The economics of it all
William H. Belway
Candy (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> William H. Belway (cc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> C.L. Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>> John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>>> Stephen Gilman (ao...@freenet.carleton.ca) writes:
>>>>> In article <7v19v3$3...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
>>>>> dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (C.L. Faucher) wrote:
>
> (deleted)
>
>
>> Candy, you are upset that you only got one flag, instead of 100.
>
>
> Let's try real hard to spell out the entire SEVEN letters shall we .....
> C a n d a c e is actually the correct name.
> As far as you ASSUMING that I received or requested a flag - WRONG
> again.
>
No, I assumed you were an intelligent human being-WRONG again.
>
> If you
>> want more flags, get a job and pay for it.
>
> As already mentioned, you were wrong to ASSUME that I would request a free
> flag. I have a HUGE Canadian Flag that was given to me from a friend
> who knows how patriotic I am toward CANADA. :O)
>
As Remebrance day comes closer, Candy, realise that the vets in World War
2 did not fight so you could collect welfare indefinitely-try givng back
something to society instead of wanting more welfare handouts and flags.
>
> If you cannot afford a 21.6%
>> cut in welfare, you're wrong-you cannot afford to go to 5 different
>> supermarkets in a day looking for the cheapest can of dented tuna!
>
>
Try getting a job.
> If this is what you would perceive to be humorous .... I find it sick
> and sad.
> How about M.P.'s of this present political party accept a whopping
> 21.6% cut to their pay?
>
Dumbasss-MP\s don't don't have anything to do with the 21.6%welfare
equality adjustment-its a provincial jurisdiction. What on earth is wrong
with you?Too much noise?
> Too outragious? Too bad. No hestitation to implement this on the poorest
> of the poor.
>
>
No, its too bad for all yourr peers. Instead of hanging out in front of
the Scotiabank machine at the crorner of Elgin and Frank, try GETTING A
JOB.And if you don't likebeing paid overpaid in welfare now, try working.
>>>> But Gilman was silent then. Only when people at the low end of the salary
>>>> scale, $25 thousand or so, get what the law said they should have received
>>>> 16 years ago, do we hear his bleating. And who should pay for needed social
>>>> programs? Why--the aforementioned secretaries and clerks. Heaven forbid
>>>> that the corporate sector even pay the back taxes they owe.
>
>
>>> Or, if politicians were to receive any kind of "cut" to their pay that
>>> comes close to a 21.6% cut?
>
>
>> Candace, you are not elected to welfare. What the hell are you talking
>> about-that's a provincial jurisdiction, whereas the feds have
>> jurisdiction over the PSAC pay equity and the flags-you have "intelligence
>> challenges".
>
>
> I believe that if you have a Federal government that can waste money
> in the manner that they have, and then claim that the Provincial govn't
> will be responsble for more and more .... then it is high time that the
> citizens of this country demand a stop to *passing the buck!* and making
> dang nabbit sure that all M.P.'s are HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
>
Candy, you and PM Cretoin have a lot in common. When asked about nearly
anything, he goes on in uncomprehensible English/French/Whatever it is
he tlks, and goes on about somehting completely different, just like you
have above. Both Cretin and you, Candy, must both have Alzeimer's!
>> And, it was the current provincial government that cut the number of
>> representatives in the province-that is why there was such a fight in
>> Ottawa-West Nepean. Fortunately, in the AlexCullen Rick Chiarrelli debate,
>> COMMON SENSE won out.
>
>
>>> Heaven for bid if such an idea were to be placed on one of their desks.
>>> Or ..... addressing the expense of the senate ......
>
>
>> I will be arranging a meeting with Social Servies Minister John Baird to
>> implement a time limit on welfare.
>
>
> Not surprised. Why not also suggest that there be a *time limit* on
> how much we (as a society) agree to pay out OHIP expenses to seniors.
> Just as unreasonable.
You are incredibly stupid. But you already know that.
>
>
>> I am glad PSAC got their money-its the law. Good thing is, Lucienne
>> Robilliard knows its a bad law, and it will be changed.
>
>
>
>
>> Pay Equity-} Equal Pay for work of equal value.
>
>
>> Welfare recipients-} No work of no value. They/you should be paid
>> accordingly. The law is the law, Candace!!!!
>
>
> Actually, you may want to do a little research how how "Relief" was
> first introduced in this country. It certainly was not *due* to the
> government deciding that they should implement it. It was due to
> CITIZEN OUTCRY and citizens demanding that the government do something
> for those who WERE UNEMPLOYED. i.e. during the depression when
> unemployment was almost as high as it is today. Hovering around 8%.
>
> Laws change regularly.
>
Fortuantely, welfare was cut 21.6% by the same public outcry. Candy, if
you don't think woorking for 21.6% less welfare than when you could watch
Jerry Springer and get paid for it, too bad. You may think that is unfair.
Life is unfair.
>
>> Oh, and Candace? If you suspect a welfare cheat who is resentful because
>> of politicians salaries and/or flags, you can do something about it. Pick
>> up the phone and call 1-800-394-STOP.
>
>
> Um .... your comment doesn't make any sense. If I believe that I suspect
> a welfare cheat who is resentful because of politicians salaries and/or
> flags ...... to pick up the phone and call 1-800-394-STOP.
>
> Please look into HOW MUCH IT COST to create this *witch hunt* phone line,
> (last I heard it cost $75,000.00)
> and then compare it to how efficient it has been with regard to laying
> any charges of fraud. (last I heard it was a mere 2%)
>
Candace, you should have called on yuour friend Susan Villeneuve, who as
of August 1998 was on welfare for 16 years, yet was not considered by your
definition as fraud and abuse. And, you would have prevented a near
fatality with that kid locked up in the car that 35C afternoon because
welfare lifer wanted to go into Hazeldean Mall to buy beer on her own. DO
IT FOR THE CHILDREN CANDACE!!!
> i.e. the basic concept of economics is: Does the Benefit outweigh the
> Cost.
>
If that were always the case, you would never ever have a job.
William H. Belway
C.L. Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> William H. Belway (cc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> Candy (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>> William H. Belway (cc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>>> C.L. Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>>>> John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>>>>> Stephen Gilman (ao...@freenet.carleton.ca) writes:
>>>>>>> In article <7v19v3$3...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
>>>>>>> dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (C.L. Faucher) wrote:
>
> (deleted)
>
>
>
>
> about a person .... and then I always remind myself about how remaining
> civil and polite could be interpreted as being the very basic
> foundation of intelligence. :O)
>
That would be an incorrect interpretation.
OUT
>
>
>>> If you
>>>> want more flags, get a job and pay for it.
>
>>> As already mentioned, you were wrong to ASSUME that I would request a free
>>> flag. I have a HUGE Canadian Flag that was given to me from a friend
>>> who knows how patriotic I am toward CANADA. :O)
>
And that "friend" is the federal government. You did not pay for that
flag-then again, you are entitle to a flag, job, free OCTranspo and cab rides.
>
>> As Remebrance day comes closer, Candy,
>
>
> One could go on and on and on about how is it (again) standard practice
> to
> refer to a person by the name by which they have asked to be referred to
> ..... i.e. basic manners ....
>
Candy, why do you refer to yourself here in the turd person instead of
"I"? Are you autistic? Maybe that is why you have low EQ.
>
> realise that the vets in World War
>> 2 did not fight so you could collect welfare indefinitely-try givng back
>> something to society instead of wanting more welfare handouts and flags.
>
>
>>> If you cannot afford a 21.6%
>>>> cut in welfare, you're wrong-you cannot afford to go to 5 different
>>>> supermarkets in a day looking for the cheapest can of dented tuna!
>
>
>> Try getting a job.
>
>>> If this is what you would perceive to be humorous .... I find it sick
>>> and sad.
>>> How about M.P.'s of this present political party accept a whopping
>>> 21.6% cut to their pay?
>
>
>
>> Dumbasss-MP\s don't don't have anything to do with the 21.6%welfare
>> equality adjustment-its a provincial jurisdiction. What on earth is wrong
>> with you?Too much noise?
>
>
> Perhaps too much nonsense from people such as yourself - yes. Cuts made
> to the amount of contributions given to the Provincial government from
> the Federal government is why the Provincial government determined to
> cut assistance to the extent that they did.
> Zero long-run projection.
No, it is not. Regardless of what size the federal cuts were, the
Provincial Tories knew that the monthly handout from welfare was too high,
and that is why they campaigned on, among other things, a 21.6% cut back
in 1995. And, as you well know, the election of 1995 was not a protest
vote, as it was validated in 1999 by the reelection of the Tories, whereas
the Lieberals are trying to dumb their provincial leader at this very
moment. HAW HAW
>> No, its too bad for all yourr peers. Instead of hanging out in front of
>> the Scotiabank machine at the crorner of Elgin and Frank, try GETTING A
>> JOB.And if you don't likebeing paid overpaid in welfare now, try working.
>
>
>>>>>> But Gilman was silent then. Only when people at the low end of the salary
>>>>>> scale, $25 thousand or so, get what the law said they should have received
>>>>>> 16 years ago, do we hear his bleating. And who should pay for needed social
>>>>>> programs? Why--the aforementioned secretaries and clerks. Heaven forbid
>>>>>> that the corporate sector even pay the back taxes they owe.
>
>
>>>>> Or, if politicians were to receive any kind of "cut" to their pay that
>>>>> comes close to a 21.6% cut?
>
>
>>>> Candace, you are not elected to welfare.
>
>
> Cool. He managed to handle SEVEN letters. Thank you.
Candy, what we need in addition to a time limit for welfare eligibility
for welfare is to turn it inot a loan-post-secondary students have loans,
and they have proof they are furthering their education and/or job skills,
whereas you Susanne Villeneuve types collect for 16 years before leaving a
kid in the car on a hot August day.
>
>
> What the hell are you talking
>>>> about-that's a provincial jurisdiction, whereas the feds have
>>>> jurisdiction over the PSAC pay equity and the flags-you have "intelligence
>>>> challenges".
>
>
> The point that you seem to want to ignore is that the Federal government
> made drastic cuts to what they contributed to the Provincial government.
> Relief (which is what it was called when citizen outcry forced the govn't
> to help those who were unemployed) has been put in place for a valid
> reason. If unemployment is continuing to hover at ****8%**** then we, as
> a society, must have some form of social security for those who are temp.
> out of work. It is called caring for your fellowman. Not a hand-out
> as you seem to want to view it.
>
If it is temporary, you will readily accept the needed reforms of welfare,
as in a time limit for eligibility as well as making it a loan-and before
you go on another of your infamous stupid tangents, that's welfare, not
disability-they are 2 different things. Sorry to shoot your straw man
argument down before you got to play it, but you are both dumb and
predictable.
>
>> Candy,
>
>
> Oh my .... back to not having the capacity to use the actual seven letters
> again?
> Heavy sigh.
>
>
> you and PM Cretoin have a lot in common.
>
>
> Another false assumption/insinuation.
No, you both are challenged in regards to intellect. That's a well known fact.
>
>
> By any slight chance have you ever been nominated to be the judge of a
> kangaroo court system?
>
Are you some kind of mental case?
>
> When asked about nearly
>> anything, he goes on in uncomprehensible English/French/Whatever it is
>> he tlks, and goes on about somehting completely different, just like you
>> have above. Both Cretin and you, Candy, must both have Alzeimer's!
>
>
> The only thing that the PM and I have in common is that we are Canadians
>who are not very intelligent and believe that we are "entitled" to
>everything under the sun.
>
>>>> And, it was the current provincial government that cut the number of
>>>> representatives in the province-that is why there was such a fight in
>>>> Ottawa-West Nepean. Fortunately, in the AlexCullen Rick Chiarrelli debate,
>>>> COMMON SENSE won out.
>
>>>> I will be arranging a meeting with Social Servies Minister John Baird to
>>>> implement a time limit on welfare.
>
>
>>> Not surprised. Why not also suggest that there be a *time limit* on
>>> how much we (as a society) agree to pay out OHIP expenses to seniors.
>>> Just as unreasonable.
>
>
>> You are incredibly stupid. But you already know that.
>
>
> Actually, calling someone names, making HUGE assumptions; insinuations,
> and suggesting someone else is *stupid* due to not agreeing with them
> is considered evidence to "lack of wisdom."
NO, it is not. In the example above, comparing welfare recipients to the
elderly was quite stupid of you-you seem to have a low IQ as well as a low EQ.
>
>
>>>> I am glad PSAC got their money-its the law. Good thing is, Lucienne
>>>> Robilliard knows its a bad law, and it will be changed.
>
>
>
>
>>>> Pay Equity-} Equal Pay for work of equal value.
>
>
>>>> Welfare recipients-} No work of no value. They/you should be paid
>>>> accordingly. The law is the law, Candace!!!!
>
>
>> Fortuantely, welfare was cut 21.6% by the same public outcry.
>
>
> Right. Greed, lack of compassion, selfishness are FANTASTIC traits for ANY
> society to illustrate. Give me a break.
Candy wants to be a welfare recipient who gets more money for doing
nothing, and then tells other people they are greedy. HAR HAR.
Candy thinks that everyone who voted both Tory and Lieberal in the last
provincial election are greedy, because the Tories made the 21.6% cut and
the Liberals would not repeal it-that is why people like Candy are never
in position of authority and influence in organisations, whether it be in
government, opposition, the NDP Party or even soup banks, because just
folding your arms and referring to 83.3% of the voting population in the
last election, according to Candy, is greedy.
"Every one is stupid butt me" Homer J Candy Faucher
>
> Candy, if
>> you don't think woorking for 21.6% less welfare than when you could watch
>> Jerry Springer and get paid for it, too bad. You may think that is unfair.
>
>
>> Life is unfair.
>
>
>>>> Oh, and Candace? If you suspect a welfare cheat who is resentful because
>>>> of politicians salaries and/or flags, you can do something about it. Pick
>>>> up the phone and call 1-800-394-STOP.
>
>
>>> Um .... your comment doesn't make any sense. If I believe that I suspect
>>> a welfare cheat who is resentful because of politicians salaries and/or
>>> flags ...... to pick up the phone and call 1-800-394-STOP.
>
>>> Please look into HOW MUCH IT COST to create this *witch hunt* phone line,
>>> (last I heard it cost $75,000.00)
Candy, you are in dire need of some "sensitivity training"; it is not a
*witch hunt* phone line with impressive *stars*, its a welfare abuse
reduction program-Candy, if you suspect your friend Susan Villeneuve or
anybody els of abusing welfare, pick up the phone and call 1-800-394-STOP.