huge insider windfalls
- subvert the social order it took
a hundred and fifty years to create
- place all citizans in bondage to
the corruption of business
-anihilate all natural ecosystems
- eliminate all protections for our
children, the weak, homeless and sick
You will watch as we, the people
stop everything in it's tracks for
one day. And understand that the
future holds only this unless the
grip is released, the people freed
and an environmentally conscious,
social justice government of peace
is brought into the light.
In Solidarity!
Brother Bob Allisat
Arthur
Bob Allisat wrote:
>
> Here in Toronto on Friday October
> 25 you will witness a city shut down
> by protesters to a government
> that has abandoned the people
> in order to
>
> - reap personal profit
>
> Brother Bob Allisat
Hey brother without out a mind .... rent a brain!
The only reason the 'protesters' are involved in the (unlikely) shut
down of Toronto is to "REAP PERSONAL PROFIT" !!!!!!!! They, like
all the capitialists you despise, are just out for themselves.
Hypocrite.
I can't believe how stupid you are. The fact that you do like to
be called stupid, or the fact that you've probably never considered
yourself to be stupid, notwithstanding. But think about what a loser
you are, how useless you are, what a pathetic life you have and
maybe, just maybe, you'll understand why people who create real
wealth treat you like shit. It what's you deserve brother. Get used
to it brother.
So shut down the city for a day, if you can. So what. The money still
flows, the deals will still get made, the stocks will still trade. All
the important things will keep going. In shutting everything down you
are only hurting your own plebeian kind. Man what did you with your
brain?
Bob Allisat
I, Bob Allisat wrote:
>>
>> Here in Toronto on Friday October
>> 25 you will witness a city shut down
>> by protesters to a government
>> that has abandoned the people...
Arthur <y...@win.not> wrote:
>
>I can't believe how stupid you are. The fact that you do like to
>be called stupid, or the fact that you've probably never considered
>yourself to be stupid, notwithstanding. But think about what a loser
>you are, how useless you are, what a pathetic life you have and
>maybe, just maybe, you'll understand why people who create real
>wealth treat you like shit. It what's you deserve brother. Get used
>to it brother.
>
>So shut down the city for a day, if you can. So what. The money still
>flows, the deals will still get made, the stocks will still trade. All
>the important things will keep going. In shutting everything down you
>are only hurting your own plebeian kind. Man what did you with your
>brain?
I used it. And recently even...
so have all of these protesters.
And the day is near - isn't it
always! - when we will our brains
to finally, at long last come
together and toss the hypsters
and monopolists, the ecocriminals
and business vandals out of their
priviliged places. And, instead
have real live regular people
running things. With thoughts of
more than "deal making" on their
minds. Like the next 5,000 years.
Like families. Like the air and
water and soil. Like life.
In Solidarity!
Bob Allisat t...@wtv.net
Director, (416)588-0670
Free Community Network http://www.fcn.net
Quirk
Just when you think the dregs of tor.general have already shown us the
depth the of idiocy the human intellect can fall, the hope that this
newsgroup is a bottomless well of human stupidity is reassured. Here we
have "Arthur" to show us all how dull the human animal can really be.
On Tue, 22 Oct 1996 19:42:22 -0400, Arthur wrote:
+ Hey brother without out a mind .... rent a brain!
This line was surly pinched from a grade school playground. Rent a Brain
you Poo Poo Head.
+ The only reason the 'protesters' are involved in the (unlikely) shut
+ down of Toronto is to "REAP PERSONAL PROFIT" !!!!!!!! They, like
+ all the capitialists you despise, are just out for themselves.
As a person who is very closely involved with many social activist, please
explain how any of them reap personal profit from this?
Just more blather from an uninformed idiot. The people who are most active,
typically do so at their own expense and at the expense of their
professional interests.
+ Hypocrite.
+ I can't believe how stupid you are. The fact that you do like to
+ be called stupid, or the fact that you've probably never considered
+ yourself to be stupid, notwithstanding.
Thanks for clearing that up for us. I can't believe you think anybody will
read your drivel and be of the opinion that it is anybody but you who is
stupid, you own delusions notwithstanding.
+ But think about what a loser you are, how useless you are, what a
+ pathetic life you have and maybe, just maybe, you'll understand why
+ people who create real wealth treat you like shit.
Now we see the real Arthur. Have compassion for him -- he lashes out
because of his own self hatred. Plainly, he is confessing his miserable
life, plainly he is hurt because all he encounters treat him poorly.
+ It what's you deserve brother. Get used
+ to it brother.
Forgive him, His hate stems from all the hate he receives, nobody has ever
treated him with anything but hate, so hate is the only way he know how to
respond.
+ So shut down the city for a day, if you can. So what. The money still
+ flows, the deals will still get made, the stocks will still trade. All
+ the important things will keep going.
Poor Arthur, money flowing, deals and stocks being traded -- these are the
important things? I guess since Arthur has nothing to do with any of these
things he sees on TV, he considers them important.
What about children eating? Families surviving? Students studying? The sick
getting medical help?
I think you should take a good look at what is really important. Maybe
watch a different TV show now and them, your mom did show you how to use
the remote control didn't she?
+ In shutting everything down you are only hurting your own plebeian kind.
In his fantasies, "Arthur" imagines himself to be of a higher class, a more
important caste, he imagines himself "King" Arthur towering above the
"plebes."
A natural escapist fantasy considering Arthur wallows though his average
day facing nothing but failure, fear, humiliation and hatred.
Have pity on this pathetic creature, he knows not what he says.
+ Man what did you with your
+ brain?
I think in his next post, Arthur, will use the line about how when got was
handing out brains, you thought he said "trains." -- something like that.
Oh get out of here you pee pee farty pants.
Support The Days Action!
+++
Dmytri Kleiner -- Quirk
"Gravity lets
P.S. Oh, Nevermind. you down"
<< http://www.lglobal.com/~dmytrik >>
** Keep in mind that this transmission
just might be a malicious forgery.
Copyright 1996 Idiosyntactix, Toronto.
Arthur
Bob Allisat wrote
>> Man what did you do with your
>> brain?
>
> I used it.
Used it up you mean! A long time ago. You're not considering
what I asked you to consider. You're stupid. Your peers are
stupid. You want to displace all those that you identify as
the elite, and replace them with you and your peers. (Ostensibly
just creating another psuedo-elite group of simpletons.) But what
do you know how to do exactly? What are you skilled at exactly?
(Besides brainless pontification.)
Do you know how to do surgery or cure diseases? Can you design
buildings or power plants. Do you know banking or finance? Do
you know how to manage agriculture production or food distribution?
Can you add? Can you walk and chew gum at the same time?
Yah I definitely want you and your peers running things. We'd all
be bankrupt, ill and starving.
Please, I ask you once more to consider the fact that you're
stupid, even to the point of being useless. Please, for your own
good, just crawl back into the hole they gave you and be grateful
the rest of us productive, hard working people are feeding you.
Because if you don't we might even stop doing that. In short you
are tempting our tolerance and generousity so watch out for what's
coming next. That's why we put Mike where he is. And he's doing a
fine, fine job.
Bob Allisat
Dmytri Kleiner <dmy...@lglobal.com> wrote:
>What about children eating? Families surviving? Students studying? The
>sick getting medical help?
These are the things
propelling the protests.
And more. All the assembled
insults and injuries from
cops and bosses, landlords
and judges, politicians and
the powerful. The people have
an anger that is vast and
undefined, moving and controlled
by the horses and cops the
media and mass thought control
that media practices.
Watch when the grip loosens...
TeleVirtually Yours,
Bob Allisat t...@wtv.net
Director, (416)588-0670
World Televirtual Network http://www.wtv.net
Arthur
Quirk,
Thank you for your response. Best laugh I've had in weeks. I really
appreciate your candor. Most other respondents just recite the leftist
party line with true dogmatic ardor. But you, you put some passion
and emotion behind your rebutal. Well done. I also appreciate your
mitigated psychological profiling. Very enlighting. I will study it
in more detail tonight after I finish packing. Very enlightening indeed.
On the subject of diction, I do apologize for my choice in vernacular.
I doubt if you will whole heartedly believe me, but such vulgarity
is not my usual style. I am new to these newsgroups and I just
wanted to fit in. My marketting manager also said that I should
always consider my audience while composing text. Actually I believe
what he said was, "if you want to catch some flies than you need
to put out some ...". And then you turned up.
In any case I think I'm just preaching to the converted. You carry
on now. Have a good time in the march on Friday and say hello to
Bob for me. Great guy. So sincere it hurts.
Arthur
Neil Alasdair McEwan
Bob Allisat (b...@news.vrx.net) wrote:
: Here in Toronto on Friday October
: 25 you will witness a city shut down
: by protesters to a government
: that has abandoned the people
: in order to
: - reap personal profit
: - extract huge insider windfalls
: - subvert the social order it took
: a hundred and fifty years to create
: - place all citizans in bondage to
: the corruption of business
: -anihilate all natural ecosystems
: - eliminate all protections for our
: children, the weak, homeless and sick
And:
- practice Satanic rituals at Queen's Park
- engage in bondage and pedophilia
- snort cocaine like there's no tomorrow
- suck all the oxygen out of the atmosphere
- knock Earth from its orbit and send it hurtling into the Sun
I fail to see how you missed these, seeing as how you included everything
else. "Annihilate all natural ecosystems" indeed. Moron.
Yrs.
Neil A. McEwan
--
: You will watch as we, the people
: stop everything in it's tracks for
: one day. And understand that the
: future holds only this unless the
: grip is released, the people freed
: and an environmentally conscious,
: social justice government of peace
: is brought into the light.
: In Solidarity!
: Brother Bob Allisat
--
Rex Hunter
Bob Allisat wrote:
>
> Here in Toronto on Friday October
> 25 you will witness a city shut down
> by protesters to a government
> that has abandoned the people
> in order to
>
> - reap personal profit
> - extract huge insider windfalls
> - subvert the social order it took
> a hundred and fifty years to create
> - place all citizans in bondage to
> the corruption of business
> -anihilate all natural ecosystems
> - eliminate all protections for our
> children, the weak, homeless and sick
>
> stop everything in it's tracks for
> one day. And understand that the
> future holds only this unless the
> grip is released, the people freed
> and an environmentally conscious,
> social justice government of peace
> is brought into the light.
>
> In Solidarity!
>
> Brother Bob Allisat
Bob Give it up!!!
The people of Ontario spoke during the last election. What they said
was it was time for a change. They spoke in a very loud voice, that they
could no longer carry the burden of the social safety net and government
waste around their necks. The average citizens of Ontario are tired of
footing the bill for every special interest group under the sun! If you
want to prove something, why don't you go out there and channel your energy
into doing something productive about the problem. Your protest is falling
on deaf ears!
Rex
Bob Allisat
I Bob Allisat wrote:
>>
>> Here in Toronto on Friday October
>> 25 you will witness a city shut down
>> by protesters to a government
>> that has abandoned the people
>> in order to
>>
>> - reap personal profit
>> - extract huge insider windfalls
>> - subvert the social order it took
>> a hundred and fifty years to create
>> - place all citizans in bondage to
>> the corruption of business
>> -anihilate all natural ecosystems
>> - eliminate all protections for our
>> children, the weak, homeless and sick
>>
>> You will watch as we, the people
>> stop everything in it's tracks for
>> one day. And understand that the
>> future holds only this unless the
>> grip is released, the people freed
>> and an environmentally conscious,
>> social justice government of peace
>> is brought into the light.
>>
Rex Hunter <r...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
:The people of Ontario spoke during the last election. What they said
:was it was time for a change. They spoke in a very loud voice, that they
:could no longer carry the burden of the social safety net and government
:waste around their necks. The average citizens of Ontario are tired of
:footing the bill for every special interest group under the sun! If you
:want to prove something, why don't you go out there and channel your energy
:into doing something productive about the problem. Your protest is falling
:on deaf ears!
Let's see how many deaf ears
are out on the streets on Friday.
The average citizan of Ontario did
not vote for an end to everything
decent and compassionate. They did
not vote for a total war against
the poor or the abolition of eco-
laws and environmental protection.
As always, those backed by big business
preach one thing, develope their true,
explicit agendas behind closed doors
and then spring the goods on the un-
suspecting people. People who were led
to believe a "Common Sense" revolution
was to occur are shocked to discover
the firesale sell-off of everything
good and right.
And why the sell-off? So that we
can compete with nations on Earth
where people are treated like dirt,
the water and air are poison and
life is a never-ending misery hell.
Thanks Mike, but we'll just stay quite
non-competative if becoming a third
world nation is the price we'll have
to pay! Far better what we have than
the nothing Harris will leave us with.
In Solidarity!
Bob Allisat wo...@fcn.net
rk...@ivory.trentu.ca
In article <326D5B...@the.end>, Arthur <Can...@the.end> writes:
>Bob Allisat wrote:
>>
>> Here in Toronto on Friday October
>> 25 you will witness a city shut down
>> by protesters to a government
>> that has abandoned the people
>> in order to
>>
>> - reap personal profit
>>
>> Brother Bob Allisat
>
>Hey brother without out a mind .... rent a brain!
>
>
pathetic attempt by organized labor to grab some "power" and "credibility." In
Peterborough, the city didn't even shut down- most people just found the strike
to be a nuisance. I think protesting the Harris gov't is far and just- and I
believe that if government workers do wish to partake in a one day strike, they
should be permitted to do so....if for no other reason than safety. However,
these strikes only serve to hurt the average citizen who uses public services-
and some who live paycheque to paycheque should not have to suffer the temper
tantrum that labor will throw...in the face of reason in fact because it will
have no effect!
>Hypocrite.
>
>I can't believe how stupid you are. The fact that you do like to
>be called stupid, or the fact that you've probably never considered
>yourself to be stupid, notwithstanding. But think about what a loser
>you are, how useless you are, what a pathetic life you have and
>maybe, just maybe, you'll understand why people who create real
>wealth treat you like shit. It what's you deserve brother. Get used
>to it brother.
>
Yeah well, people who created wealth have treated me like shit for a long time-
I guess it depends upon what's around to stop them, to protect me, and to
promote fairness, eh?
>So shut down the city for a day, if you can. So what. The money still
>flows, the deals will still get made, the stocks will still trade. All
It will be difficult for the working poor and poor in Toronto...but those are
the only one's who will suffer. In fact, I'm not even sure that they'll
succeed in shutting down Toronto- they didn't shut down Peterborough....and the
lefties here are quite numerous.
E.M. Anzalone
In article <326EEF...@vianet.on.ca>, Rex Hunter <r...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
>Bob Give it up!!!
>
>The people of Ontario spoke during the last election. What they said
>was it was time for a change. They spoke in a very loud voice, that they
>could no longer carry the burden of the social safety net and government
>waste around their necks. The average citizens of Ontario are tired of
>footing the bill for every special interest group under the sun! If you
>want to prove something, why don't you go out there and channel your energy
>into doing something productive about the problem. Your protest is falling
>on deaf ears!
>
The people of Ontario may have spoken in the last election,
but if I recall correctly (and I do), they didn't all say the
same thing. Certainly, because of the way representatives are
elected, the PCs won a frightening majority in the legislature.
Their popular support, however, was -- and is -- rather less.
As to the current protest, it never ceases to amaze me that
so many neo-cons seem to have this misguided belief that
democracy is some sort of cyclical event that only takes
place every 4 or 5 years. Worse, they seem to think that,
in between these quadrennial days of democracy, those of us
who lost the show of hands should just "shut up and get used
to it."
Well, I was raised in the U.S. -- the "birthplace of
democracy," as we were so often told -- and it was made clear
in my education that democracy was an ongoing process. This
meant, among other things, that those whose parties lost
elections were still entitled to express their opposition,
publicly and en masse, even between elections. Last I heard,
that was still the case. The inconvenience such gatherings
cause is typically minimized by the democratic government's
willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue with the protesters.
But as you yourself point out, this is not happening.
So, while the government and its supporters are able to turn
a "deaf ear" to our words, it becomes harder -- and more
inconvenient -- to turn a "blind eye" to our physical presence.
And until such time as Mr. Harris learns to incorporate
the participatory nature of democratic government into his
personal style -- or until he simply outlaws peaceful gatherings --
I suspect these protests will continue and grow.
"Get used to it."
Regards,
Elena Anzalone
e...@io.org
Bob Allisat
Not only will they grow
they will multiply. Until,
should the Harris gang
refuse to acknowledge the
popular uprising, this
gov't will fall - either
in an election or to
pieces... which will
result in an election.
And then the corporations
are going to have to find
another shill to place
before the people, all
dolled up by the PR hypsters
to look like the next
Abraham Lincoln. When all
we'll get - whichever party
is chosen - will be the same
bunk, railroading, eco-
destruction and regressive
social policy.
Sad to say but such has
it always been.Shall we try
and break the mould? Or are
we doomed forever to an end
by slow, business as usual
mediocracy.
Consider the source:
http://spadina.torfree.net:2001/agm96/candidates/allisat
http://spadina.torfree.net:2001/agm96/candidates/allisat.bio
Bob Allisat t...@wtv.net
Director, (416)588-0670
World Televirtual Network http://www.wtv.net
Free Community Network http://www.fcn.net
Ian Maione
In article <54o88m$b...@zap.io.org>, E.M. Anzalone <e...@zap.io.org> wrote:
>In article <326EEF...@vianet.on.ca>, Rex Hunter <r...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>>
>>Bob Give it up!!!
>>
>
>but if I recall correctly (and I do), they didn't all say the
>same thing. Certainly, because of the way representatives are
>elected, the PCs won a frightening majority in the legislature.
>Their popular support, however, was -- and is -- rather less.
This has nothing to do with the Harris government. If this is really
a problem (and that is a completely separate debate), then this is an
issue concerning how our electoral system works.
>
>As to the current protest, it never ceases to amaze me that
>so many neo-cons seem to have this misguided belief that
>democracy is some sort of cyclical event that only takes
>place every 4 or 5 years. Worse, they seem to think that,
>in between these quadrennial days of democracy, those of us
>who lost the show of hands should just "shut up and get used
>to it."
>
There is, however, a huge difference between expressing opposition to
the current government policies via peaceful protest, marches, or media
exposure, and doing so through calculated attempts to disrupt said
government, businesses, or public services. It is extremely important
to keep this in mind - and it has nothing to do with whether you support
Mike Harris or not. I don't have a problem with the Days of Action in
terms of a march on Queen's Park, or the like. But shutting down the
TTC, or Pearson airport, or preventing anyone from conducting lawful
business would be completely unacceptable (it remains to be seen whether
these things occur or not). Anything else represents an attempt to
espouse certain political views through bully tactics, and *that* is
fundamentally contrary to the principles on which our democracy is based.
It's amazing how quickly union supporters forget this just because the
rally reflects *their* views. How would CUPE and the like have reacted if
businesses had decided to lock out their employees for a day to protest
against Bob Rae? Such an action would have been just as unwarranted.
I don't have a problem with individuals who wish to participate in
the Days of Action, assuming they abide by the law, and reasonable
behaviour. But the disgraceful attitude of people like Gord Wilson
and Sid Ryan is reprehensible. Their suggestions that public services
should be disrupted are completely inappropriate, and the most galling
thing is that they have the gall to complain when city officials attempt
to get injunctions to prevent such behaviour. You see, the law is
irrelevant to them when it doesn't reflect *their* beliefs. In other
words, ignoring an injunction is okay, as long as it's done for their
cause. This is hypocrisy of the first order. I'd have more respect for
them if they simply espoused pure anarchic views, and said "we're going
to disobey the law no matter what". Then at least they'd be consistent.
But instead, they are quick to invoke the protections of free speech,
yet just as quick to deny that the law applies to them when it doesn't
agree with their stance. This is one of my pet peeves with the labour
movement - labour leaders seem extremely quick to invoke the protection
of labour laws, yet so quick to ignore the rules when it suits them.
Even if Sid Ryan and Gord Wilson really are right, and the Harris government
are making bad policy, their attitudes leave much to be desired.
Furthermore, I have a problem with the idea that the labour movement
should be so directly involved in such a protest. I mean this in the
sense that, labour leaders seem to think that people should be entitled
to just strike for a day because they feel like it. I don't feel that this
is the proper role for unions in our society. If people involved on the
labour movement wish to organize a political protest and people want to
participate in it *on their own time*, then that's one thing. But the
supposed purpose of unions are to represent employees in collective
bargaining negotiations with employers. Many such contracts involve
no-strike, no-lockout clauses, that the unionists seem to feel free to
break whenever they feel like it. Again, I feel this is wrong.
>Well, I was raised in the U.S. -- the "birthplace of
>democracy," as we were so often told -- and it was made clear
>in my education that democracy was an ongoing process. This
>meant, among other things, that those whose parties lost
>elections were still entitled to express their opposition,
>publicly and en masse, even between elections. Last I heard,
>that was still the case. The inconvenience such gatherings
>cause is typically minimized by the democratic government's
>willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue with the protesters.
>But as you yourself point out, this is not happening.
>
>So, while the government and its supporters are able to turn
>a "deaf ear" to our words, it becomes harder -- and more
>inconvenient -- to turn a "blind eye" to our physical presence.
>And until such time as Mr. Harris learns to incorporate
>the participatory nature of democratic government into his
>personal style -- or until he simply outlaws peaceful gatherings --
>I suspect these protests will continue and grow.
>
>"Get used to it."
>
I'm not sure why you're claiming that the Harris government was
particularly less "participatory" than any other. Very few governments
really do change their policies to any large degree based on such
protests. On what basis do you make this claim?
Regards,
Ian
Patrick Coghlan
In article <54nfja$4...@ns1.vrx.net>, b...@news.vrx.net (Bob Allisat) wrote:
> I Bob Allisat wrote:
> Let's see how many deaf ears
> are out on the streets on Friday.
> The average citizan of Ontario did
> not vote for an end to everything
> decent and compassionate. They did
> not vote for a total war against
> the poor or the abolition of eco-
> laws and environmental protection.
They DID vote for sustainable levels of government spending and
taxation. To get there, we have a lot of cutting still to do.
What you call "decent and compassionate" is the level of government
health and social services currently available. This situation is going
to get worse, not better. People just have to understand that.
I think I agree with the last bit re: people don't want to sacrifice
the environment in the effort to achieve sustainable levels of
government spending. They want a sustainable environment too.
--
-Pat
bn...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
Bob Allisat
I, Bob Allisat, wrote:
>>
>> I Bob Allisat wrote:
>> Let's see how many deaf ears
>> are out on the streets on Friday.
>> The average citizan of Ontario did
>> not vote for an end to everything
>> decent and compassionate. They did
>> not vote for a total war against
>> the poor or the abolition of eco-
>> laws and environmental protection.
Patrick Coghlan <bn...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> replied:
>They DID vote for sustainable levels of government spending and
>taxation. To get there, we have a lot of cutting still to do.
>
>What you call "decent and compassionate" is the level of government
>health and social services currently available. This situation is going
>to get worse, not better. People just have to understand that.
>
>I think I agree with the last bit re: people don't want to sacrifice
>the environment in the effort to achieve sustainable levels of
>government spending. They want a sustainable environment too.
A "sustainable" environment?
When the Harris people are
allowing rampant development
to occur everywhere? When
every means necessary is being
employed to subvert the ecosystem?
All in the name of development?
These lunatics are choking off
our air and water and poisoning
the soil in order to maximize
profits... something I'd say
is suicdial - the furtherst thing
from weither common sense or
the desires of average people.
In Solidarity!
Bob Allisat wo...@fcn.net
Director, (416)588-0670
Patrick Coghlan
> So, while the government and its supporters are able to turn
> a "deaf ear" to our words, it becomes harder -- and more
> inconvenient -- to turn a "blind eye" to our physical presence.
> And until such time as Mr. Harris learns to incorporate
> the participatory nature of democratic government into his
> personal style -- or until he simply outlaws peaceful gatherings --
> I suspect these protests will continue and grow.
>
> "Get used to it."
Well, if we allow ourselves to become more like France where something
like 50% of people work for the government then I would expect these
protests to intensify.
Fortunately though, the attempts by those groups (who organize these
protests) to socialize Ontario are being nipped in the initial leaf (we've
missed the bud though). Just look at all the (popular) strikes going on
over the French government's attempt to lay off something like 4000
government workers out of a workforce of about 1.6 million government
employees.
--
-Pat
bn...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
Patrick Coghlan
> Not only will they grow
> they will multiply. Until,
> should the Harris gang
> refuse to acknowledge the
> popular uprising, this
Popular???? Well, I suppose if you're a member of OPSEU, CAW
or some other union OR are dependent on the taxpayers for your income
they are popular, but last time I checked something like 75% of the
people in Toronto were AGAINST the strike action.
> gov't will fall - either
> in an election or to
> pieces... which will
> result in an election.
Oh come off it. Take a look at what's going on in Canada and the US.
Taxpayers want to get governments off their backs. They can see
what's coming if we don't erradicate deficits now while interest
rates are dropping and before 25% of the population is a member of
the geriatric set.
--
-Pat
bn...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
Don Holden
Rex Hunter wrote:
>
> Bob Allisat wrote:
> >
> > Here in Toronto on Friday October
> > 25 you will witness a city shut down
> > by protesters to a government
> > that has abandoned the people
> > in order to
> >
> > - reap personal profit
> > - subvert the social order it took
> > a hundred and fifty years to create
> > - place all citizans in bondage to
> > the corruption of business
> > -anihilate all natural ecosystems
> > - eliminate all protections for our
> > children, the weak, homeless and sick
> >
> > You will watch as we, the people
> > stop everything in it's tracks for
> > one day. And understand that the
> > future holds only this unless the
> > grip is released, the people freed
> > and an environmentally conscious,
> > social justice government of peace
> > is brought into the light.
> >
> >
> > Brother Bob Allisat
>
>
> was it was time for a change. They spoke in a very loud voice, that they
> could no longer carry the burden of the social safety net and government
> waste around their necks. The average citizens of Ontario are tired of
> footing the bill for every special interest group under the sun! If you
> want to prove something, why don't you go out there and channel your energy
> into doing something productive about the problem. Your protest is falling
> on deaf ears!
>
> Rex
hearing aids every day.
rk...@ivory.trentu.ca
In article <326EB3...@the.end>, Arthur <Can...@the.end> writes:
>Quirk,
>
>Thank you for your response. Best laugh I've had in weeks. I really
>appreciate your candor. Most other respondents just recite the leftist
>party line with true dogmatic ardor. But you, you put some passion
And considering the fact that you're such an expert and have heard it so often,
care to share with the rest of us your "wisdom?" Assuming that the left wing
fits into one neat little box is like assuming that the right wing consists
only of fascists- and while I gag at the thought of attacking someone other
than Bob Allisat on his trashy remarks, I don't see how you and he differ.
Do you define your ideology, or does your ideology define you? Do you look on
all left wingers as "non-working" people who live off of the sweat of your
brow? HAHHAHAHAHA....that's the funniest conclusion I've heard all week...I
don't even have to wait for your remark because you've already generalized your
position for me!
>and emotion behind your rebutal. Well done. I also appreciate your
>mitigated psychological profiling. Very enlighting. I will study it
>in more detail tonight after I finish packing. Very enlightening indeed.
>
>On the subject of diction, I do apologize for my choice in vernacular.
>I doubt if you will whole heartedly believe me, but such vulgarity
>is not my usual style. I am new to these newsgroups and I just
>wanted to fit in. My marketting manager also said that I should
>always consider my audience while composing text. Actually I believe
>what he said was, "if you want to catch some flies than you need
>to put out some ...". And then you turned up.
>
Well gee....I wonder if that's the guiding principle behind the Toronto
Scum....I mean Sun. I mean, they live for shock commentary....but some of
their editorial writers obviously have their heads so far up their own asses
that they cannot tell which way is up and which is down anymore. They, like
you, merely assume these broad generalizations about left wingers- and their
ideology defines them to the point of excess. I mean, what can you say about a
ridiculous paper that reports that 57% of Liberal supporters oppose the Toronto
General Strike....then goes a little further on in their text to say that NDP
and Liberal supporters overwhelmingly support the protest? Are they lying to
try and sway disgruntled Torontonians to turn on the Liberals and NDP and
support their beloved Harris? Another mistake in such an imperfect and plagued
paper? What can you say about an editorial writer who remarks about the
student protests at Queen's Park by saying "many young Ontarians cannot afford
to go to university," thus revealing the entire point of the protest (high
tuition fees making post secondary education less accessible) unwittingly (I'll
give you a hint....her initials are CB, and it's not Christie Blatchford). You
see, I did once like the Toronto Sun- it was a fantastic weapon of the people
back when the NDP were in power because it pointed out the obvious, and it was
quite fair. Now that their prize stallion has entered the golden gate that is
Queen's Park, it seems that they have decided the "fair hand" is unnecessary,
and the heavy hand of justice is held in every letter the type. A few
editorial writers have managed to retain some dignity and still have my
support- but considering the rubbish that has been written on the Toronto
General Strike by that specific newspaper, I do plan to boycott it. No, I
don't support the strike....it's a waste of time and hurts only those most
vulnerable- and when it all kicks off tomorrow, I fear the agendas of people
like Bob Allisat. However, I also fear the agenda of a government that is
constantly pressing for political points- and all that the Toronto Sun has gone
about doing is attempting to undermine any possibility of calm this
weekend....first through their blatantly anti-labor commentary (very absurd
given the fact that the Toronto Sun is no expert on unions), and second through
their "hopeful" message to Toronto police in today's issue. If things do get
out of hand, who's to blame? No, my friend, it's not a one way street. And if
agendas do clash, and we have violence tomorrow, then not only should you
expect to lose the Olympics in 2008- but Toronto will also lose a whole lot
more!
>In any case I think I'm just preaching to the converted. You carry
>on now. Have a good time in the march on Friday and say hello to
>Bob for me. Great guy. So sincere it hurts.
>
I won't be saying hello to him....the protest is stupid and will change
nothing. However, at the end of it all, I hope we can all have the
satisfaction of knowing that the entire demonstration was peaceful- and no a
repeat of the Winnipeg General Strike on a larger scale. Whether you are left
or right wing, this weekend our country and the city of Toronto has a lot more
to lose than it has to gain. A police crackdown is not a victory for right
wingers....it's a victory for rightoid fascist extremists. A labor riot is not
a victory for left wingers....it's a victory for the leftoid Allisatist
extremists who's only agenda is to seize the agenda as best they can. Either
way, I think right and left have been thrown out the window- it's extremes on
all sides that are playing this.
Ade
E.M. Anzalone wrote:
> Well, I was raised in the U.S. -- the "birthplace of
> democracy,"
Well, it also had a dreadful civil war and our Canadian forefathers
clearly considered this when constitutionally committing us to law and
order.
-- and it was made clear
> in my education that democracy was an ongoing process.
I absolutely agree. We cannot abrocate our citizenship once the
election is over. Like the demonstrators in Toronto, I cannot see that
a response to government policies, methods, or implementation is
disrespectful to either this government or democracy.
On the other hand, the lack of response by the Ontario Tories, to
anything but the results on one election day does indicate a narrow
mindedness which is having a cruel impact on some individuals.
I think voters who wouldn't be actively cruel and uncaring will, by
neglect, cause the same damage if they just blindly trust politicians.
Demonstrations such as the one in Toronto are ostensibly for the purpose
of informing citizens of perceived damage being caused by the current
government. Surely, inconvenience is not to high a price to pay for the
knowledge of where change is required, of how it can be done and of the
cost.
Sincerely,
Frances
ga...@netcom.ca
> Elena Anzalone
> e...@io.org
Jason Kodish
In article <54md3n$1...@News.Dal.Ca> ap...@chebucto.ns.ca writes:
>
> - knock Earth from its orbit and send it hurtling into the Sun
>
Been reading Alexander Abian's work?
>--
>
--
Jason Kodish
Thirring Institute for Applied Gravitational Research
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/1659
-----------------------------------------------------
The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their
dreams-Elenor Roosevelt
chirs meyer
Taken from the Globe and Mail from the Pointcast Network. It sums up
what I believe. I'd like to hear comments... chris
------------
GLOBE New Media - Pointcast Network Canada A memo to Toronto's
protesters October 25, 1996
Canada's National Newspaper - The Globe and Mail
THOUSANDS of Torontonians will join rallies today to protest against
provincial government cuts to public services. We sympathize.
Excellent public services are part of what makes Ontario a good place
to live. No one wants to see these services disintegrate. No one wants
to have people waiting in line for vital medical treatment. No one
wants to have crumbling roads and rusting bridges. No one wants to
have overcrowded schools. No one wants to have backlogged courtrooms.
No one wants to have libraries close their doors, skating rinks cut
their hours and theatre groups disappear. The goal of every Ontarian
should be to preserve these services, for themselves, for their
neighbours and for the next generation.
The question is how to do it. And to answer that, Ontarians must
first ask why their services are in danger to begin with.
Some speakers at today's rallies will put the blame for "the Harris
cuts" on greedy businessmen and government-hating politicians. Others
will blame the tax break promised by Conservative Premier Mike Harris.
Nonsense.
The cuts are the predictable, inevitable result of 10 years of
reckless overspending by Mr. Harris's two immediate predecessors,
Liberal David Peterson and New Democrat Bob Rae. When Mr. Peterson
took office in 1985, the province was spending $25.9-billion a year
and owed its creditors $32.9-billion. When Bob Rae left office last
year, spending stood at $56-billion and the debt at $98.6-billion. The
chart below shows the depressing result. Each year, the Ontario
government has had to spend more of its income to pay the interest on
its growing debt, until today it spends more on interest than it does
on education.
What to do? Mr. Harris could have continued borrowing money. That,
after all, is what fellow Conservative Brian Mulroney did. But that
would only have postponed the day of reckoning. When Ottawa tried it,
interest payments rose to more than 36 per cent of revenues, forcing
it to bring in deep cuts to medicare, the CBC and other important
services. He could have raised taxes. But Mr. Peterson and Mr. Rae had
already done that many times, pushing tax rates so high that they were
discouraging investment and killing jobs.
So Mr. Harris was left with only one option: to cut spending. If the
Ontario government was to keep delivering the services that Ontarians
cherish, it was going to have to deliver them more cheaply. It had to
cut spending today to preserve services tomorrow.
Some may say that Mr. Harris has moved too fast (although with an
$8-billion deficit this year, and 4 years to go till the budget is
balanced, Ontario is behind most other provinces). Some may say that
he should not have promised a 30-per-cent tax break (although deep
cuts would have been necessary even without that break). But it is
hard to argue that he is on the wrong course. Hasn't the NDP
government of Saskatchewan balanced its budget? Hasn't the Liberal
government of New Brunswick done the same?
So let Ontarians protest, peacefully and legally, to defend the
province's excellent public services. But let them also remember how
they got into this fix and what they need to do to get out of it. If
Ontarians really want a healthy, active government, if they really
want to keep their parks, their libraries and their art galleries, if
they really want to protect the poor, drive on decent roads, recover
in well-equipped hospitals and send their children to good schools,
they will grit their teeth and support the drive to dig Ontario out of
debt. There is no other way.
© GLOBE New Media - 1996
Rex Hunter
Patrick Coghlan wrote:
> Oh come off it. Take a look at what's going on in Canada and the US.
> Taxpayers want to get governments off their backs. They can see
> what's coming if we don't erradicate deficits now while interest
> rates are dropping and before 25% of the population is a member of
> the geriatric set.
>
> --
> -Pat
> bn...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
Right on brother! There is way too much government regulation and waste in this country.
The government and the unions could learn a lesson from the private sector. Run lean,
mean, and profitable!!!
Bob Allisat
Tracey Skipp <sk...@golden.net> wrote:
>The *lack of response* as you call it,by the Tories is no more and no less
>than their refusal to back down to the demands of your day of protest. WE
>voted the Tories in for a reason, and the majority of us are backing up
>their policies. The results of *one election day* was the voice of WE the
>majority. Since 75% of the people don't agree with this day of protest, I
>think it is you who are displaying the narrow mindedness.
On Friday 1 million people stayed
away from work. On Sunday 300,00
people showed up to march in protest.
That represents enough of the people
to make Mike's re-election chances
pretty darned slim in the next one.
Now if only the other parties could
manage to field credible candidates
and progress beyond the development,
jobs, ecodestruction ideology all
governments promulgate. If only!
rk...@ivory.trentu.ca
In article <326EEF...@vianet.on.ca>, Rex Hunter <r...@vianet.on.ca> writes:
>Bob Give it up!!!
>
Not to support Bob, but calling the obvious ideological split in the last
Ontario election a "strong public mandate for the PC's" is absurd. Even to
this day, 55% of Ontarians (the true "majority") do not support him, and 52%
actually oppose him directly compared to his 45% support.
>The people of Ontario spoke during the last election. What they said
>was it was time for a change. They spoke in a very loud voice, that they
No they didn't- like Canadian democracy in the past, the wishes of the majority
were not listened to because of a three party system. The only way to
alleviate this is to go if one respects the wishes of the majority is to revamp
the system so that the party system matches their share of the popular vote
(ie. 41% of the votes in Ontario would only entitle the Provincial tories to
41% of the commons seats). Lots of coalition governments...but it's the only
way by which the true wishes of the majority will be carried out.
>could no longer carry the burden of the social safety net and government
>waste around their necks. The average citizens of Ontario are tired of
>footing the bill for every special interest group under the sun! If you
They are tired of footing the bill for special interest groups....but it's far
from clear whether they would agree with the rest of your comments. The
Liberal and NDP platforms are quite similar in Ontario....and 52% support these
two parties as opposed to the 45% that support the Tories- so I'd venture to
say that people still see the need and want a social safety net....and the
Chretien Liberals are showing that the deficit can be eliminated without
draconian spending cuts a la Harris!
>want to prove something, why don't you go out there and channel your energy
>into doing something productive about the problem. Your protest is falling
>on deaf ears!
>
His is for sure....but protesting this government does not fall on deaf ears
because anyone with eyes and ears knows that the way Harris has gone about this
all is dreadfully wrong. Even Klien, the man who pioneered the war on debt in
this decade, has warned Harris about the depth of his cuts- and even he had the
integrity to realize that giving away a tax cut while cutting services and
preaching the virtues of balancing the books is not only insidious, but it's
also divisive. If Harris wanted a divided Ontario, where rich and poor will
for decades to come eye each other suspiciously and hatefully, then he
succeeded- the polls tell that too!
rk...@ivory.trentu.ca
In article <1996Oct25.0...@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu>, mai...@cs.toronto.edu (Ian Maione) writes:
>In article <54o88m$b...@zap.io.org>, E.M. Anzalone <e...@zap.io.org> wrote:
>>In article <326EEF...@vianet.on.ca>, Rex Hunter <r...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>>The people of Ontario may have spoken in the last election,
>>but if I recall correctly (and I do), they didn't all say the
>>same thing. Certainly, because of the way representatives are
>>elected, the PCs won a frightening majority in the legislature.
>>Their popular support, however, was -- and is -- rather less.
>
> This has nothing to do with the Harris government. If this is really
>a problem (and that is a completely separate debate), then this is an
>issue concerning how our electoral system works.
It is, and it isn't! He is this "reformed" politician, isn't he? He is the
champion of "fairness" and "democracy' [major sarcasm here], isn't he? Given
such "values," shouldn't he be the one to change the system....at least in
Ontario?
>>
>>As to the current protest, it never ceases to amaze me that
>>so many neo-cons seem to have this misguided belief that
>>democracy is some sort of cyclical event that only takes
>>place every 4 or 5 years. Worse, they seem to think that,
>>in between these quadrennial days of democracy, those of us
>>who lost the show of hands should just "shut up and get used
>>to it."
>>
>
> There is, however, a huge difference between expressing opposition to
>the current government policies via peaceful protest, marches, or media
>exposure, and doing so through calculated attempts to disrupt said
>government, businesses, or public services. It is extremely important
Actually, while I opposed the general strike, something was said yesterday that
was really important- the point of shutting down many of those government
services was to try and show people what it would be like if the people didn't
have them. I hadn't considered that view before...but it lends an interesting
perspective to the debate.
>to keep this in mind - and it has nothing to do with whether you support
>Mike Harris or not. I don't have a problem with the Days of Action in
>terms of a march on Queen's Park, or the like. But shutting down the
>TTC, or Pearson airport, or preventing anyone from conducting lawful
>business would be completely unacceptable (it remains to be seen whether
Perhaps so....but I think the issue is that desperate people will resort to
desperate measures- and if this government is going to lend itself to
interpreting the population of Ontario as Taxpayers and "others," then it will
be at fault for the backlash from these polarizations. That is what frightens
me about Harris- he never says "citizen"....only taxpayer! In any "democratic"
society, their is a responsibility for the elected to represent all people-
even the minority "others," equally!
>these things occur or not). Anything else represents an attempt to
>espouse certain political views through bully tactics, and *that* is
>fundamentally contrary to the principles on which our democracy is based.
Polarization is also contrary to the principles of Canadian democracy- yet this
government continues to watch as the rifts between those earning $60,000+ a
year and those earning $30,000 and less a year grows without even trying to
mend the relationship between these two parts of the populace- all because it
can score political points!
>It's amazing how quickly union supporters forget this just because the
>rally reflects *their* views. How would CUPE and the like have reacted if
>businesses had decided to lock out their employees for a day to protest
>against Bob Rae? Such an action would have been just as unwarranted.
>
Yeah well, as Sid Ryan pointed out yesterday, the mandate to create public
insurance in Ontario was clear (in accordance with the Harris mandate)- and it
was those interfering businesses that hampered democracy. Right wingers didn't
say anything about that infringement on this "democracy," but now rags like the
Toronto Scum squeal like stuffed pigs because the unions disrupt services to
illustrate their dissatisfaction? Gee...one thwarted democracy, the other
interrupted it- which is worse?
> I don't have a problem with individuals who wish to participate in
>the Days of Action, assuming they abide by the law, and reasonable
>behaviour. But the disgraceful attitude of people like Gord Wilson
>and Sid Ryan is reprehensible. Their suggestions that public services
>should be disrupted are completely inappropriate, and the most galling
>thing is that they have the gall to complain when city officials attempt
>to get injunctions to prevent such behaviour. You see, the law is
>irrelevant to them when it doesn't reflect *their* beliefs. In other
Yeah well....democracy is irrevelant when it conflicts with big business
beliefs- that in my opinion is just as bad.
>words, ignoring an injunction is okay, as long as it's done for their
>cause. This is hypocrisy of the first order. I'd have more respect for
So is calling a system where business elites have increasing control (vis-a-via
limitations on the effectiveness of unions, tax cuts and the erosion of helping
hands, etc...) over people's lives a democracy. More and more it looks like an
oligarchy.
>them if they simply espoused pure anarchic views, and said "we're going
>to disobey the law no matter what". Then at least they'd be consistent.
>But instead, they are quick to invoke the protections of free speech,
>yet just as quick to deny that the law applies to them when it doesn't
>agree with their stance. This is one of my pet peeves with the labour
>movement - labour leaders seem extremely quick to invoke the protection
>of labour laws, yet so quick to ignore the rules when it suits them.
>Even if Sid Ryan and Gord Wilson really are right, and the Harris government
>are making bad policy, their attitudes leave much to be desired.
>
With the exception of some skirmishes, everything was fine.
> Furthermore, I have a problem with the idea that the labour movement
>should be so directly involved in such a protest. I mean this in the
>sense that, labour leaders seem to think that people should be entitled
>to just strike for a day because they feel like it. I don't feel that this
>is the proper role for unions in our society. If people involved on the
>labour movement wish to organize a political protest and people want to
>participate in it *on their own time*, then that's one thing. But the
>supposed purpose of unions are to represent employees in collective
>bargaining negotiations with employers. Many such contracts involve
>no-strike, no-lockout clauses, that the unionists seem to feel free to
>break whenever they feel like it. Again, I feel this is wrong.
>
Yeah well....big business contributed big money to the PC election campaign- I
feel that they should stay out of the business of public votes.
>>Well, I was raised in the U.S. -- the "birthplace of
>>democracy," as we were so often told -- and it was made clear
>>in my education that democracy was an ongoing process. This
>>meant, among other things, that those whose parties lost
>>elections were still entitled to express their opposition,
>>publicly and en masse, even between elections. Last I heard,
>>that was still the case. The inconvenience such gatherings
>>cause is typically minimized by the democratic government's
>>willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue with the protesters.
>>But as you yourself point out, this is not happening.
>>
>>So, while the government and its supporters are able to turn
>>a "deaf ear" to our words, it becomes harder -- and more
>>inconvenient -- to turn a "blind eye" to our physical presence.
>>And until such time as Mr. Harris learns to incorporate
>>the participatory nature of democratic government into his
>>personal style -- or until he simply outlaws peaceful gatherings --
>>I suspect these protests will continue and grow.
>>
>>"Get used to it."
>>
>
> I'm not sure why you're claiming that the Harris government was
>particularly less "participatory" than any other. Very few governments
>really do change their policies to any large degree based on such
>protests. On what basis do you make this claim?
Interesting....and I agree...the NDP wouldn't have changed either. That's a
problem.
Jason Kodish
>health and social services currently available. This situation is going
>to get worse, not better. People just have to understand that.
No, they don't. We don't buy your propoganda, Pat. Not anymore.
And these days of protest are just the beginning.
I'm suggesting months of protest. Shut down the city for weeks at a time,
see how you rightoids like it. You preach hunger and starvation and misery
for the poor while sucking up your pay raises.
Enjoy your time, Pat, because like it or not, the right will fall.
>
>--
>-Pat
>bn...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
Jason Kodish
Let us not forget that Patrick himself, for two years was a government
employee. Didn't seem to mind getting that cheque from the taxpayers
then, did he?
Tracey Skipp
> Bob Allisat wrote
> On Friday 1 million people stayed
> away from work. On Sunday 300,00
> people showed up to march in protest.
> That represents enough of the people
> to make Mike's re-election chances
> pretty darned slim in the next one.
I wouldn't call that a majority. Toronto has a population of 5 million
people, and the protestors came from all over Ontario, representing a few
more million. This is hardly the majority you need to get Mike defeated in
the next election. Besides, many of the people who didn't work, took the
day off to avoid the expected difficulty of getting around Toronto, or
because they rely on public transport which was shut down, and not because
they supported the cause. I also find it offensive, that you blocked those
who wished to work and earn their living, from getting into their place of
employment. Some of these were hourly employees who do not support you and
who may miss a days wages because of your protest.
Have you read the post from Chris Meyer (10/25 11:13pm) outlining an
article in the Globe & Mail. It raises the issues that most of us who voted
for Mike believe in. We didn't vote for him to take away jobs or food for
the needy, but if we continue with these deficits, that's what will happen
to more and more people in the forseeable future. And it will hurt MUCH
more than the cuts of today.
BTW, can you widen the frame of your news window? It is much easier to read
your posts if there are more words on the line and less lines on the page.
Just a suggestion
Suzanne Vezina
"Tracey Skipp" (sk...@golden.net) writes:
>> Bob Allisat wrote
>
>> On Friday 1 million people stayed
>> away from work. On Sunday 300,00
>> people showed up to march in protest.
>> That represents enough of the people
>> to make Mike's re-election chances
>> pretty darned slim in the next one.
>
> I wouldn't call that a majority. Toronto has a population of 5 million
> people, and the protestors came from all over Ontario, representing a few
The demonstrators represented the majority of Ontarians. Many
could simply not make it to Toronto, me included.
> more million. This is hardly the majority you need to get Mike defeated in
> the next election. Besides, many of the people who didn't work, took the
> day off to avoid the expected difficulty of getting around Toronto, or
> because they rely on public transport which was shut down, and not because
> they supported the cause. I also find it offensive, that you blocked those
> who wished to work and earn their living, from getting into their place of
> employment. Some of these were hourly employees who do not support you and
> who may miss a days wages because of your protest.
>
> Have you read the post from Chris Meyer (10/25 11:13pm) outlining an
> article in the Globe & Mail. It raises the issues that most of us who voted
> for Mike believe in. We didn't vote for him to take away jobs or food for
> the needy, but if we continue with these deficits, that's what will happen
> to more and more people in the forseeable future. And it will hurt MUCH
> more than the cuts of today.
>
> BTW, can you widen the frame of your news window? It is much easier to read
> your posts if there are more words on the line and less lines on the page.
> Just a suggestion
>
--
Suzanne Vezina df...@freenet.carleton.ca
Suzanne Vezina
Yes, that's for sure. And what would this lesson be? Well, how about
"ways to profit - be a tax delinquent!" - See Ottawa Citizen, Oct. 23,
where it states that tax delinquents - both corporate and realty - total 117.2
million bucks in Ottawa, Nepean and Gloucester alone. Can you imagine the
amount of unpaid taxes Canada wide? Staggering! I'd say that those unpaid
taxes would go a long way towards reducing the deficit and reducing the need
for further tax hikes.
--
Suzanne Vezina df...@freenet.carleton.ca
Tracey Skipp
> Frances> ga...@netcom.ca
wrote
>On the other hand, the lack of response by the Ontario Tories, to
> anything but the results on one election day does indicate a narrow
> mindedness which is having a cruel impact on some individuals.
Ade
Tracy,
That's like saying that as long as your kid brings home and A on his
report card you don't care how he got it. If he/she lied or cheated or
bribed to get that A its still acceptable. Since I don't believe you
feel that the end justifies the means, where do you draw the line?
Since you're willing to take responsibility for voting the PC's into
power don't you have a responsibility to keep track of their performance
and make sure its honourable?
I respect the choices made by the Ontario electorate, and I respect the
legislative institution but part of that respect is holding elected
people accountable for what they do and say on a daily basis. When an
elected official is inept, or lies, or fools around or neglects the job
then the person who chose him/her for the job is losing just as much as
I am.
Russell McOrmond
In article <01bbc3a4$a0ed9c00$20d2...@skipp.golden.net>,
Tracey Skipp <sk...@golden.net> wrote:
>Since 75% of the people don't agree with this day of protest, I
>think it is you who are displaying the narrow mindedness.
I'm curious which random number generator was used to create this bogus
statistic?
I hear all about this majority speaking. I also know many people that
voted for the Harris government as vote AGAINST the other parties, not a
vote FOR the Harris government. I also know many more that didn't
realize exactly what Harris had in mind: They didn't think any politician
would ever follow through with such destructive 'promises'.
Sure - give tax cuts to the rich while removing the social net. Are a
majority of Ontarians rich? I don't think so... It is only those
minority that do not need (Or want) a force that tries to lessen the gap
between have and have-nots that are actually going to support the
government - that and the people who don't really realize what is going on.
Yes, the public sector is over-spending. Our North American society
seems to be based on over-spending until the resource is gone.
If you have a bleeding nose, do you cut off your head or do you get a
kleenex? Seems like Harris is all for cuts rather than fixing the problem.
The only positive thing I can think of in relation to the Harris
government is that is will gain an appreciation in Ontarians for our
social safety net. After the next election, when the Harris government
is gone and we gain these things back, we will not take things so much
for granted.
--
Russell McOrmond, Technical Consultant: <http://www.flora.org/russell/work/>
Internet consulting, Virtual domains (Email, Web, Mailing lists, etc)
Community Volunteer with FLORA Community WEB: <http://www.flora.org/>
Mike Wendehont
You snapper heads voted him in and he still has 40 percent in the polls it
seems like the only folks bitching are the ones that make 20 bucks plus per
hour and the ones that have had thier welfare checks cut back!! Deal with
it and if the rest of the Province feels like you then in four yrs or so
you will have a new Government.
Sheldon Liberman
Ade wrote:
>
> Tracey Skipp wrote:
> >
> > > Frances> ga...@netcom.ca
> > wrote
> > >On the other hand, the lack of response by the Ontario Tories, to
> > > anything but the results on one election day does indicate a narrow
> > > mindedness which is having a cruel impact on some individuals.
> >
> > The *lack of response* as you call it,by the Tories is no more and no less
> > than their refusal to back down to the demands of your day of protest. WE
> > voted the Tories in for a reason, and the majority of us are backing up
> > their policies. The results of *one election day* was the voice of WE the
> > think it is you who are displaying the narrow mindedness.
>
>
> That's like saying that as long as your kid brings home and A on his
> report card you don't care how he got it. If he/she lied or cheated or
> bribed to get that A its still acceptable. Since I don't believe you
> feel that the end justifies the means, where do you draw the line?
>
> Since you're willing to take responsibility for voting the PC's into
> power don't you have a responsibility to keep track of their performance
> and make sure its honourable?
>
> I respect the choices made by the Ontario electorate, and I respect the
> legislative institution but part of that respect is holding elected
> people accountable for what they do and say on a daily basis. When an
> elected official is inept, or lies, or fools around or neglects the job
> then the person who chose him/her for the job is losing just as much as
> I am.
True enough. I see a government fullfilling its mandate. Obviously, your
vantage point differs.
David Timothy Duval
Russell McOrmond wrote:
> I hear all about this majority speaking. I also know many people that
> voted for the Harris government as vote AGAINST the other parties, not a
> vote FOR the Harris government. I also know many more that didn't
> realize exactly what Harris had in mind: They didn't think any politician
> would ever follow through with such destructive 'promises'.
If these 'people you know' actually use excuses such as those you mention
in order to justify their selection of a candidate in a Provincial (or
even Federal) election, then perhaps we should initiate IQ tests at the
time of registration.
David
Sheldon Liberman
Bob Allisat wrote:
>
>
> On Friday 1 million people stayed
> away from work. On Sunday 300,00
> people showed up to march in protest.
> That represents enough of the people
> to make Mike's re-election chances
> pretty darned slim in the next one.
>
majority of those who marched new recruits to your cause?
Of course, the protest did manage to usurp the rights of those choosing
to work that day. A day's wage lost, a day's tax receipts foregone. An
inch deeper go the cuts. Congratulations!
Tom Durnin r
The effect the Toronto Strike had is debatable, for certain. Police and
Organizers can't agree on just how many people took part, and the wide
range of estimates means we cannot judges just how well attended it was
in terms of Unions etc..However, the downtown core was for all intents
and purposes shutdown, and everyone in TO (and the province) knew it
would be and why. The attention they drew could possibly be a small
victory for the Organizers of the Strike (or was it a Day of Protest,
demonstration or strikes?).
I am in somewhat of a unique position - I work part-time for a company
that is Unionized, and it has done some good things for me. Further, my
parents both work for the government, and were in the recent strike of
OPSEU. Lastly, I am also an employee of the downtown core, in a
non-union organization. All this to say that I was a fence sitter in
terms of my position on the strike and its organizers and participants
until I watched the day unfold on TV. That is when, I feel, the Day of
Protest lost all its potential to send messages that may or may not have
been constructive.
1) The Protest out front of a government building that was fairly
peaceful until the Police in black uniforms (Riot squad?) showed up.
Then we see the Protesters verbally abusing them, and ultimately a
conflict erupts. The argument of the protester who is shouting that the
cops are just there to get some overtime and beat up a few protesters is
rubbish - he shows no knowledge of what his mere presence means in terms
of a security issue. Lots of innocent people probably work in the
building, and need to have their rights to a safe workplace protected.
If the protesters could be trusted to act appropriately on a DAY OF
ACTION (not a strike!), then all would have been fine. The Police are
there to counter any stupid moves, and ultimately one came. How much
damage might they have done if there was no police presence. If the
police move in while the crowd is ONLY exercising its right to free
speech and protest, then there is reason to despise the police presence.
However, everyone knew the potential was there for violence. The Police
presence was justified 100%.
2) Regarding the TSE incidents. Perfect example of defeating your
purpose. First, a woman stands in the road and blocks a mini-van, and is
moved from her position by a man who clearly does not support the
strike. He was perhaps guilty of helping move traffic, and of poor
judgement (you dont go into a lion cage with fresh cut of sirloin), but
he was also publicly stating his opinion, just a s the protesters were.
Then the woman viciously assaults him, and another protester punches him
in the face --- RIGHT IN FRONT OF A TV CAMERA. Figure it out - violence
rarely ever wins support for anyone in our society. (BTW - I hope the
police subpoena that guy).
Secondly, the TSE incident at the front doors is another show of useless
violence. What were they going to do when they got in? Beat up the cops
and then buy some blue-chip? Again, it was a senseless move.
3) My last comment is about the protests at York and U of T. WHY THE
HELL WERE THEY THERE? If the protest is all about the deep, wide
rangeing (and very possibly needed) cuts to social programs such as
education, how did the stoppage of university help???? Students are
under enough pressure, as are the academic institutions. Stopping the
operation of those two large, valuable, expensive schools (where research
into medicine, engineering, and to areas that will serve society better
some day) only made the cuts WORSE!!!! AAnd what about all that elective
surgery that had to be stopped or postoned - that back up to the medical
systems is hardly needed!!!!
I support peoples right to organize and protest, and Unions were built to
some degree on these facts. But violence is totally unacceptable, and
coupleed with the incredibly stupid moves to protest institutions that
are already hurting (and are the very institutions that the Strike is
supposedly trying to build support for) has had nothing but a negative
effect, I believe, in most Ontarians eyes.
Just my two cents worth.
Jason Kodish
In article <01bbc3a4$a0ed9c00$20d2...@skipp.golden.net> sk...@golden.net writes:
>
>their policies. The results of *one election day* was the voice of WE the
>majority. Since 75% of the people don't agree with this day of protest, I
>think it is you who are displaying the narrow mindedness.
Your government was elected by a minority of the population.
Jason Kodish
In article <01bbc3ba$d63bd780$20d2...@skipp.golden.net> sk...@golden.net writes:
>
>for Mike believe in. We didn't vote for him to take away jobs or food for
>the needy, but if we continue with these deficits, that's what will happen
Bull, that's what the lies keep saying. Yet what have you done?
You have taken away jobs from the people, replacing them with workfare
slaves. You've taken away food from the needy by welfare cuts.
Why else would the government you put in pay a PR man $1200/day to
cover for the stupidity of Tuna Tubuski..
Your government has broken a great many of its promises,
and financed a tax cut on future deficits.
Eric Mills
Ian Maione,mai...@cs.toronto.edu,Internet:
> How would CUPE and the like have reacted if businesses had decided
> to lock out their employees for a day to protest against Bob Rae?
> Such an action would have been just as unwarranted.
Businesses do all kinds of things to influence politics.
But most of them are done quietly, behind closed doors,
and with their customers' money.
Those who complain about this shutdown are forgetting
something, however: basically, a strike is a withdrawal
of labour. If all the real bosses -- i.e., of business --
withdrew their labour for a day, it's hard to see that
anyone would object. And how much effect would it have?
Eric Mills
rk...@ivory.trentu.ca,Internet:
> Actually, while I opposed the general strike,
> something was said yesterday that was really important
> - the point of shutting down many of those government
> services was to try and show people what it would be like
> if the people didn't have them.
> I hadn't considered that view before...but it lends
> an interesting perspective to the debate.
Good point. A similar point is made by the annual
Day Without Art, when many artists hope to show
the value of their work by its absence.
Though some right-wingers would rub their hands
in glee, others realize that citizens are more than
consumers, that money and the markets are not the
only, or the best, indicators of value.
**That too was what this protest was about.
Eric Mills
Patrick Coghlan,bn...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA,Internet:
> Just look at all the (popular) strikes going on over
> the French government's attempt to lay off something
> like 4000 government workers out of a workforce of
> about 1.6 million government employees.
Yes, lets. What's most noticeable is that the French workforce
is proportionately less unionized than Canada's, and yet the
French people tend to support the strikes.
Why? The French public realizes that everyone benefits from
fair treatment, decent wages and the maintenance of public
services. They see unions as the front line of defence against
barbarous attacks on their quality of life.
One of the benefits of the five organized city protests against
the Harris Visigoths is that it's developed links between labour
and other citizen movements, and built support among the public
to support the work of both sides -- especially when they
work together.
Remember the 'illegal' strike by Calgary hospital workers
against the Klein government's attacks on health care
and health care workers -- and the widespread support
the strike garnered, virtually stopping Klein in his tracks?
Such a flash point may also be coming in Ontario.
andrew ross
I am just wondering what the "critics" think the government should do?
I don't think they fully understand. It goes without saying that you can't
last long spending more than you take in.
Following this simple thought: We are very very in debt. Plain and simple.
We are not paying off the debt, it grows every year as we spend more than
we take in. Eventually (and it doesn't take long) just the interest on
carrying the debt consumes all the revenues taken in by the government.
What do we do then?
I don't think anyone in government wants to hurt anyone. To suggest
otherwise is ignorant.
I think these protesters are forgetting that there isn't anywhere in
Canada you can go to escape the cuts. No party can beat the fact that if
we don't fix things now, we will go bankrupt. Yes, a country can go
bankrupt. Then we will all suffer, and especially the poor, the infirm,
and the aged. And as much as we'd like to help them then, we won't have
the capacity. Thats why we'd better do it now.
I did not vote for the PC during the last election. I myself being a
university student have seen my tuition rise EVERY year. (and 2 years of
it were before the PC took power!)
I don't like it. But I am willing to accept it for two reasons:
1) I am still only paying 30% of the cost of getting a university education.
2) It is a chance to work hard and make it. I grew up and was taught that
you can't get anything without hard work. If I end up well to do, I think
its only fair.
If the cuts mean that I have to work during the school year, and the
summer. So what?
I remind you that if we lived elsewhere in the world we could be:
starving, dying of a preventable disease, doging gunshots, etc.
We live in a damn good country, and I am proud to be a Canadian. Perhaps
it is time to check with reality and see how good we have it.
To those who disagree with the policies of the Current Ontario government:
I challenge you to a better option, I would like very much to hear about
it. Email me some rational argument or idea and I'll discuss it with you.
Who knows, you might have a better solution...
Andrew
andrew ross
> >Following this simple thought: We are very very in debt. Plain and simple.
> >We are not paying off the debt, it grows every year as we spend more than
> >we take in. Eventually (and it doesn't take long) just the interest on
> >carrying the debt consumes all the revenues taken in by the government.
> >What do we do then?
> I'd be more inclined to agree with your statements if Harris's spending cuts
> were only being used to reduce the deficit. However, Harris is also cutting
> spending to implement tax cuts. What's your opinion on this? Should the
> tax cut money be used to reduce the deficit instead, or are you expecting
> the poor to be the only ones to shoulder the burden of deficit reduction?
> --
Quite simply I think a general tax cut will benefit all. With less tax to
pay some of the cuts can be offset by the poor.
Now the greatest effect will come from the tax cuts from the middle
and upper classes. With the economy stimulated by an increased spending by
those that have money to spend, it stands to reason that there would be
more jobs created. More jobs = less unemployed = less people poor and
suffering.
With an increase in people working and paying taxes revenues instead of
sucking them from the government in the forms of UI and welfare: there is
a two-fold effect:
1) the poor that need help are fewer
2) through an increase in taxes collected, the government has more money
to implement futher tax reductions and an increase in the social programs
that had been cut.
I would also like to point out that a scenario such as I have mentioned
includes a phenomenal increase in mental and emotional well being for
those who gained employment and an increase in self confidence and self
worth.
Plain and simple, I hate to borrow a line from the PC but isn't that
common sense?
Andrew
Dave Till
Alas, I don't think Mr. Harris is particularly interested in hearing from,
let alone catering to, people who oppose his policies. His hope, IMHO,
is that he has enough core supporters to supply him with another majority
without having to listen to people he often refers to as "special interest
groups" (teachers, union members, arts groups, doctors, people who use
public services, anyone not living in the 905 belt... :-)).
I think he is also hoping that his opponents will shoot themselves in the
foot. Undoubtedly, he was pleased when organized labour shut down the
TTC on Friday.
--
--Dave Till, Paper Consumer, KL Group Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Anybody who blames my employers for my opinions is being transparently silly.
email: da...@interlog.com WWW: http://www.interlog.com/~davet/
"Turn the volume *up*, damn it." * Fave Quote: "Protect me from what I want."
Bob Allisat
I, Bob Allisat, wrote:
>> On Sunday 300,00
>> people showed up to march in protest.
Nick <cho...@hotmail.com> replied:
>It was actually around 75,000...
Well actually 75,000
came by buses from outside
of Metro. That number was
joined by a much larger
number of Merto residents
who came by TTC, car,
bike and on foot. It was
an impressive, profound
day. 300,000 people. Yes!
Peace.
Bob Allisat t...@wtv.net
Director, (416)588-0670
World Televirtual Network http://www.wtv.net
JMD
Eric_...@tvo.org (Eric Mills) wrote:
[snip]
>Remember the 'illegal' strike by Calgary hospital workers
>against the Klein government's attacks on health care
>and health care workers -- and the widespread support
>the strike garnered, virtually stopping Klein in his tracks?
>Such a flash point may also be coming in Ontario.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dream on leftie. Outside of Toronto your big protest caused nary a
ripple. If and when your cast of placard-wavers and uninspired,
chanters (Hey Hey Ho Ho Mike Harris Has Got To Go -- how boring!)
shows up here in Ottawa, life will go on pretty much as usual.
It was just too nice a weekend to bother with another tantrum by big
labour against a democratically-elected government. Bob Rae and the
NDP are gone. Their disastrous legacy is harder to get rid of but
some day it, too, will be but a memory. Get over it.
John D.
Patrick Coghlan
In article <54qhok$9...@ns1.vrx.net>, b...@news.vrx.net (Bob Allisat) wrote:
> >I think I agree with the last bit re: people don't want to sacrifice
> >the environment in the effort to achieve sustainable levels of
> >government spending. They want a sustainable environment too.
>
> A "sustainable" environment?
> When the Harris people are
> allowing rampant development
> to occur everywhere? When
> every means necessary is being
> employed to subvert the ecosystem?
> All in the name of development?
> These lunatics are choking off
> our air and water and poisoning
> the soil in order to maximize
> profits... something I'd say
> is suicdial - the furtherst thing
> from weither common sense or
> the desires of average people.
If what you claim is happening is actually true, it would not have
the support of those who voted for Harris. For now, I'll give Mike
the benefit of the doubt.
--
-Pat
bn...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
Dave Till
In article <01bbc3ba$d63bd780$20d2...@skipp.golden.net>,
Tracey Skipp <sk...@golden.net> wrote:
>I wouldn't call that a majority. Toronto has a population of 5 million
>people, and the protestors came from all over Ontario, representing a few
>the next election. Besides, many of the people who didn't work, took the
>day off to avoid the expected difficulty of getting around Toronto, or
>because they rely on public transport which was shut down, and not because
>they supported the cause.
If you are so concerned about the importance of TTC service to Toronto, you
might want to consider lobbying to ensure that the TTC is not severely
affected by provincial cutbacks. There have already been reductions in
service and route shutdowns, and I believe the provincial government plans
to both (a) continue to cut spending on public transit in Ontario and (b) on
top of that, implement an additional cutback to TTC funding.
(I also disapprove of the TTC shutdown, by the way.)
>It raises the issues that most of us who voted
>for Mike believe in. We didn't vote for him to take away jobs or food for
>the needy, but if we continue with these deficits, that's what will happen
>to more and more people in the forseeable future. And it will hurt MUCH
>more than the cuts of today.
But Mike isn't just cutting spending to reduce the size of the deficit --
he's also cutting spending in order to implement his tax cuts. The interesting
question will be what will happen when Harris is forced to do one of the
following:
(a) stop implementing tax cuts
(b) stop worrying about the deficit
(c) cut more deeply than promised
At some point between now and the end of his mandate, Harris will have to
choose one of the above options.
Dave Till
In article <54rvm7$g...@gtnews.golden.org>,
chirs meyer <cum...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote, quoting
the Globe and Mail:
> Some may say that Mr. Harris has moved too fast (although with an
>$8-billion deficit this year, and 4 years to go till the budget is
>balanced, Ontario is behind most other provinces). Some may say that
>he should not have promised a 30-per-cent tax break (although deep
>cuts would have been necessary even without that break). But it is
>hard to argue that he is on the wrong course.
The Globe has finessed past the whole point of many people's disagreement
with Mike Harris. I don't object to the general "course" of deficit
reduction -- what I object to is the implementation of a tax break at
the same time.
I also object to the fact that Harris is simply ignoring the concerns
of anyone who isn't a core Tory supporter. The Toronto Star quoted one
pollster (admittedly, a Liberal) who claimed that Harris is implementing
a "single track" strategy: trying to keep his core supporters, roughly 45%
of the electorate, happy and basically saying to hell with everybody else.
BTW, everybody is on the same "course" these days -- there's no government
that I know of that is increasing spending. Heck, even Bob Rae was cutting
spending while he was in office.
>Hasn't the NDP
>government of Saskatchewan balanced its budget? Hasn't the Liberal
>government of New Brunswick done the same?
Don't the governments of Saskatchewan and New Brunswick receive money
from Ontario in the form of equalization payments? I'd be more impressed
by their fiscal responsibility if we weren't giving them money...
It's like somebody borrowing twenty bucks from you, using the money to
pay off their debts, and then lecturing you on financial responsibility.
>Ontarians really want a healthy, active government, if they really
>want to keep their parks, their libraries and their art galleries, if
>they really want to protect the poor, drive on decent roads, recover
>in well-equipped hospitals and send their children to good schools,
>they will grit their teeth and support the drive to dig Ontario out of
>debt. There is no other way.
A nice bit of rhetoric -- but once again, it ignores the whole issue of
the tax cut.
Nick
b...@news.vrx.net (Bob Allisat) wrote:
>Tracey Skipp <sk...@golden.net> wrote:
>>The *lack of response* as you call it,by the Tories is no more and no less
>>than their refusal to back down to the demands of your day of protest. WE
>>voted the Tories in for a reason, and the majority of us are backing up
>>their policies. The results of *one election day* was the voice of WE the
>>majority. Since 75% of the people don't agree with this day of protest, I
>>think it is you who are displaying the narrow mindedness.
> On Friday 1 million people stayed
> away from work.
INCLUDING 999,000 who were prevented from working by the illegal thug
tactics of the unions.
> On Sunday 300,00
> people showed up to march in protest.
It was actually around 75,000, Bob. You can't count (in addtion to a
lot of other things.)
Dave Till
In article <551gi7$j...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>,
andrew ross <ar...@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:
>I am just wondering what the "critics" think the government should do?
>
>I don't think they fully understand. It goes without saying that you can't
>last long spending more than you take in.
>
>We are not paying off the debt, it grows every year as we spend more than
>we take in. Eventually (and it doesn't take long) just the interest on
>carrying the debt consumes all the revenues taken in by the government.
>What do we do then?
I'd be more inclined to agree with your statements if Harris's spending cuts
were only being used to reduce the deficit. However, Harris is also cutting
spending to implement tax cuts. What's your opinion on this? Should the
tax cut money be used to reduce the deficit instead, or are you expecting
the poor to be the only ones to shoulder the burden of deficit reduction?
Ade
Sheldon, what are your standards for performance? When Tabouchi advised
welfare recipients to buy 79 cent cans of tuna I went to my local
supermarket and looked at prices. The cheapest tuna cost 50% more than
he suggested spending. I resent paying his salary while he comes up
with impossible schemes or makes errors on figures he provides for
public use or doesn't check his information before he makes it public.
From my vantage point that is inept performance.
I laughed when the Harris government blinked over obstetricians refusing
to take on more patients. It seems the PC's are no more adept at
negotiating with doctors than they are at drawing up grocery lists
within a budget.
Make a mistake, let citizens pay for the mistake, try to correct the
mistake - is the strategy of most governments (democratic ones anyway).
I think this results from too much politicking and not enough governing
in the sense of the platonic philosopher kings. Excellent performance
from government members is a priority or we, the governed pay
extravagantly. We pay for quantity of mistakes as well as the quality
of life we want.
If the government was governing well they wouldn't be sneaking bills
through the legislature or staffing consultation groups without
reasonable representation. It becomes apparent that the intent is
political rather than governmental. I suggest they are opting for short
term solutions rather long term planning. I suggest they are making
choices without adequate information. I suggest that the biases and
prejudices of self-interest groups are determining decisions which
affect everyone.
If this is a continual problem with democracy then let's look for
stability through excellence of performance in governing. I don't want
a deficit hanging over my head 'unto the seventh generation' but I don't
want it eliminated only to find out that poor government has resulted in
a zillion more unnecessary problems taking its place. Put a ceiling on
the 'problem inflation'.
If, by mandate, you mean the wishes of the the people, I'm surprised you
think that so many will tolerate shoddy workmanship. If you mean the
shoe isn't pinching your foot yet, maybe its just a matter of time.
I'll remind you that it was a duly elected government who decided that
citizens should support two school systems instead of a public system.
The premier used his mandate and citizens respect it but when you sign
over your tax dollars you've given up your influence over a lot of
education in this country. That decision has increased educational
costs and now we're compromising on ptr, equipment, university costs,
and the amount of school kids can attend. We're paying more and getting
less.
Statistics Canada says that 36% of kids ages 15 to 19 are working while
they attend school. Is this because their families are needy? Is this
because these students are so motivated that they can compete
successfully for post-secondary training as well as earn the
increasingly high fees for that training and education? Is it because
they are a naive labour pool willing to accept low wages, temporary
jobs, unsafe working conditions? Is it for designer jeans because
they've given up on career ambitions?
It seems to me that poor government created the deficit not poor
citizens. Government ineptitude, expediency, and carelessness would be
fine places to start pruning.
rk...@ivory.trentu.ca
In article <01bbc3a4$a0ed9c00$20d2...@skipp.golden.net>, "Tracey Skipp" <sk...@golden.net> writes:
>> Frances> ga...@netcom.ca
>wrote
>>On the other hand, the lack of response by the Ontario Tories, to
>> anything but the results on one election day does indicate a narrow
>> mindedness which is having a cruel impact on some individuals.
>
>
>than their refusal to back down to the demands of your day of protest. WE
>voted the Tories in for a reason, and the majority of us are backing up
The majority are not backing up their policies- less than 50% voted them in,
and according to the latest poll I've seen (Sun-Angus Reid poll), less than 50%
(the number needed for a "majority") support them to this day! As for your
remark about their lack of response, I don't think anyone expects them to back
down totally- but at least take notice that there's a reason why so many people
gathered out there, and address their concerns rather than ignoring what some
of your citiznes (the majority or otherwise) have to say.
>their policies. The results of *one election day* was the voice of WE the
>majority. Since 75% of the people don't agree with this day of protest, I
>think it is you who are displaying the narrow mindedness.
>
Firstly, did the Tories garner more than 50% of the popular vote? NO! So my
first point, their election was not the voice of the majority speaking- it was
merely the third party winning seats in more ridings, and not receiving the
majority vote. Secondly, the actual figure who opposed the day of protest was,
unless the Sun-Angus Reid poll was wrong, was 66% and not 75%. Lot of people
opposed yes....but 9% is a large margin of error. Thirdly, the poll indicating
support for the strike was taken in Toronto....but as provincial capital, the
poll is misleading because strike support in the capital can come effectively
and overwhelmingly from outside of the capital and yet be just as valid. That
particular issue didn't take into account that there are roughly 6,000,000
citizens of this province who live outside of Toronto who have as much a stake
in the Provincial policies as the 5,000,000 who live in side the GTA! Finally,
the minority does have a right to protest, and whether or not I agree with this
minority inhibiting the mobility of individuals to use the TTC or not is
besides the point- those services should've been closed ahead of time because
of the intensity of the protest. In the interest of safety, cities like
Hamilton, Peterborough and other cities shut down services for the day- I can
only assume that it's either arrogance on the part of Metro Council, or a major
commitment to profit ahead of public safety that prompted the city's decision
to keep services running. All of the rest of it, the opportunistic students at
Humber College who likely are only looking to earn a buck on a frivilous
lawsuit and would likely miss the lectures even if they were being held and the
like, was just plain politics- unrefined, trashy politics.
rk...@ivory.trentu.ca
In article <01bbc3ba$d63bd780$20d2...@skipp.golden.net>, "Tracey Skipp" <sk...@golden.net> writes:
>
>
>> Bob Allisat wrote
>
>> On Friday 1 million people stayed
>> people showed up to march in protest.
>> to make Mike's re-election chances
>> pretty darned slim in the next one.
>
The GTA has a population of 5 million....last time I checked. Growing quickly,
but Toronto's actual population minus the GTA was still less than 1 million,
and with metro, it's less than 4 million.
>people, and the protestors came from all over Ontario, representing a few
>more million. This is hardly the majority you need to get Mike defeated in
If you go by the 11 million stat, it's about six million more.
>the next election. Besides, many of the people who didn't work, took the
>day off to avoid the expected difficulty of getting around Toronto, or
>because they rely on public transport which was shut down, and not because
>they supported the cause. I also find it offensive, that you blocked those
>who wished to work and earn their living, from getting into their place of
>employment. Some of these were hourly employees who do not support you and
>who may miss a days wages because of your protest.
>
I agree that it's sad some poor families may lose a day's wages because of the
strike, and I don't support it- but it's hardly the fault of unions alone. If
Harris DID listen, he'd realize that the intensity of some of his cuts are
causing unnecessary pain to some communities and individual families- if
nothing else, New Zealand's experience should teach him that lession.
>Have you read the post from Chris Meyer (10/25 11:13pm) outlining an
>article in the Globe & Mail. It raises the issues that most of us who voted
>for Mike believe in. We didn't vote for him to take away jobs or food for
>the needy, but if we continue with these deficits, that's what will happen
>to more and more people in the forseeable future. And it will hurt MUCH
>more than the cuts of today.
>
Really? New Zealand utilized the same approach- and all it's done is erode
social programs there to the point that the pain families and the like feel now
are likely as bad as they would be if the system was broke. You see, I
might've bought your argument before....if I knew that the deficit was the top
priority of this government- but that's not what we're seeing here. What we
are seeing is a government that is punching holes in social programs so he can
provide tax breaks- and it doesn't take an einstein to figure out that, once
his four year "mandate" is over, and social programs have been sufficiently
raped to fund his tax cut AND eliminate the deficit, he'll run on another
extremist platform of cutting taxes further AND this time, perhaps eliminating
welfare, university and college subsidies, cutting and privatizing several
other provincial services, etc..... You see, unlike you, I don't have an
unwavering faith in Harris- I think he is a vindictive man who has used welfare
recipients as scapegoats for promoting his agenda....and I have no doubt that
no amount of pain the poor would go through in this province would be "too
much." Does he have it in for the poor? I don't think he does.....I just
think it's just the type of person he is- he's convinced he's correct, and he's
determined to make his agenda work....and the poor are the easiest targets
because of their precarious situations. I mean, what can you say about a guy
that, in the course of a single month cuts welfare rates by 22%, lectures us
about accountability and the like, then takes a trip to the UK to promote an
Ontarian trade mission....and on Ontario's time can still squeak in some golf!
Can such an individual ever get a grasp on pressing concerns of the poor? No
way!
Jason Kodish
In article <32740F...@liberman.com> she...@liberman.com writes:
>
>
>True enough. I see a government fullfilling its mandate. Obviously, your
>vantage point differs.
Funny for a government that broke most of it's election promises.
Oh, well, the hypocricy and corruption of the right knows no bound.
Jason Kodish
In article <duval-27109...@newshub.ccs.yorku.ca> du...@yorku.ca writes:
>
>even Federal) election, then perhaps we should initiate IQ tests at the
>time of registration.
>
dangerous. After all, who writes the tests?
Also remove the right to vote from people and you remove the right to govern.
>David
Jason Kodish
In article <bn207-28109...@macpcoghlan.ca.newbridge. bn...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA writes:
>
>
>If what you claim is happening is actually true, it would not have
>the support of those who voted for Harris. For now, I'll give Mike
>the benefit of the doubt.
I wonder if the poor you and your kind are constantly spitting on would
also give him the benefit of the doubt? Probably not,
they're likely waiting in the food bank lines.
>
>--
>-Pat
>bn...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
Dave Parkhill
Sheldon Liberman <she...@liberman.com> wrote:
>Bob Allisat wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Friday 1 million people stayed
>> away from work. On Sunday 300,00
>> people showed up to march in protest.
>> That represents enough of the people
>> to make Mike's re-election chances
>> pretty darned slim in the next one.
>>
>By what quantum leap of logic do you come to that conclusion? Are the
>majority of those who marched new recruits to your cause?
>Of course, the protest did manage to usurp the rights of those choosing
>to work that day. A day's wage lost, a day's tax receipts foregone. An
>inch deeper go the cuts. Congratulations!
That's right, ONE DAY of hardship, as opposed to the years, or
lifetime, of hardship Harris is imposing on millions, most of whom
don't even know it yet. I don't know anyone who hasn't been (or isn't
related to someone) seriously affected by the cuts of the Harass
Gov't. They were elected by 38 percent of the popular vote, and
chose to call this a "huge mandate" for their slash and burn economic
policy.
I remember hearing "No cuts to Education" (later modified to "no cuts
to the classroom", later modified to "cut $100 MILLION, I don't care
how". Guess what, the cuts last time hit the classroom, this time
they're gonna decimate it. And don't try to sell me this "back to
basics" rubbish, 'cause if you rememer what the basics were in the
40's and fifties were, it was pretty much "If Johnny doesn't fit in,
Johnny doesn't go to school." I had hoped we'd advanced beyond a
society that would "dispose" of people. I have a son with special
needs, and he's first on the list for the cuts. It doesn't matter what
his potential may be, what the future may hold, if he can't fit the
mold, he can't be part of the classroom. THAT'S THE REALITY OF THESE
CUTS!
I remember hearing "No cuts to Heath Care", well we've all seen the
truth there. People are waiting longer, being released from hospital
earlier, Infant mortality and complications of childbirth are up, and
Harris calls it efficiency. Nurses with years of experience and
insight are being replaced by "McWorkers", who for half the money can
take your temperature, but don't have the slightest clue what it
means.
I had my (elderly) neighbour telling me over the fence how right
Harris was, how "he knows of the fraud, that welfare moms & lazy civil
servants have robbed us" (paraphrased). He told me how old people who
had no money were to blame for their own situation, they should have
invested better, planned for the future, or some such crap. Well I had
to ask him, with his two (gov't) pensions, (one military, then another
"career") his 3 kids out of the subsidized university system (who he
constantly brags about, 'cause they're "self made") how he could
advocate this after he & his family had benefitted so much from Gov't
initiatives, employment, etc. "Well, it was different, then. Nobody
ripped the gov't off". was his response. Suck on the teat for a while,
then denounce those who want to make things better for themselves the
same way.
Do we need to blindly throw money at every problem that comes along?
NO! But at least when we make cuts, we should invest in the future,
through our children, our poor, and our elderly, instead of blindly
repeating the mantra "business good, people bad" when it comes down to
the political decisions that must be made.
The politics of Harris is the politics of fear. As long as they can
make us beleive our neighbours, our employees, or "the system" is
robbing us blind, we'll turn against each other, and never confront
the REAL criminals, the ones who encourage this hatred.
God, feels better to get that off my chest.
Take care, everyone, and take care of your neighbour, too.
Dave
******************************************************************************** ******************************************************************************
Dave Parkhill
park...@fox.nstn.ca
"Albert is a very poor student. He is mentally slow, unsociable and is
always daydreaming. He is spoiling it for the rest of the class. It would
be in the best interests of all if he were removed from school immediately."
-- Teacher's comments about Albert Einstein
********************************************************************************
Dave Parkhill
>> >
>> > The people of Ontario spoke during the last election. What they said
>> > was it was time for a change. They spoke in a very loud voice, that they
>> > could no longer carry the burden of the social safety net and government
>> > waste around their necks. The average citizens of Ontario are tired of
>> > footing the bill for every special interest group under the sun! If you
>> > want to prove something, why don't you go out there and channel your energy
>> > into doing something productive about the problem. Your protest is falling
>> > on deaf ears!
>> >
>> > Rex
>> Oh but he is Rex..Oh but he is, and more people are turning up their
>> hearing aids every day.
>____________________________________________________________
Hey! Any government that can field a used car salesman as Minister of
Transportation, a grade 10 dropout as Education Minister, a former
porn star as Social Services Minister, and a golf pro as Premier
obviously deserves our unflagging support! After all, 38 percent of
the population voted for them!
Neil Fowler
andrew ross (ar...@chat.carleton.ca) wrote:
: Quite simply I think a general tax cut will benefit all. With less tax to
: pay some of the cuts can be offset by the poor.
The poor are actualy hurt more by the tax cut then they are
paying the taxes before the cut. For those peopl emaking less than
$25,000 the amount of money the save in taxes is more than taken away as
they pay more user fees.
: Now the greatest effect will come from the tax cuts from the middle
: and upper classes. With the economy stimulated by an increased spending by
: those that have money to spend, it stands to reason that there would be
: more jobs created. More jobs = less unemployed = less people poor and
: suffering.
Not exactly a true assumption. Many companies instead of hiring
more workers simply look to other methods of producing their products
resulting in less employment, while other companies force workers to do
more work (without any increase of pay or benefits). While there are some
companies and businesses that will hire more workers the end result will
still be a stagnant unemployment rate.
: With an increase in people working and paying taxes revenues instead of
: sucking them from the government in the forms of UI and welfare: there is
: a two-fold effect:
: 1) the poor that need help are fewer
When one is poor, one will always require help. More low paying
jobs will not reduce the number of the poor, nor their suffering.
: 2) through an increase in taxes collected, the government has more money
: to implement futher tax reductions and an increase in the social programs
: that had been cut.
the more tax reductions the fewer the less funding social
progrmas receive, the fewer the amount of help that is available for
those that need it.
: I would also like to point out that a scenario such as I have mentioned
: includes a phenomenal increase in mental and emotional well being for
: those who gained employment and an increase in self confidence and self
: worth.
Just becuase one works does not mena that they have a "phenomenal
increase in mental and emotional well being". There are far more things
that impact ones mental and emotional well being than working. for
example, if someone works at a job they do not like, is very boring for
them or is redundent, and is low paying, they will end up with a worse
mental and emotional state.
: Plain and simple, I hate to borrow a line from the PC but isn't that
: common sense?
Nope. Common sense says that by decreasing the funds one takes
in, one must reduce spending even more to maintian a balanced budget.
Common sense that tax cuts and the resulting loss of revenue means it
takes that much longer to pay off the debt. But then, the common sense
that th e PC's have only applies to those who do not suffer as a result
of lack of PC's common sense.
: Andrew
--
.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....
Tim G.
Back on 28 Oct 1996 13:47:43 -0500, the esteemed writer
b...@news.vrx.net (Bob Allisat) keyed the following:
> an impressive, profound
> day. 300,000 people. Yes!
>
more like 50,000. Even the Star thinks so.
---Tim G. in Toronto, Canada
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Participate in Direct Democracy: Visit the Canada Protest Page!
http://www.interlog.com/~kas/protest/canprot.htm
Dave Parkhill
cho...@hotmail.com (Nick) wrote:
>INCLUDING 999,000 who were prevented from working by the illegal thug
>tactics of the unions.
And the churches, Nick. And just about every other agency that
advocates on behalf of the poor, the elderly, and health care. They
all came out in support.
>> On Sunday 300,00
>> people showed up to march in protest.
>It was actually around 75,000, Bob. You can't count (in addtion to a
>lot of other things.)
Dave Parkhill
Sheldon Liberman <she...@liberman.com> wrote:
>Bob Allisat wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Friday 1 million people stayed
>> away from work. On Sunday 300,00
>> people showed up to march in protest.
Dave
******************************************************************************** ******************************************************************************
Wil Parker
andrew ross (ar...@chat.carleton.ca) wrote:
: Quite simply I think a general tax cut will benefit all. With less tax to
: pay some of the cuts can be offset by the poor.
: Now the greatest effect will come from the tax cuts from the middle
: and upper classes. With the economy stimulated by an increased spending by
: those that have money to spend, it stands to reason that there would be
: more jobs created. More jobs = less unemployed = less people poor and
: suffering.
: With an increase in people working and paying taxes revenues instead of
: sucking them from the government in the forms of UI and welfare: there is
: a two-fold effect:
: 1) the poor that need help are fewer
: 2) through an increase in taxes collected, the government has more money
: to implement futher tax reductions and an increase in the social programs
: that had been cut.
: I would also like to point out that a scenario such as I have mentioned
: includes a phenomenal increase in mental and emotional well being for
: those who gained employment and an increase in self confidence and self
: worth.
: Plain and simple, I hate to borrow a line from the PC but isn't that
: common sense?
Sorry, but its just non sense. Its based on the faulty premise that a tax
cut for the rich will help provide employement. Business does not want a
decline in the unemployment rate. When figures are released which show a
a decline in the rate, the stock market falls.
When the affluent receive a tax cut, they can easily spend it on a
vacation in Aruba, or invest it in Indonesian gold mines. When the less
affluent have extra money, they are much more likely to spend it at
home.
The argument that giving money to the rich to help the poor is just as it
sounds. A sick joke. Total sophistry by the greedy rich who want even
more.
Regards,
Wil Parker
--
Ian Maione
In article <DzwHK...@blaze.trentu.ca>, <rk...@ivory.trentu.ca> wrote:
>In article <1996Oct25.0...@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu>, mai...@cs.toronto.edu (Ian Maione) writes:
>> This has nothing to do with the Harris government. If this is really
>>a problem (and that is a completely separate debate), then this is an
>>issue concerning how our electoral system works.
>
>It is, and it isn't! He is this "reformed" politician, isn't he? He is the
>champion of "fairness" and "democracy' [major sarcasm here], isn't he? Given
>such "values," shouldn't he be the one to change the system....at least in
>Ontario?
Come on, be reasonable. Why should he do anything like this? Harris
certainly never campaigned on changing the electoral system in any way,
nor did he ever say that he would do anything of the kind. Why are you
blaming him for your perceived problem with it? (By the way, you haven't
explained either exactly why the current situation *is* a problem).
>> There is, however, a huge difference between expressing opposition to
>>the current government policies via peaceful protest, marches, or media
>>exposure, and doing so through calculated attempts to disrupt said
>>government, businesses, or public services. It is extremely important
>
>Actually, while I opposed the general strike, something was said yesterday that
>was really important- the point of shutting down many of those government
>services was to try and show people what it would be like if the people didn't
>have them. I hadn't considered that view before...but it lends an interesting
>perspective to the debate.
Well, I just considered it myself. For about 10 seconds, and then
rejected it. I consider this a fairly weak excuse. The people organizing
the protest had neither the right nor the mandate to do such a thing.
If I decided tomorrow that I think the people of Toronto need to be shown
how things would be like if I say, blocked off all the major highways in
the city with parked cars (yes, a strange hypothetical example), are you
going to tell me I should be allowed to do it? Of course not.
>>It's amazing how quickly union supporters forget this just because the
>>rally reflects *their* views. How would CUPE and the like have reacted if
>>businesses had decided to lock out their employees for a day to protest
>>against Bob Rae? Such an action would have been just as unwarranted.
>>
>Yeah well, as Sid Ryan pointed out yesterday, the mandate to create public
>insurance in Ontario was clear (in accordance with the Harris mandate)- and it
>was those interfering businesses that hampered democracy. Right wingers didn't
>say anything about that infringement on this "democracy," but now rags like the
>Toronto Scum squeal like stuffed pigs because the unions disrupt services to
>illustrate their dissatisfaction? Gee...one thwarted democracy, the other
>interrupted it- which is worse?
I am somewhat unclear as to what your point is here. How did businesses
interfere with democracy in the case of auto insurance? Could you clarify?
>
>> I don't have a problem with individuals who wish to participate in
>>the Days of Action, assuming they abide by the law, and reasonable
>>behaviour. But the disgraceful attitude of people like Gord Wilson
>>and Sid Ryan is reprehensible. Their suggestions that public services
>>should be disrupted are completely inappropriate, and the most galling
>>thing is that they have the gall to complain when city officials attempt
>>to get injunctions to prevent such behaviour. You see, the law is
>>irrelevant to them when it doesn't reflect *their* beliefs. In other
>
>Yeah well....democracy is irrevelant when it conflicts with big business
>beliefs- that in my opinion is just as bad.
When have big businesses taken an action analgous to the Days of
Protest? (i.e a direct action intended to exert political pressure -
note that there are many indirect types of actions which *do* occur, and
which both labour and big business employ).
>
>>them if they simply espoused pure anarchic views, and said "we're going
>>to disobey the law no matter what". Then at least they'd be consistent.
>>But instead, they are quick to invoke the protections of free speech,
>>yet just as quick to deny that the law applies to them when it doesn't
>>agree with their stance. This is one of my pet peeves with the labour
>>movement - labour leaders seem extremely quick to invoke the protection
>>of labour laws, yet so quick to ignore the rules when it suits them.
>>Even if Sid Ryan and Gord Wilson really are right, and the Harris government
>>are making bad policy, their attitudes leave much to be desired.
>>
>With the exception of some skirmishes, everything was fine.
>
Really? You're forgetting that picketers ignored a labour board ruling
to refrain from picketing the TTC before 6:30am, and ignored a similar
court injunction not to interfere with TTC workers going to their jobs.
I'm not talking about violence on the picket lines themselves. Thankfully,
to everyone's credit, that was fairly minimal.
>> Furthermore, I have a problem with the idea that the labour movement
>>should be so directly involved in such a protest. I mean this in the
>>sense that, labour leaders seem to think that people should be entitled
>>to just strike for a day because they feel like it. I don't feel that this
>>is the proper role for unions in our society. If people involved on the
>>labour movement wish to organize a political protest and people want to
>>participate in it *on their own time*, then that's one thing. But the
>>supposed purpose of unions are to represent employees in collective
>>bargaining negotiations with employers. Many such contracts involve
>>no-strike, no-lockout clauses, that the unionists seem to feel free to
>>break whenever they feel like it. Again, I feel this is wrong.
>>
>Yeah well....big business contributed big money to the PC election campaign- I
>feel that they should stay out of the business of public votes.
You're missing my point here. Yes, business groups contributed money to
the Tories. So what? That's a completely accepted practice in our system.
The labour movement has traditionally donated money to the NDP. So what?
That's completely different from preventing legitimate access to public
services. If you want to argue that everyone should "stay out of the
business of public votes", fine, but that would apply to labour as much
as big business, and is irrelevant to the issue at hand anyway.
What I'm complaining about is the propensity for those in labour to
wield power that they have in the workforce through collective bargaining
for political purposes. Yes, the issues at hand are emotional ones, so
it is tempting to wield such power if you have it. But it is still
inapproriate, and sets a dangerous precedent. What happens if union
leaders start deciding to shut down public services every time there is
an issue that they want decided in their favour? Already some union
leaders are talking about wanting to cause disruptions again to support
parking attendants in Toronto because management is not bargaining to
*their* satisfaction. (This may be just blowing hot air, but it's still
rather disturbing).
Regards,
Ian
andrew ross
> Sorry, but its just non sense. Its based on the faulty premise that a tax
> cut for the rich will help provide employement.
Well then I put it to you: how are jobs created? The job fairy? Seriously,
think of it in the reverse case: do you think a tax increase would create
or destroy jobs?
> Business does not want a decline in the unemployment rate.
Yes, I heard them say that to you the other day. ;)
> When the figures are released which show a decline in the rate, the
stock market falls.
Well that has a lot to do with interest rates. As interest rates rise,
investment falls as it becomes more expensive to borrow money for new
ventures. Since unemployment and interest rates are closely related, a
change in unemployment leads to a change in the stock market. (which
cycles and has an effect on unemployment)
of course there is more to it than that, but you get the idea I hope.
What you are saying then is: don't bother with trying to create jobs?
> When the affluent receive a tax cut, they can easily spend it on a
> vacation in Aruba, or invest it in Indonesian gold mines.
Or just as easily in small domestic business, don't you think thats a bit
of an uninformed statement you just made?
> When the less affluent have extra money, they are much more likely to
spend it at home.
Yes, on consumption. Which when it is consumed, it is gone for good and
creates fewer jobs than investment.
> The argument that giving money to the rich to help the poor is just as it
> sounds. A sick joke. Total sophistry by the greedy rich who want even
> more.
I really think you are missing the concepts behind the whole tax-cut
issue. If you had an open and objectionable mind, you may see them.
What you seem to be saying(as is the case of all the critics I have talked
to so far) is that: the rich and the politicians are teaming up to pick on
the poor because they are mean and greedy.
To say that is analogous to saying all poor are lazy and uneducated: Both
statements are ignorant generalizations.
You also missed the main point I made in my first post: (with the tax-cut
issue aside) We have no choice but to cut back on spending.
Andrew
Ian Maione
In article <32737C...@netcom.ca>, Ade <ga...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>Tracey Skipp wrote:
>> > Frances> ga...@netcom.ca
>>
>> The *lack of response* as you call it,by the Tories is no more and no less
>> than their refusal to back down to the demands of your day of protest. WE
>> voted the Tories in for a reason, and the majority of us are backing up
>> majority. Since 75% of the people don't agree with this day of protest, I
>> think it is you who are displaying the narrow mindedness.
>
>
>That's like saying that as long as your kid brings home and A on his
>report card you don't care how he got it. If he/she lied or cheated or
>bribed to get that A its still acceptable. Since I don't believe you
>feel that the end justifies the means, where do you draw the line?
>
This is a very weak analogy. Mike Harris has certainly not done anything
illegal or anything like it. Actually, you can argue that he's at least
kept his election promises to a much greater degree than any other politician
in a long time, whether you agree with those policies or not.
Regards,
Ian
Jason Kodish
In article <5544fm$n...@news.nstn.ca> park...@fox.nstn.ca writes:
>
>porn star as Social Services Minister, and a golf pro as Premier
>obviously deserves our unflagging support! After all, 38 percent of
>the population voted for them!
>
What a horrendous thought.
Jason Kodish
In article <5542om$n...@news.nstn.ca> park...@fox.nstn.ca writes:
>
>I remember hearing "No cuts to Heath Care", well we've all seen the
>truth there. People are waiting longer, being released from hospital
>earlier, Infant mortality and complications of childbirth are up, and
In Alberta, a number of innocent adults and children have died because of
preventable illnesses, including one Yasimine Fiad who died in agony
with five hours of waiting with a burst appendix. Little Dalton who died
in his mother's arms while being transfered by taxicab instead of an ambulance
like he should have been
>
>Dave
>
>*******************************************************************************>* > **********************************************>******************>**************
>Dave Parkhill
>park...@fox.nstn.ca
>
Very, very good post Dave.
JC Shin
wpa...@torfree.net (Wil Parker) wrote:
>Sorry, but its just non sense. Its based on the faulty premise that a tax
>cut for the rich will help provide employement. Business does not want a
>decline in the unemployment rate. When figures are released which show a
>a decline in the rate, the stock market falls.
>When the affluent receive a tax cut, they can easily spend it on a
>vacation in Aruba, or invest it in Indonesian gold mines. When the less
>affluent have extra money, they are much more likely to spend it at
>home.
>The argument that giving money to the rich to help the poor is just as it
>sounds. A sick joke. Total sophistry by the greedy rich who want even
>more.
>Regards,
>Wil Parker
>--
I am not rich, but my tax cut will be used as follows:
1/3 saved
1/3 spent locally
1/3 given to charity
I would rather direct the use of my money than have it wasted in
government inefficiencies or used for causes/groups that I do not wish
to support.
Jeff Shin
Eric Mills
Tim G.,k...@interlog.com,Internet:
> more like 50,000. Even the Star thinks so.
That is, especially the Star thinks so.
The Star that opposed the shutdown daily on its front page.
So, at least three times that is a safe estimate.
Wil Parker
JC Shin (js...@interlog.com) wrote:
: wpa...@torfree.net (Wil Parker) wrote:
: >Regards,
: >Wil Parker
: >--
If you are not rich, then what you getting isn't going to amount to more
then a drop in the bucket anyway. Too bad that you don't want to pay
taxes (who does?) but enjoying the benefits of the best country in the
world to live in, means that those of us fortunate enough to have
benefited most from it, have to pay our share.
Regards,
Wil Parker
30Oct96 12:37est
--
Jason Kodish
In article <1996Oct29.1...@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu> mai...@cs.toronto.edu writes:
>
>kept his election promises to a much greater degree than any other politician
>in a long time, whether you agree with those policies or not.
Care to tell us which promises he actually kept?
>
>Regards,
>Ian
Derek Nalecki
In article <E03nuG.90...@torfree.net>, wpa...@torfree.net (Wil Parker) says:
[snip]
>
>: I am not rich, but my tax cut will be used as follows:
>: 1/3 saved
>: 1/3 spent locally
>: 1/3 given to charity
>: I would rather direct the use of my money than have it wasted in
>: government inefficiencies or used for causes/groups that I do not wish
>: to support.
>
>If you are not rich, then what you getting isn't going to amount to more
>then a drop in the bucket anyway. Too bad that you don't want to pay
>taxes (who does?) but enjoying the benefits of the best country in the
>world to live in, means that those of us fortunate enough to have
>benefited most from it, have to pay our share.
>
Just as long as it isn't _you_ who defines 'our share'. Define your
share if you will, I consider my share to be whatever the payment is for
the goods and services I _do_ receive. _Then_ we'll have no quarell.
derek n, RdNck, Pen-Arm of the Righteous, esq.
"Never initiate force against another. _That_ should be the underlying
principle of your life. But should someone do violence to you, retaliate
without hesitation, without reservation, without quarter, until you are
sure that he will never wish to harm - or never be capable of harming
- you or yours again."
(F. Paul Wilson - 'THE SECOND BOOK OF KYFHO; Revised Eastern Sect Edition')
********************* MY OTHER COMPUTER IS A LAP-TOP *******************
JC Shin
wpa...@torfree.net (Wil Parker) wrote:
>If you are not rich, then what you getting isn't going to amount to more
>then a drop in the bucket anyway. Too bad that you don't want to pay
>taxes (who does?) but enjoying the benefits of the best country in the
>world to live in, means that those of us fortunate enough to have
>benefited most from it, have to pay our share.
>Regards,
>Wil Parker
>30Oct96 12:37est
>--
Wil,
I have been offered several jobs in the US at higer pay, lower taxes
and lower cost of living. Yet I remain in Toronto. Why? Because I
believe in this country and have no problem paying my share; however,
I get upset with waste and misuse.
Jeff Shin
Peter Sheriff
Tim G. (k...@interlog.com) wrote:
: Back on 28 Oct 1996 13:47:43 -0500, the esteemed writer
: > an impressive, profound
: > day. 300,000 people. Yes!
: >
: more like 50,000. Even the Star thinks so.
The figures being bandied about are fro as low as 20,000 by the
photographer who took the aerial photograph to a high of 75,000 by the
police. I am not counting the organizers estimates of 300,000 because
they would be somewhat biassed:-)
Whether it was 20,000 or 75,000 it was a pretty poor showing
for a city of over 4,000,000 people. If this is an indication of the
opposition to Mike Harris, the support must be well over 50% in the
province.
Go Mike!!!!
Pete
Don Clarke
In article <E01Mwy.DI...@torfree.net>,
>: Quite simply I think a general tax cut will benefit all. With less
snip
>When the affluent receive a tax cut, they can easily spend it on a
>vacation in Aruba, or invest it in Indonesian gold mines.
snip
>The argument that giving money to the rich to help the poor is just
>as it sounds. A sick joke. Total sophistry by the greedy rich who
>want even more.
>Wil Parker
Actually, I'm going to be using my tax cut to help pay for my car
insurance. Back in 1985 I was paying $398 for a full year. Now my rate
is $1,800 a year. Thanks to the Liberal and NDP changes I pay lots
more money and get much less protection.
By the way, will you be putting a check mark in the little box saying
"I don't want my tax cut"? I understand Ernie Eves will be taking out
a small ad to list the names of all those generous people who tick the
box.
Wil Parker
Alan Ross wrote:
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
: Wil Parker wrote:
: > Sorry, but its just non sense. Its based on the faulty premise that a
: > tax cut for the rich will help provide employment.
: Well then I put it to you: how are jobs created? The job fairy? Seriously,
: think of it in the reverse case: do you think a tax increase would create
: or destroy jobs?
Mr. Ross: Thank you for your post. Obviously I am not an economist, but
then there probably aren't many of them who would bother joining this
newsgroup. And they are alwasy disagreeing with each other anyway.
Jobs and investment in Ontario are not created by shovelling money at the
affluent and hope that they decide to invest it here rather then buying
shares on the Japanese stock market or a newer Mercedes-Benz. Week after
week, the TSE and the Dow set new highs. Unemployment is still almost 10%.
To create jobs, put purchasing power in the hands of those most likely to
spend it here. The single father trying to feed his children. The 59
year old who was just laid off because the company she worked most of her
life for moved to Mexico where it could pay its employees $4 a day. Young
people trying to buy their first home.
To boost investment, work on building a country that is attractive to
investors, not because its workers can be paid $4 a day, but because it has
a society and an infrastructure which facilitates economic activity. Where
there is a high level of education because all can afford to attend post-
secondary school without acquiring a massive debt load. Where there is a
good public transit system so trucks can drive on roads that are not choked
by commuters. Where there is an excellent system of medical care, so that
companies don't have to buy expensive medical insurance to attact good
staff.
So instead of giving a tax cut to the rich let them pay their due for living
in the best country in the world, and invest that money here with good
education, transit, health care, etc. That's what will attract
investment.
: > Business does not want a decline in the unemployment rate.
: Yes, I heard them say that to you the other day. ;)
And here following is where you say it:
: > When the figures are released which show a decline in the rate, the
: stock market falls.
: Well that has a lot to do with interest rates. As interest rates rise,
: investment falls as it becomes more expensive to borrow money for new
: ventures. Since unemployment and interest rates are closely related, a
: change in unemployment leads to a change in the stock market. (which
: cycles and has an effect on unemployment)
: of course there is more to it than that, but you get the idea I hope.
The way it sounds to me what you are saying is that under the "free market"
system we are stuck at this high level of unemployment. If unemployment
falls slightly, then the stock market, fearing higher interest rates, falls
causing unemployment to rise to where it was before. So business really
does not want a decline in the unemployment rate.
: What you are saying then is: don't bother with trying to create jobs?
: > When the affluent receive a tax cut, they can easily spend it on a
: > vacation in Aruba, or invest it in Indonesian gold mines.
: Or just as easily in small domestic business, don't you think thats a bit
: of an uninformed statement you just made?
: > When the less affluent have extra money, they are much more likely to
: > spend it at home.
: Yes, on consumption. Which when it is consumed, it is gone for good and
: creates fewer jobs than investment.
: > The argument that giving money to the rich to help the poor is just as
: > it sounds. A sick joke. Total sophistry by the greedy rich who want
: > even more.
: I really think you are missing the concepts behind the whole tax-cut
: issue. If you had an open and objectionable mind, you may see them.
I'm sure people with an objectionable mind see the concepts behind the whole
tax-cut for the rich issue with great clarity. (Sorry couldn't resist)
: What you seem to be saying(as is the case of all the critics I have talked
: to so far) is that: the rich and the politicians are teaming up to pick on
: the poor because they are mean and greedy.
: To say that is analogous to saying all poor are lazy and uneducated: Both
: statements are ignorant generalizations.
Here I think I have to agree with you. I apologize for calling the rich
greedy. Just about everyone looks out for their own economic interest.
They are just more powerful and better at it then most of us. But its still
sophistry.
: You also missed the main point I made in my first post: (with the tax-cut
: issue aside) We have no choice but to cut back on spending.
That old New Zealand myth again, eh. Several decades ago, corporations in
Canada payed 20% of government expenses. Since they have been paying only
8%, our deficit has grown enormously. Its the cheap ride that we are now
giving to the corporations that has to end. Then we can cut back the
deficit.
So Heartless Harris has struck out again. Another promise not kept. He
promised to provide more than 700,000 new jobs, and unemployment has
increased since he took office. The few jobs that have been created here by
the strong US economy have not even been able to keep up with population
growth.
Regards,
Wil Parker
31Oct96
--
andrew ross
> Jobs and investment in Ontario are not created by shovelling money at the
> affluent and hope that they decide to invest it here rather then buying
> shares on the Japanese stock market or a newer Mercedes-Benz. Week after
> week, the TSE and the Dow set new highs. Unemployment is still almost 10%.
So you are implying that consumption spending is better than investment?
A rational person will do what they feel is best for their money. The vast
majority of Ontario's Citizens don't play the markets, thus your argument
is based on paranoia and sterotype.
Unemployment in Canada these days is largely due to the slow turnover from
historical natural resource and manufacturing industries.
Its 1996, not 1896, to expect to make a living doing what a machine can do
better is not a very good idea. ie. fisheries, logging, steel production,
etc.
> To create jobs, put purchasing power in the hands of those most likely to
> spend it here. The single father trying to feed his children. The 59
> year old who was just laid off because the company she worked most of her
> life for moved to Mexico where it could pay its employees $4 a day. Young
> people trying to buy their first home.
Hmm well like I said, then there is no increase in the # of jobs. They
only buy what they have bought before and then it is consumed and gone.
> To boost investment, work on building a country that is attractive to
> investors, not because its workers can be paid $4 a day,
Well if you'd like to discuss that issue, please email me as I can show
you a few things about it you undoubtedly never considered.
> a society and an infrastructure which facilitates economic activity. Where
> there is a high level of education because all can afford to attend post-
> secondary school without acquiring a massive debt load. Where there is a
> good public transit system so trucks can drive on roads that are not choked
> by commuters. Where there is an excellent system of medical care, so that
> companies don't have to buy expensive medical insurance to attact good
> staff.
Agreed, but is there such a place? Reality sets in...
In order to make it there we must put people to work.
> So instead of giving a tax cut to the rich let them pay their due for living
> in the best country in the world, and invest that money here with good
> education, transit, health care, etc. That's what will attract
> investment.
I think you also are forgetting it is the wealthy that subsidize the poor
in a progressive tax system. Thus "the due" is paid, being payed and will
be paid.
> The way it sounds to me what you are saying is that under the "free market"
> system we are stuck at this high level of unemployment.
Yes, without the move from the industries that are dead we will be stuck.
> If unemployment
> falls slightly, then the stock market, fearing higher interest rates, falls
> causing unemployment to rise to where it was before. So business really
> does not want a decline in the unemployment rate.
Not necessarily, it is a very complex system. A increase in the interest
rate will simply deter creation of new jobs. The effect on jobs in the
market is not as profound.
What business wants is to do the best they possibly can. I don't think
that that they give thought to what they prefer in UE.
> Here I think I have to agree with you. I apologize for calling the rich
> greedy. Just about everyone looks out for their own economic interest.
> They are just more powerful and better at it then most of us. But its still
> sophistry.
So should they be penalized for doing what they do better than someone else?
Taking that idea to extremes: Society would colapse with specialists and
experienced people not doing what they do best. You have agreed with me.
Those who have done well financially are the most qualified to spend money
"wisely".
> That old New Zealand myth again, eh. Several decades ago, corporations in
> Canada payed 20% of government expenses. Since they have been paying only
> 8%, our deficit has grown enormously. Its the cheap ride that we are now
> giving to the corporations that has to end. Then we can cut back the
> deficit.
Gee, ya that would do wonders for jobs in this country. They would leave
our country and setup elsewhere... where would we be then.
Besides corporate tax rates tend to hover around 50% as opposed to the
highest personal income taxes that run around 30% (not including surtaxes,
etc.)
> So Heartless Harris has struck out again.
I don't know him but I am willing to say he is no more heartless than you
are brainless... food for thought.
> Another promise not kept. He
> promised to provide more than 700,000 new jobs, and unemployment has
> increased since he took office. The few jobs that have been created here by
> the strong US economy have not even been able to keep up with population
> growth.
Well they are doing alot better than the NDP...
It is possible that in these economic times that we'll have to wait for
things to "warm up a bit". Time will tell if the PC can do it, if they
can't then they can be voted out in the next election.
until then I'd rather not listen to clueless idiots whine and hold the
population hostage to their point of view.
Andrew
Wil Parker
: Wil,
: I have been offered several jobs in the US at higer pay, lower taxes
: and lower cost of living. Yet I remain in Toronto. Why? Because I
: believe in this country and have no problem paying my share; however,
: I get upset with waste and misuse.
: Jeff Shin
Jeff,
I'm sure the country benefits that someone with your obvious talents
chooses to remain here. We may disagree about what is waste and misuse,
but the thing I appreciate most about this country is that we can respect
those with whom we disagree.
Regards,
Wil Parker
--
Danny Heap
In article <55au40$l...@jade.software.mitel.com> sher...@software.mitel.com (Peter Sheriff) writes:
: > an impressive, profound
: > day. 300,000 people. Yes!
: >
: more like 50,000. Even the Star thinks so.
The figures being bandied about are fro as low as 20,000 by the
photographer who took the aerial photograph to a high of 75,000 by the
police. I am not counting the organizers estimates of 300,000 because
they would be somewhat biassed:-)
The aerial photo I saw (on-line version of the Sunday Star) was
clearly taken after most of the demonstrators had left. The reason I
say this is the photo showed a crowd on the lawn of Queen's Park
without any incoming demonstrators on University Avenue, the
demonstration's route.
Given that many participants say that people went home when they
realized they couldn't hear the rally from way down University Avenue,
I believe that the higher counts are justified. Other evidence is that
1,000 buses (at 40-50 occupants each) came from outside Toronto for
the demonstration. And participants say that University Avenue was
filled 40 abreast from Front Street to to Queen's Park (and that was
only *part* of the demonstration).
So various observers (with various biases) report a crowd ranging from
20,000 to 300,000. For the reasons stated above, I believe that well
over 100,000 is probably the case It was certainly the biggest
political demonstration I've seen in Canada in three decades, and a
credit to the organizers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Heap, UCSF, 3333 California St., Room 102, SF CA, 94122
da...@maxwell.ucsf.edu, voice: (415) 476-8910, fax: (415) 476-1508
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Jayne Kulikauskas
(followup newsgroups trimmed)
11td...@mach1.wlu.ca (Tom Durnin r) writes:
[]
> non-union organization. All this to say that I was a fence sitter in
> terms of my position on the strike and its organizers and participants
> until I watched the day unfold on TV. That is when, I feel, the Day of
> Protest lost all its potential to send messages that may or may not have
> been constructive.
[]
> Then the woman viciously assaults him, and another protester punches him
> in the face --- RIGHT IN FRONT OF A TV CAMERA. Figure it out - violence
> rarely ever wins support for anyone in our society. (BTW - I hope the
> police subpoena that guy).
[]
I am focussing on these statements in Tom's much longer post because
they illustrate something that has been bothering me. I am disturbed
by the way the media handled the Days of Action.
Perhaps, Tom, your attitude changed after watching TV, because of the
way the TV portrayed the protesters. Someone chose to film the
negative encounters and violence. Someone decided that this was the
newsworthy part of the day.
Let me tell you about what I saw when I was there, in person, at
Saturday's protest. A small group of Harris supporters, comprised
primarily of young men, was marching around the outskirts of the
Nathan Philips Square gathering. (The crowd was too densely pack for
them to go anywhere else.) My impression, as these twenty or so people
marched around chanting "We like Mike," was that they were looking for
a fight. They did not, however, find one during the time they remained
within my view. People laughed at them. Of course, a fight _not_
breaking out is a non-story. This is not reported. It is not
interesting, it is not news, that the majority of the people were
peaceful and happy. The TV must show drama and conflict.
Let me tell you about a small incident that I felt captured the spirit
of the day. By the time we marched from NPS to Queen's Park, it was
around lunch time and many people were eating as they walked. As our
route took as past a garbage can, I saw people temporarily leaving the
line to throw out their wrappings and cartons. It was such a
middle-class, law-abiding gesture in the midst of supposed social
unrest that it stuck in my mind. Yet, I would be very surprised if
you saw anything like that on the TV.
Most people I talk to who were actually there on Saturday agree with
my impression of the light, festive atmosphere. Many of the people
there belonged to community and religious groups and had no
connections to "Big Bad Labour." The way the Days of Action have been
portrayed denies our experience. It tries to rob our actions of their
value.
Recognize that everyone (including me, of course) comes to a situation
with biases. Your TV is not a source of The Truth. It is one source
of information that needs to be balanced by others in order to get any
sort of realistic idea of what happened.
Jayne
Malcolm O'Brien
"Tracey Skipp" <sk...@golden.net> wrote:
>I wouldn't call that a majority.
Well, I wouldn't call the 21% of eligible voters who voted the Tories in a
majority either. Clearly, your mileage varies.
>Some of these were hourly employees who do not support you and
>who may miss a days wages because of your protest.
Are you not concerned about hundreds of nurses who may miss a _career's_
wages because of this govt.?
>Have you read the post from Chris Meyer (10/25 11:13pm) outlining an
>article in the Globe & Mail. It raises the issues that most of us who voted
>for Mike believe in.
Have you read the "rent a state" article on page D4 of the Oct. 19 Globe? It
would scarcely have been possible to publish such an item 25 years ago.
>We didn't vote for him to take away jobs or food for
>the needy, but if we continue with these deficits, that's what will happen
>to more and more people in the forseeable future. And it will hurt MUCH
>more than the cuts of today.
Open your eyes! That's _exactly_ what will happen even without deficits.
Mike's response to "we're spending our children's inheritance" is to kick
them out of the will NOW.
The Harris agenda is, above all, not responsible to the citizens, not even
fiscally. When he's done, the debt will be far higher. If he were really
serious about the province's finances, he wouldn't give tax cuts until the
"fix" was done. As it is, he's _borrowing_ the tax cut money. And almost
certainly, not borrowing it in Canada. And since most of it will go to those
already well fixed, it will not appreciably boost consumer spending. Even if
it did, that would make more jobs in China than it would in Ontario.
Malcolm
The forgotten wisdom is this: The economy was made for man, not man for the economy.
Malcolm O'Brien
ab...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Neil Fowler) wrote:
> The poor are actualy hurt more by the tax cut then they are
>paying the taxes before the cut. For those peopl emaking less than
>$25,000 the amount of money the save in taxes is more than taken away as
>they pay more user fees.
What's more, the money for the tax cut is being borrowed. And it will be
paid back mostly by those making $25K or less. The people that receive the
biggest amounts are those who already are operating shelters, have money
offshore, generally _don't pay taxes_.
> Just becuase one works does not mena that they have a "phenomenal
>increase in mental and emotional well being". There are far more things
>that impact ones mental and emotional well being than working. for
>example, if someone works at a job they do not like, is very boring for
>them or is redundent, and is low paying, they will end up with a worse
>mental and emotional state.
Well, it's partially the work. What's MORE certain is that someone without
work (or even more pertinently, without the income to meet the costs of
living) has a phenomenal _decrease_ in mental and emotional well-being. And
that also affects their employability. But it appears that the only people
that care about that are the ones experiencing it. :/
Malcolm O'Brien
wpa...@torfree.net (Wil Parker) wrote:
>The argument that giving money to the rich to help the poor is just as it
>sounds. A sick joke.
Absolutely right. Thanks for making the point so clearly and succinctly,
Wil.
Malcolm O'Brien
ar...@chat.carleton.ca (andrew ross) wrote:
>I am just wondering what the "critics" think the government should do?
1) Use the Bank of Canada properly
2) Dump Free Trade
3) Fix the Income Tax Act
>I don't think they fully understand.
Of course they do.
>It goes without saying that you can't
>last long spending more than you take in.
That's certainly true of entities that _can't_ create money. But govts. can.
>Following this simple thought: We are very very in debt. Plain and simple.
>We are not paying off the debt, it grows every year as we spend more than
>we take in. Eventually (and it doesn't take long) just the interest on
>carrying the debt consumes all the revenues taken in by the government.
>What do we do then?
If current activities are any indication, throw up our hands in defeat and
surrender even before we get to such a stage.
>I don't think anyone in government wants to hurt anyone. To suggest
>otherwise is ignorant.
Of course they don't; it's simply a byproduct that seems to be beneath their
awareness.
>if
>we don't fix things now, we will go bankrupt. Yes, a country can go
>bankrupt.
Until very recently (just a few years), it's been considered that countries
_can't_ go bankrupt. It's now considered that they can BECAUSE THERE'S MONEY
IN IT FOR SOMEONE.
>Then we will all suffer, and especially the poor, the infirm,
>and the aged. And as much as we'd like to help them then, we won't have
>the capacity. Thats why we'd better do it now.
Well, you'll only be able to help them then IF YOU HAVE THE MONEY IN YOUR
POCKET YOURSELF. And you won't!
>I did not vote for the PC during the last election. I myself being a
>university student have seen my tuition rise EVERY year. (and 2 years of
>it were before the PC took power!)
>I grew up and was taught that
>you can't get anything without hard work.
That's true. However, it is now also true that even _with_ hard work you may
wind up with nothing.
>I remind you that if we lived elsewhere in the world we could be:
>starving, dying of a preventable disease, doging gunshots, etc.
That's the future that is being dialed up for Canada RIGHT NOW!
>We live in a damn good country, and I am proud to be a Canadian.
Me too; which is why we should never consent to having it taken away from
us.
>I challenge you to a better option, I would like very much to hear about
>it. Email me some rational argument or idea and I'll discuss it with you.
>Who knows, you might have a better solution...
Watch your email.
Malcolm O'Brien
ar...@chat.carleton.ca (andrew ross) wrote:
>Quite simply I think a general tax cut will benefit all. With less tax to
>pay some of the cuts can be offset by the poor.
Not really. As someone who had zero income for the first half of 1996, I can
tell you that if the tax rates had been cut 100% during that time, I still
wouldn't've had one red cent. :/ Think about it (as a general principle,
not as my case). Wouldn't we think that it's the people who are _entirely_
without income who really need the relief? Instead, a bank president making
$2M will get an extra $85K. And I guarantee you he's not going to use it to
drive consumer spending.
Think about this (as a general principle): Dropping PST/GST would give
EVERYONE a 12% break in their cost of living.
>Now the greatest effect will come from the tax cuts from the middle
>and upper classes. With the economy stimulated by an increased spending by
>those that have money to spend, it stands to reason that there would be
>more jobs created. More jobs = less unemployed = less people poor and
>suffering.
Fantasy. Would've been more true years ago but not in today's world.
Increased consumer spending will make more jobs in China than it will in
Canada. Here's an idea I had recently that would make OODLES of jobs in
Canada. Ban products from China. If that were done, things would be HUMMING
in Canada to replace the missing products.
>With an increase in people working and paying taxes revenues instead of
>sucking them from the government in the forms of UI and welfare: there is
>a two-fold effect:
>1) the poor that need help are fewer
>2) through an increase in taxes collected, the government has more money
>to implement futher tax reductions and an increase in the social programs
>that had been cut.
Sure. But you neglecting to consider that a 10% rate of unemployment is
deemed acceptable, even _desirable_. And that is *policy*. Course, it's the
BCNI's policy but they pretty much dictate policy to Ottawa these days.
>I would also like to point out that a scenario such as I have mentioned
>includes a phenomenal increase in mental and emotional well being for
>those who gained employment and an increase in self confidence and self
>worth.
Absolutely! But it's not going to happen. In fact, it's not even considered.
What's wrong with this picture?
Wil Parker
andrew ross (ar...@chat.carleton.ca) wrote:
: > Sorry, but its just non sense. Its based on the faulty premise that a tax
: Well then I put it to you: how are jobs created? The job fairy? Seriously,
: think of it in the reverse case: do you think a tax increase would create
: or destroy jobs?
[snip]
Mr. Ross:
Since I consider the title of this thread to be misleading, I've responded
to this post under a thread titled, "Heartless Harris strikes out again."
Regards,
Wil Parker
--
Ian V. Quickmire
wpa...@torfree.net (Wil Parker) wrote:
>If you are not rich, then what you getting isn't going to amount to more
>then a drop in the bucket anyway. Too bad that you don't want to pay
>taxes (who does?) but enjoying the benefits of the best country in the
>world to live in, means that those of us fortunate enough to have
>benefited most from it, have to pay our share.
>
Bullshit. First off, a person or family who make $50k will get back about
$4k by the time the full tax cut is implemented.
$50k is not rich, it's middle class, low end.
Who the hell believes this is the best country in the world? Just 'cuz the
UN states that it is means it is?
My tax dollars haven't made this a better country, it's made it a welfare
state. Canada can't afford to be a socialistic country for much longer,
it's bankrupting us.
Taxes continue to go up, when do you think it should stop, when we all live
in poverty, a good old communist state where each and every one of us is
finally an equal in poverty?
Communism is dead, socialism is next ...
--------------------------------------------------------------
All typos Copyright 1960-1996 Ian V. Quickmire
ia...@sonetis.com WWW: http://www.sonetis.com/~ianq/
--------------------------------------------------------------
Don Wagner
In article <55dt4o$l...@dub-news-svc-6.compuserve.com>,
can
>tell you that if the tax rates had been cut 100% during that time, I still
>wouldn't've had one red cent. :/ Think about it (as a general principle,
>not as my case). Wouldn't we think that it's the people who are _entirely_
>without income who really need the relief? Instead, a bank president making
>$2M will get an extra $85K. And I guarantee you he's not going to use it to
>drive consumer spending.
So you're saying the bank president doesn't spend money? At the same time,
tell us how many bank presidents we have in Canada.
>
>>Now the greatest effect will come from the tax cuts from the middle
>>and upper classes. With the economy stimulated by an increased spending by
>>those that have money to spend, it stands to reason that there would be
>>more jobs created. More jobs = less unemployed = less people poor and
>>suffering.
>
>Fantasy. Would've been more true years ago but not in today's world.
>Increased consumer spending will make more jobs in China than it will in
>Canada. Here's an idea I had recently that would make OODLES of jobs in
>Canada. Ban products from China. If that were done, things would be HUMMING
>in Canada to replace the missing products.
No problem if you can afford 200.00 blue jeans and 5000.00 computers.
>Sure. But you neglecting to consider that a 10% rate of unemployment is
>deemed acceptable, even _desirable_. And that is *policy*. Course, it's the
>BCNI's policy but they pretty much dictate policy to Ottawa these days.
Seems that when wages get too high, job producing factories move in order
to stay competetive. You sound surprised. The U.S. has an unemployment rate
1/2 ours. Did you ever wonder why? Could it be that with ess taxes, the
U.S. consumer can afford more?
>>I would also like to point out that a scenario such as I have mentioned
>>includes a phenomenal increase in mental and emotional well being for
>>those who gained employment and an increase in self confidence and self
>>worth.
>
>Absolutely! But it's not going to happen. In fact, it's not even
considered.
>What's wrong with this picture?
We can't afford it.
Don Wagner
JC Shin
>I'm sure the country benefits that someone with your obvious talents
>chooses to remain here. We may disagree about what is waste and misuse,
>but the thing I appreciate most about this country is that we can respect
>those with whom we disagree.
>Regards,
>Wil Parker
Wil,
I voted for Harris and support the deficit cutting and the tax cut.
However I am troubled by the lack of dialogue between the government
and healthcare workers, labour, etc. I agree with you that one of the
good things about this country is respect for others and I am
concerned by the increased polarization.
Jeff Shin
Ian V. Quickmire
76703...@compuserve.com (Malcolm O'Brien) wrote:
>wpa...@torfree.net (Wil Parker) wrote:
>
>>The argument that giving money to the rich to help the poor is just as it
>>sounds. A sick joke.
>
>Absolutely right. Thanks for making the point so clearly and succinctly,
>Wil.
>
>
>Malcolm
>The forgotten wisdom is this: The economy was made for man, not man for the economy.
>
The poor have, and will always be poor. We can't change what has always
been. When we exited the womb, there was no promise of greatness, wealth,
or otherwise. Some of us were lucky, most were not. So it goes ...
Human kind has always taken more than it needs, and will continue to do so.
Can't change that either, it's our nature. So it goes ...
If it comes down to my family or my neigbour, my neighbour goes. Has alwyas
been that way too. So it goes ...
Study history, go way back, it has always been as it is now, maybe a little
less brutal now than before, but even that will change, history ALWAYS
repeats itself ...
jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Ian V. Quickmire (ia...@sonetis.com) wrote:
: My tax dollars haven't made this a better country, it's made it a welfare
: state. Canada can't afford to be a socialistic country for much longer,
: it's bankrupting us.
Tell that to the worthless conservatives who've been bankrupting it for
the last 20 years.
: --------------------------------------------------------------
: All typos Copyright 1960-1996 Ian V. Quickmire
:
: ia...@sonetis.com WWW: http://www.sonetis.com/~ianq/
: --------------------------------------------------------------
--
-Jason Kodish
It is a sad day when one who opposes the ever looming power of the State
is called an anarchist. When it becomes politically incorrect to believe
in such basic precepts such as freedom of choice. It is my belief that
those who do not defend their rights deserve to lose them...-Me.
Gary
>I think you also are forgetting it is the wealthy that subsidize the poor
>in a progressive tax system. Thus "the due" is paid, being payed and will
>be paid.
I always get a kick out of this 'argument'. T'is the wealthy that pay little
or no tax in this so-called progessive tax system and yet they receive
the same [ or better ] public services. It is the middle-class that subsidizes
both the poor AND wealthy of this country.
Through inverstment the wealthy create few jobs - it is the consumer that
drives our economy, witness the lowering of interest rates in an attempt
to get consumers consuming, if they consume inverstors will come.
>Taking that idea to extremes: Society would colapse with specialists and
>experienced people not doing what they do best. You have agreed with me.
>Those who have done well financially are the most qualified to spend money
>"wisely".
Many extremely wealthy people have caused companies to go bankrupt -
being wealthy is often a matter of timing and luck as well as skill [ or
having a rich daddy ] being wealthy does not make a person any more
[ or less ] intelligent.
>Besides corporate tax rates tend to hover around 50% as opposed to the
>highest personal income taxes that run around 30% (not including surtaxes,
>etc.)
Maybe so... but a corporation can defer taxes, sometimes forever, have
you ever tried to do that with your property or income taxes ?
Is the average ontarian allowed to claim a skybox as a business expense ?
Perhaps there is some room for reform at BOTH ends of the spectrum.
Scott R.R. Daniels
Malcolm O'Brien wrote:
>
> ar...@chat.carleton.ca (andrew ross) wrote:
>
> >Quite simply I think a general tax cut will benefit all. With less tax to
> >pay some of the cuts can be offset by the poor.
>
> tell you that if the tax rates had been cut 100% during that time, I still
> wouldn't've had one red cent. :/ Think about it (as a general principle,
And you think it is the responsibility of government to ensure you have
that red cent? Not on my money.
> not as my case). Wouldn't we think that it's the people who are _entirely_
> without income who really need the relief? Instead, a bank president making
> $2M will get an extra $85K. And I guarantee you he's not going to use it to
> drive consumer spending.
Why? Bank presidents aren't consumers? Besides, what is the rationale
here? That some people make too much and others not enough? Based on
who's assessment of their value? Obviously not in the eyes of those who
are paying these respective individuals.
> Think about this (as a general principle): Dropping PST/GST would give
> EVERYONE a 12% break in their cost of living.
Yea. Right. That would be fine, but since we continue to outspend the
current government income, where would YOU cut the expenditure of that
money (or would you just lump it to a higher income tax? - that would be
great eh? with no income, that would certainly move the incidence of
YOUR cost of living off you - - and onto me....no thanks). Or, should
the gov't just "print" the money? Again, no thanks...I would rather not
live in an environment of double-digit inflation.
>
> >Now the greatest effect will come from the tax cuts from the middle
> >and upper classes. With the economy stimulated by an increased spending by
> >those that have money to spend, it stands to reason that there would be
> >more jobs created. More jobs = less unemployed = less people poor and
> >suffering.
>
> Fantasy. Would've been more true years ago but not in today's world.
> Increased consumer spending will make more jobs in China than it will in
> Canada. Here's an idea I had recently that would make OODLES of jobs in
> Canada. Ban products from China. If that were done, things would be HUMMING
> in Canada to replace the missing products.
Wow...you ARE a misguided soul. You would have Canada revert from the
global trend towards more viscous trading relationships, back to
throwing up tariffs? Let's see, so then other countries would throw up
tariffs against Canada (and only Canada) making our products massively
more expensive in foreign markets, but hey, that's ok, cause we're gonna
be self-sufficient right? We'll grow our own vegetables, kill our own
dinner, and we won't need to trade with ANY other nation! Yea, right.
Grow up.
> Sure. But you neglecting to consider that a 10% rate of unemployment is
> deemed acceptable, even _desirable_. And that is *policy*. Course, it's the
> BCNI's policy but they pretty much dictate policy to Ottawa these days.
I don't think there is anyone who views a 10% unemployment rate as
"desireable", but DO consider that there is a natural rate of
unemployment, not 10% of course, that is generated simply through the
frictions inherent in any flow of resources.
If you think incresed protectionism, decreased globalization, mass
wealth transfers by government and a flattening of income distributions
is the answer to Canada's problems, you need to do some more thinking.
What you suggest and describe would sound the death-nell for Canada -
capital (both human and financial) flight would be the
result.....*shudder*
Scott.
Roy Sletcher
ka...@agt.net (Kevin Auld) wrote:
<< Socialist rantings deleted>>
>without paying any tax due to a convenient loophole. Some of the banks in
>Canada pay no income tax. Is this fair?
>
>Kevin Auld
>Bon Accord Alberta Canada
>
>The Bon Accordian
>
There is a lot of unsubstantiated BS floating around in this newsgroups.
How about sharing the name of the bank, their earnings which resulted in
NO TAXES, and the fiscal year when this occurred.
You may well be right, and if so it is not fair. However facts are needed
to make your point not ideological diatribe.
Lets confine ourself to reality!
Roy Sletcher <slet...@synapse.net>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ottawa, |Recent Statistics show that 3 out of 4 people
ONTARIO,|make up 75% of the population
Canada. |
----------------------------------------------------------------------