On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 11:37:37 GMT, .BitHead. <bithead@no-spam>
wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 03:24:19 GMT, Mountain Goat
><rmgoatNO@no-spam> wrote:
>
>>>So basically, if 6 people out of 10 decide to tax the 4 richest to
>>>subsistence levels, that's alright, huh? After all, it's democratic!
>>
>>Name someone who has been taxed to 'subsistence levels'. You cannot
>>and you know you cannot so this is a red herring (sorry if you don't
>>like 'red' things).
>
>
>Actually, it's fairly easy to point up.
>Consider the damage tax hikes do to the economy, and the hgood that
>tax cuts do. Clearly, the levels are too high when even a small cut
>has such a pronounced effect.
>
Prove the alleged 'damage'. Since all except the most rosy coloured
glasses republicans agree that Bush's tax cuts (even if he had got all
of them) will do Butkus to improve the economy (Read what the
Congressional Budget Office had to say for one) and will run up the
debt thereby ensuring future inflation as the government has to
compete for borrowed money with business.
Check to see the state of roads in Ontario and how other
infrastructure there begins to wear down to pay for the Harris tax
cuts. Ernie Eves will get to pay the price there.
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:48:26 GMT, "Jennifer Wainwright"
<JenniferWainwright@no-spam> wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:56:23 GMT, "Jennifer Wainwright"
>> <JenniferWainwright@no-spam> wrote:
>
>The problem with all this is that come election time, there are perhaps a
>hundred important issues, and about 3 viable parties to vote for. So you
>must choose the one that best represents your views, even though you do not
>agree with their platform on many issues. When was the last time you agreed
>with all the planks of the party you voted for? It has never happened to me.
That is not a reasonable approach to take.
The population of Canada is over 31 million now. How do you imagine
that we could form a representative government that would please
every voter on every issue?
Thoughtful people familiarize themselves with the platforms of the
various parties. They don't expect to find 100% agreement with
the objectives of any party. They content themselves with supporting
candidates whose ideas generally suit them better than do the ideas of
others.
Your objection *could* be answered of course. We might in these days
of rapid communication, poll the entire adult population on every
issue. That would not result in more democracy however. It would
invite people who had nothing to go on but their personal prejudices
to impose their values on others.
One of the strengths of our present system is that elected
members are able to pick up a degree of expertise on the major
questions of the day. They hear from their constituents. They hear
from government employees - civil servants. They hear from party
strategists.
They are infinitely better informed than the average man or woman in
the street.
>> >There are many examples where laws are enacted, or exist, that are NOT
>> >supported by the majority of Canadians.
>>
>> I am not certain on what you are basing that statement.
>>
>> Are you perhaps considering the results of certain public opinion
>> polls?
>
>Yes. How else can one know what is the general opinion of the population on
>a specific issue?
That's an easy one.
Pick up a paper like the Toronto Star, and you'll
have the impression that liberalism is highly popular with the masses.
Pick up a yellow rag like the Toronto Sun, and you'll be convinced
that conservatism is the only way to go, and that only a gross
miscarriage of justice allows a hated Liberal government to retain
control of Parliament against the wishes of most Canadians.
You'll notice that Star readers are happy with gun control. Sun
readers think it's an abomination.
>> You might care to give me an example of a law that a considerable
>> majority of Canadians oppose in your opinion.
>
>Immigration policy & capital punishment are two that come to mind.
[1] You must pay attention to conservative media only, if you think
that most Canadians do not support immigration. As with other
programs, you'll find few who would label the system *perfect*, but
in general, most of us certainly understand that without immigration
this country would quickly begin to suffer economically.
[2] Capital punishment is somewhat more complex an issue.
I'd agree that large numbers of Canadians support laws that would have
seen Morin, Marshall, and Milgard executed.
Some of us are pleased that these three were sentenced to prison terms
rather than being killed. When they were shown to have been innocent
of the crimes of which they stood accused, the authorities were able
to release them.
But the execution of these three innocent men is a price that you'd be
willing to pay is it?
Some of us are not quite so ready to send people who are not guilty to
their deaths. That helps to explain why in a free vote in Parliament
- with no party discipline - capital punishment was abolished.
I *like* living in a country where that kind of thing can happen. I
am pleased to see that the mob doesn't always get its way.
Morin, Marshall, and Milgard agree with me, I'm sure.
(You do know why the British abolished capital punishment before we
did here, I suppose. You have heard of the Christie case.]
>> In my experience, changes have been made to any law which has not had
>> the support of a majority of the people. The "Young Offenders Act",
>> which is currently being replaced, is an example of this.
>
>After how long? It took literally decades to change a policy that was
>unpopular from its very inception.
You must be quite young never to have heard the saying, "The mills of
justice grind exceeding slow."
The law is somewhat like the church. The Pope does not come out with
a brand new Ten Commandments every year.
The fullness of time is a necessity if we are to develop laws that do
their job well. There is no good argument for rushing new legislation
through, and then having to constantly change the rules.
>> Perhaps you consider gun registration to be widely unpopular. If so,
>> you are ignoring that fact that Canada is a highly urbanised country,
>> and that the great majority of people in our large cities are happy
>> with gun control measures. A highly vocal minority can sometimes
>> leave one with a false impression.
>
>Could you give me a cite that demonstrates that the "great majority of
>people in our large cities are happy with gun control measures" including
>the order-of-magnitude cost overruns? Thank you.
No, I can't. I pay close attention to many media outlets, however,
and 'm quite satisfied from the information that I have seen and heard
that in our larger urban areas, where gun violence has become a
serious problem, there is a strong majority that favours gun
control...and if registration of guns seems to them to further that
end, they favour it too.
The cost over-runs, so far as I know, were to a considerable extent
caused by the failure of many on the right to co-operate.
Any other reasons for additional expenditures don't please any of us.
Do not attempt to put me in the position of defending the Liberal
government on this issue. I have been voting since the early 1950s,
and I have never voted Liberal. I never expect to.
[I notice that you had nothing to say in response to my Hillel quotes.
I won't share with you now the interpretation that I put on your
silence.]
>> In the fullness of time a level of taxation acceptable to the majority
>> will be maintained, while there will always be the possibility for
>> adjustments that outside conditions dictate.
>
>Okay, now how about an actual * number*? How much should taxes be increased
>in Ontario?
You want me to tell you in billions, millions, thousands, hundreds,
tens, and ones?
Or would a % do?
I'd settle for restoring individual provincial income taxes to their
1995 level.
You'll have to work out the actual dollar value for yourself.
And I'll pay my share of the increase with a smile, since I have
genuine concerns for both my own welfare *and* the welfare of others
in my community.
That, it seems to me, is what separates liberals from conservatives.
I can't imagine that you will agree with that. Who wants to see him
or herself as overly selfish and greedy?
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 17:24:52 GMT, Good Guy
<GoodGuysFinishFirst@no-spam> wrote:
>Lecture on democracy and how the government does what the majority wants
>is snipped.
My comments were no more a "lecture" than are yours. Don't try to
play that game with me. Both of us are providing opinions. Period.
>I guess the problem is that I live in an area of Canada
>(Western Canada) where the majority of the people don't agree with the
>government.
>
>I guess our choice is to either live with it or leave. Since we have
>repeatedly voted against the present government.
Please! You were hardly any happier when Brian Mulroney was running
the country into the ground. Bitching about Ottawa has long been an
Alberta pastime.
Many of you people have an exaggerated notion of the rights and
privileges that should accrue to you for sitting on top of all of
those valuable hydrocarbons.
I mean, after all, YOU PUT THEM THERE, DIDN"T YOU?
One Canadian in three lives in Ontario.
Your notion that the social conservative values of
a relatively few Albertans should carry more weight than
the more liberal values of people in far larger and far more densely
populated parts of the country are an offence to the idea of
democracy.
Yes, if it is all that god-damned important for you to have voted for
the winning party, buy a Liberal Party membership!
I've been voting for almost fifty years, and have never voted either
Liberal or P.C.
I don't threaten to secede from Canada, when I don't have my own way.
I don't contemplate immigrating. I've grown up. Perhaps you can do
the same.
"John Carrick" <jcarr@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3vcifvcmusmktnllnc1io0feukd59fthrd@no-spam
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:48:26 GMT, "Jennifer Wainwright"
> <JenniferWainwright@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:56:23 GMT, "Jennifer Wainwright"
> >> <JenniferWainwright@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> >The problem with all this is that come election time, there are perhaps a
> >hundred important issues, and about 3 viable parties to vote for. So you
> >must choose the one that best represents your views, even though you do
not
> >agree with their platform on many issues. When was the last time you
agreed
> >with all the planks of the party you voted for? It has never happened to
me.
>
> That is not a reasonable approach to take.
>
> The population of Canada is over 31 million now. How do you imagine
> that we could form a representative government that would please
> every voter on every issue?
You missed the point. You were asserting that because we live in a
democracy, every law we have is a result of the wish of the majority. I was
pointing out why that is not so. Again: at election time, we have perhaps 3
candidates to vote for, and perhaps 100 important issues. So we choose a
candidate that is the best compromise.
>
> Thoughtful people familiarize themselves with the platforms of the
> various parties. They don't expect to find 100% agreement with
> the objectives of any party. They content themselves with supporting
> candidates whose ideas generally suit them better than do the ideas of
> others.
>
> Your objection *could* be answered of course. We might in these days
> of rapid communication, poll the entire adult population on every
> issue. That would not result in more democracy however. It would
> invite people who had nothing to go on but their personal prejudices
> to impose their values on others.
>
> One of the strengths of our present system is that elected
> members are able to pick up a degree of expertise on the major
> questions of the day. They hear from their constituents. They hear
> from government employees - civil servants. They hear from party
> strategists.
>
> They are infinitely better informed than the average man or woman in
> the street.
Speak for yourself.
>
> >> >There are many examples where laws are enacted, or exist, that are NOT
> >> >supported by the majority of Canadians.
> >>
> >> I am not certain on what you are basing that statement.
> >>
> >> Are you perhaps considering the results of certain public opinion
> >> polls?
> >
> >Yes. How else can one know what is the general opinion of the population
on
> >a specific issue?
>
> That's an easy one.
>
> Pick up a paper like the Toronto Star, and you'll
> have the impression that liberalism is highly popular with the masses.
>
> Pick up a yellow rag like the Toronto Sun, and you'll be convinced
> that conservatism is the only way to go, and that only a gross
> miscarriage of justice allows a hated Liberal government to retain
> control of Parliament against the wishes of most Canadians.
>
> You'll notice that Star readers are happy with gun control. Sun
> readers think it's an abomination.
Fine. That's why self-selected polls have no scientific value. But of
course, that wasn't what I was talking about.
>
> >> You might care to give me an example of a law that a considerable
> >> majority of Canadians oppose in your opinion.
> >
> >Immigration policy & capital punishment are two that come to mind.
>
> [1] You must pay attention to conservative media only, if you think
> that most Canadians do not support immigration. As with other
> programs, you'll find few who would label the system *perfect*, but
> in general, most of us certainly understand that without immigration
> this country would quickly begin to suffer economically.
No. I pay attention to opinion polls conducted using scientifically-valid
methodologies. You do seem to have a habit of making inferences without any
substantive evidence to support them, without even the courtesy of asking.
>
> [2] Capital punishment is somewhat more complex an issue.
>
> I'd agree that large numbers of Canadians support laws that would have
> seen Morin, Marshall, and Milgard executed.
>
> Some of us are pleased that these three were sentenced to prison terms
> rather than being killed. When they were shown to have been innocent
> of the crimes of which they stood accused, the authorities were able
> to release them.
>
> But the execution of these three innocent men is a price that you'd be
> willing to pay is it?
>
> Some of us are not quite so ready to send people who are not guilty to
> their deaths. That helps to explain why in a free vote in Parliament
> - with no party discipline - capital punishment was abolished.
>
> I *like* living in a country where that kind of thing can happen. I
> am pleased to see that the mob doesn't always get its way.
>
> Morin, Marshall, and Milgard agree with me, I'm sure.
>
> (You do know why the British abolished capital punishment before we
> did here, I suppose. You have heard of the Christie case.]
I was NOT expressing an opinion on these subjects. You asked me to give an
instance where our laws are not in accordance with public opinion. I did so.
If you want to change the subject to capital punishment, why don't you start
a new thread, and keep to the subject at hand in this one? Which is, in case
you forget, there are many laws in this country that do not reflect the
wishes of the majority. This thread is about whether or not the level of
taxation is appropriate. You have asserted that it must be, because it has
been set by a democratically-elected government.
BTW, I do hope that I will never hear you inveighing against "the tyranny of
the majority," given your assertions in this thread that all our laws are
exactly as they should be, because we live in a majority.
>
> >> In my experience, changes have been made to any law which has not had
> >> the support of a majority of the people. The "Young Offenders Act",
> >> which is currently being replaced, is an example of this.
> >
> >After how long? It took literally decades to change a policy that was
> >unpopular from its very inception.
>
> You must be quite young never to have heard the saying, "The mills of
> justice grind exceeding slow."
Again, you make an inference without any information. The YOA is just one
more example of an unpopular law that has been on our books. It was NEVER
popular with the general public. Therefore it is yet another counter example
to your thesis that all of our laws reflect the will of the people.
<snip>
>
> >> Perhaps you consider gun registration to be widely unpopular. If so,
> >> you are ignoring that fact that Canada is a highly urbanised country,
> >> and that the great majority of people in our large cities are happy
> >> with gun control measures. A highly vocal minority can sometimes
> >> leave one with a false impression.
> >
> >Could you give me a cite that demonstrates that the "great majority of
> >people in our large cities are happy with gun control measures" including
> >the order-of-magnitude cost overruns? Thank you.
>
> No, I can't.
Then perhaps you should have prefaced your statement to say that it was your
opinion only instead of presenting it as some kind of self-evident truth.
<snip>
>
> [I notice that you had nothing to say in response to my Hillel quotes.
> I won't share with you now the interpretation that I put on your
> silence.]
Well, good for you. You have absolutely NO WAY of knowing why I did not
respond to these rather hackneyed, and oft repeated (by you, in this very
thread) quotes, so it is wise that you do not share your interpretation on
the subject, as you have no way of knowing why I did not respond to them.
But the innuendo is again an instance of making judgements without evidence,
and without the courtesy of asking for more information.
>
> >> In the fullness of time a level of taxation acceptable to the majority
> >> will be maintained, while there will always be the possibility for
> >> adjustments that outside conditions dictate.
> >
> >Okay, now how about an actual * number*? How much should taxes be
increased
> >in Ontario?
>
> You want me to tell you in billions, millions, thousands, hundreds,
> tens, and ones?
>
> Or would a % do?
>
> I'd settle for restoring individual provincial income taxes to their
> 1995 level.
Why?
>
> You'll have to work out the actual dollar value for yourself.
>
> And I'll pay my share of the increase with a smile, since I have
> genuine concerns for both my own welfare *and* the welfare of others
> in my community.
And what would your share be, on a pro rata basis? Will you be paying more,
or less, of this tax increase, than the average Ontario taxpayer?
>
> That, it seems to me, is what separates liberals from conservatives.
>
> I can't imagine that you will agree with that. Who wants to see him
> or herself as overly selfish and greedy?
In your opinion? The opinion of Judge Johnny? Who would care?
Cheers,
Jennifer
"John Carrick" <jcarr@no-spam> wrote in message
news:gocifvg85v0gbjvb8cn5ckd217uetmqjas@no-spam
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:48:26 GMT, "Jennifer Wainwright"
> <JenniferWainwright@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John Carrick" <jcarr@no-spam> wrote in message
> >news:d16efvota416nj2qio60htl0qek299nbvu@no-spam
> >> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:56:23 GMT, "Jennifer Wainwright"
> >> <JenniferWainwright@no-spam> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >> >> >John Carrick wrote:
> >>
> >> You don't appear to understand that I was laughing at myself, not at
> >> you.
> >>
> >> That is not surprising, since self-deprecation is rare. Almost
> >> everyone prefers always to laugh at others, rather than at him or
> >> herself.
>
> >Well, silly me. I thought that you could tell when somebody is being
> >humourous by the fact that what they said was actually funny. But I guess
> >things are more "complex" than that.
>
> I repeat, I was laughing at myself, not at you. I don't imagine that
> you know many people who make themselves the butt of a joke.
Then you imagine wrong.
It doesn't matter who you think you were laughing at. The fact is, what you
said simply isn't funny.
BTW, you did not snip the rest of my post, even though you did not respond
to any of it. Haven't I seen you inveighning against other posters for doing
exactly that?
Cheers,
Jennifer
In article <uElKa.281123$ro6.7244738@no-spam>,
"Jennifer Wainwright" <JenniferWainwright@no-spam> wrote:
> "John Carrick" <jcarr@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:gocifvg85v0gbjvb8cn5ckd217uetmqjas@no-spam
> > On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:48:26 GMT, "Jennifer Wainwright"
> > <JenniferWainwright@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"John Carrick" <jcarr@no-spam> wrote in message
> > >news:d16efvota416nj2qio60htl0qek299nbvu@no-spam
> > >> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:56:23 GMT, "Jennifer Wainwright"
> > >> <JenniferWainwright@no-spam> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >> >> >John Carrick wrote:
> > >>
> > >> You don't appear to understand that I was laughing at myself, not at
> > >> you.
> > >>
> > >> That is not surprising, since self-deprecation is rare. Almost
> > >> everyone prefers always to laugh at others, rather than at him or
> > >> herself.
> >
> > >Well, silly me. I thought that you could tell when somebody is being
> > >humourous by the fact that what they said was actually funny. But I guess
> > >things are more "complex" than that.
> >
> > I repeat, I was laughing at myself, not at you. I don't imagine that
> > you know many people who make themselves the butt of a joke.
>
> Then you imagine wrong.
>
> It doesn't matter who you think you were laughing at. The fact is, what you
> said simply isn't funny.
>
> BTW, you did not snip the rest of my post, even though you did not respond
> to any of it. Haven't I seen you inveighning against other posters for doing
> exactly that?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jennifer
Hypocrisy is Carrick's stock-in-trade.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic affect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
"John Carrick" <jcarr@no-spam> wrote in message
news:ecbifvodbtadqabmbvl3po6t84non1bnip@no-spam
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:11:51 GMT, "Jennifer Wainwright"
> <JenniferWainwright@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John Carrick" <jcarr@no-spam> wrote in message
>
> >> >>It is typical of you to read every disagreement with your overly
> >> >>selfish values as some sort of weakness.
> >> >
> >> >Put more correctly, it's typical of me to point out your weaknesses to
> >> >you, and typical of you to try and blame them on someone else.
> >>
> >> You have the most amazing gall.
> >>
> >> You some here in a cowardly fashion, unwilling to identify yourself,
> >> and then you have the "chutzpah" to accuse *someone else* of weakness?
> >>
> >> What a self-referencing ass you are!
> >
> >I don't follow your logic. How do you know for sure that my name is
Jennifer
> >Wainwright? How can I be sure that your name is John Carrick?
> >
> >Perhaps people that use obvious nicknames are being *more* honest than
> >people that use realistic-sounding names -- at least you know for sure
that
> >they are using an alias.
>
> I don't think that you have provided me with much logic to follow.
OK, I'll go over it one more time. You made the statement "You some (sic)
here in a cowardly fashion, unwilling to identify yourself...." From this I
inferred that you had some problem with people using pseudonyms when they
post. My point was that there is NO WAY for you to know whether or not
someone is using a pseudonym, unless they give you more information in the
body of their post. Do you follow it yet?
>
> If someone chooses to participate here *in attack mode* using a name
> other than his or her own, he or she is being a coward, but at least
> there is no flaunting his or her anonimity at others.
>
> Those who come here using a stupid pseudonym *and savaging others* are
> calling attention to themselves though. They are saying, "Look at me!
> I can have all of the privileges of using the Canadian political
> newgroups to libel public figures and other posters, and I don't have
> to take responsibility for what I say."
I believe you were directing your invective against "Bithead." Could you
please give me an example of his "savaging others"? I've not seen anything
from him that would warrant the word "savaging."
>
> A proportion of us come here using our correct names. We express our
> opinions and stand behind them.
And how do you know who is using their correct names?
>
> I suppose that you are correct. Some do come here using what looks
> like a genuine name, but is not.
>
> That makes them both cowards and liars.
I was not passing judgement on other posters. I'll leave that to Judge
Johnny. I was simply making the point, a rather obvious one, so I don't
understand your resistance to it, that there is simply no way of knowing
whether or not someone is using a real name, unless they voluntarily include
further information.
>
> [Please understand...I have no serious problem with anyone coming here
> anonymously, so long as he or she is civil and not looking to
> assassinate the character of others.]
>
> >I can think of lots of legitimate reasons why someone may want to post
under
> >a pseudonym.
>
> Really? They are in for a disappointment then, since *everyone* who
> posts here can be identified rather easily - I have had a lawyer do
> this for me twice, when I was contemplating legal action - any
> protection that people think they get from using a name other than
> their own here is illusory.
Well, if they use an anonymous remailer, it may not be all that easy.
And what is the result of your legal actions, apart from your giving some of
your money over to a lawyer?
<snip>
Cheers,
Jennifer
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 18:34:01 GMT, Frederick Jerome
<virtus@no-spam> wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:14:41 GMT, John Carrick <jcarr@no-spam>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>That is essentially correct. If a baseball player can get a long-term
>>contract for a quarter of a *b*illion dollars, as Alex Rodriguez has,
>>who has the right to say that he doesn't deserve it? If daycare
>>workers can't get much above minimum wage, who is to say that they are
>>worth much more? Ours is a *demand* economy. In the long run we all
>>get what we're worth in the general scheme of things.
>I have the right, and I say no fucking way he "deserves" that kind of
>money.
Yes, in a public forum such as this one you can certainly express any
opinion that you wish.
[We are all quick to acknowledge that our *opinions* do not have the
weight of *fact* of course. No one here thinks that his or her
values ***alone*** have any validity. <laugh>]
I recall that years ago Elizabeth Taylor was paid $1 million dollars
to star in the film, "Cleopatra", and a number of people expressed
shock and outrage.
In fact, if her agent could get such a deal for her at that time, she
was entitled to it. The producers of the film felt that having her
name on the marquee would generate ticket sales sufficient to defray
that cost. [The film *was* a financial success, but it was judged a
turgid drama with limited intrinsic value.]
Today we have hundreds of professional athletes making many times that
amount per season. If the owners of professional sports franchises
are so bent on winning, that they are prepared to pay these amounts,
and pass on the additional costs to fans in the form of increased
prices, should players be saying, "Wait a minute now. That's an
obscene amount of money to pay me for being an expert at playing a
childrens' game"?
So long as people will pay increasingly higher prices for movie
tickets and entry to sports events and rock concerts, this kind of
money will be paid to performers.
Suppose that a second baseman receives $20 million annually and a
heart surgeon $2 million. Does that indicate that the ball-player
makes ten times the contribution to his community that the doctor
does?
The answer to that question is a *value judgment*, not an absolute.
Yes, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but some opinions are much
better informed than others.
>The high standard of living we enjoy is the product of 100,000 years
>of human development and wanton exploitation of the third world .
It also results from large numbers of individuals investing their time
and effort, often with an element of risk, so as to achieve financial
success. Free enterprise has many drawbacks, but it does allow the
most talented and aggressive among us - along with the most dishonest
[see Enron and WorldCom] - the opportunity to "win big".
[It is never a "zero sum game" though. Free enterprise economics
always involves plenty of losers alongside the winners. It leaves us
with two sorts of poor people - the deserving and the undeserving, to
use the language of G.B.Shaw. And that creates a dilemma for
governments. How are they to take proper care of the deserving
without encouraging indolence in the undeserving at the same time?]
>It is not the result of our work.
Well, of course, in huge numbers of individual cases, success ***IS***
the product of hard work. Given the opportunity, some people in our
society have applied themselves mightily and succeeded, while others
have stayed on the sidelines. People vary widely in their ambition,
natural attributes, and personal values.
It is inherent in a free enterprise system that there will be winners
and losers.
I agree with you that the same rules apply to countries. For some
countries to be winners other countries have had to be losers.
Some of us whose politics are more liberal, advocate the transfer of
wealth from the rich to the poor, both in terms of individuals and
nations.
Others are more conservative in their convictions, and deeply resent
being asked to share their success with others - whether with their
fellow citizens or with other countries through foreign aid programs.
Much of the discussion that takes place about taxation levels is
centred on this dichotomy.
---->A convinced liberal will talk about "social justice", and
support government programs that benefit those in need.
---->A convinced social conservative will frequently be heard talking
about *MY money*, and may complain that governments are "holding a gun
to my head" in subjecting him or her to taxation.
This thread concerns "How much [in the way of] taxes is fair?"
Liberals and conservatives will never agree on this matter, because
they start with profoundly different assumptions.
*I* assume that as well as having obligations to myself, I have major
obligations to my community.
Others here appear to acknowledge few if any obligations to their
communities. As the saying goes, they beieve in " taking care of
number one and trying not to step in number two".
What I find puzzling is that many who call for drastically reduced
taxation levels will not acknowledge being overly selfish. They seem
to want to behave like Ebenezer Scrooge, but they do not accept his
name.
>We receive an enormous social benefit
>when we cash our paycheques. A multilingual, competent, high IQ
>teacher in St. Petersburg earns 1/10 the real income of an
>incompetent, stupid teacher in Toronto . Few in North America "earn"
>or "deserve" what they receive.
Having taught in Ontario from 1953 to 1989, I know a little about
teachers' salaries here. I received $2100 in salary in my first year,
and over twenty-five times that amount in my final year.
I never worked alongside anyone who was in my opinion incompetent and
stupid. I did observe that teachers varied in their devotion to the
job and in the positive impact that they had upon students. I did see
some people receiving promotion for the wrong reasons.
I also know that I certainly applied myself to my job. Over a period
of about twenty years after I began to teach, I spent many hours at
nights and in the summers upgrading my qualifications. I regularly
put in many hours every week outside of my teaching time. I .worked
very hard at my job, and I was not atypical - so did all but a very
few of my colleagues.
It is a myth that incompetent teachers are never fired. Our
ex-premier in Ontario, Mike Harris, was notoriously incompetent
when he worked at Fricker Sr. Public School for two years. His
cerificate was not made permanent and he was forced out of teaching
and had to find work running the golf course that was part of his
father's summer resort complex.
[This is all discussed in the John Ibbitson book on "The Commonsense
Revolution". Anyone who disputes the above information should
complain to Ibbitson, not to me.]
Some people ask whether his humiliation at that time at least partly
motivated the constant attacks on Ontario teachers that took place
throughout his years in the premier's office. [No, I was retired long
before he took office.]
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 03:39:38 GMT, in.txt@no-spam (Andy) wrote:
>"Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it
>matters not who makes that nation's laws.
>Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation.
>Until the control ofof the issue of currency and credit is restored to
>government and recognized as its most conspicous and sacred
>responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of Parliament and of
>democracy is iddle and futile "
Major banks and corporations provide most of the financial support
that our leading political parties receive, and control those parties.
[The New Democrats and Greens are not so financed and controlled of
course.]
These corporations largely see to it that the country is run for their
benefit.
Was it George Romney who said, "What is good for General Motors is
good for America"? That is certainly the attitude of big business in
Canada.
Parliament is supreme, but our parliamentarians are at the the ends of
strings held by corporate pupeteers.
If the Chretien bill on changing the financing of political parties is
passed, there will be a new playing field, and the potential for
government that will gradually become more attuned to the wishes of
the people.
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:48:47 GMT, "Jennifer Wainwright"
<JenniferWainwright@no-spam> wrote:
>
>"John Carrick" <jcarr@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:dqrmfv0hrsiqm3n29rkr4h8jn1tk82hm2i@no-spam
>
><snip>
>
>> Do NOT talk to me now about the undeserving poor. They are a tiny
>> percentage of those who benefit from government programs.
>
>Do you have any actual facts to support this statement? Please give us a
>cite.
I wouldn't be holding my breath, were I you.
----
_____________________________________________________________
/BitHead's Place: Political commentary from the REAL world. /\
/ http://home.rochester.rr.com/bitheads/ _/ /\
/Bit's weekly commentaries also available internationally: / \/
/ http://www.rightpoint.ca/ \ /
http://greysanctuary.com/columnists/bithead/index.asp /\
____________________________________________________________/ /
____________________________________________________________\/
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
".BitHead." <bithead@no-spam> wrote in message
news:lr9nfvc1t69cjp0t62nqdktv34o7cred90@no-spam
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:48:47 GMT, "Jennifer Wainwright"
> <JenniferWainwright@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John Carrick" <jcarr@no-spam> wrote in message
> >news:dqrmfv0hrsiqm3n29rkr4h8jn1tk82hm2i@no-spam
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> Do NOT talk to me now about the undeserving poor. They are a tiny
> >> percentage of those who benefit from government programs.
> >
> >Do you have any actual facts to support this statement? Please give us a
> >cite.
>
>
> I wouldn't be holding my breath, were I you.
>
Well, what he lacks in actual facts, he more than makes up for in the sheer
quantity of his opinions, stated as facts. We can't have everything!
Cheers,
Jennifer
Now, lets for once get this "name" thing understood.
Speaking for myself, if you think I'm dumb enough to let the nitwits and
idiots who post here know who I am, your as dumb as they are. A good way to
get your house robbed.
If I know you, and trust your at least honest,
I will communicate with you under my name.
God, thats just common sense! Have you read some of these totally idiotic
posts?
"Jennifer Wainwright" <JenniferWainwright@no-spam> wrote in message
news:9WlKa.307497$Vi5.8157418@no-spam
>
> "John Carrick" <jcarr@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:ecbifvodbtadqabmbvl3po6t84non1bnip@no-spam
> > On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:11:51 GMT, "Jennifer Wainwright"
> > <JenniferWainwright@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"John Carrick" <jcarr@no-spam> wrote in message
> >
> > >> >>It is typical of you to read every disagreement with your overly
> > >> >>selfish values as some sort of weakness.
> > >> >
> > >> >Put more correctly, it's typical of me to point out your weaknesses
to
> > >> >you, and typical of you to try and blame them on someone else.
> > >>
> > >> You have the most amazing gall.
> > >>
> > >> You some here in a cowardly fashion, unwilling to identify yourself,
> > >> and then you have the "chutzpah" to accuse *someone else* of
weakness?
> > >>
> > >> What a self-referencing ass you are!
> > >
> > >I don't follow your logic. How do you know for sure that my name is
> Jennifer
> > >Wainwright? How can I be sure that your name is John Carrick?
> > >
> > >Perhaps people that use obvious nicknames are being *more* honest than
> > >people that use realistic-sounding names -- at least you know for sure
> that
> > >they are using an alias.
> >
> > I don't think that you have provided me with much logic to follow.
>
> OK, I'll go over it one more time. You made the statement "You some (sic)
> here in a cowardly fashion, unwilling to identify yourself...." From this
I
> inferred that you had some problem with people using pseudonyms when they
> post. My point was that there is NO WAY for you to know whether or not
> someone is using a pseudonym, unless they give you more information in the
> body of their post. Do you follow it yet?
>
> >
> > If someone chooses to participate here *in attack mode* using a name
> > other than his or her own, he or she is being a coward, but at least
> > there is no flaunting his or her anonimity at others.
> >
> > Those who come here using a stupid pseudonym *and savaging others* are
> > calling attention to themselves though. They are saying, "Look at me!
> > I can have all of the privileges of using the Canadian political
> > newgroups to libel public figures and other posters, and I don't have
> > to take responsibility for what I say."
>
> I believe you were directing your invective against "Bithead." Could you
> please give me an example of his "savaging others"? I've not seen
anything
> from him that would warrant the word "savaging."
>
> >
> > A proportion of us come here using our correct names. We express our
> > opinions and stand behind them.
>
> And how do you know who is using their correct names?
>
> >
> > I suppose that you are correct. Some do come here using what looks
> > like a genuine name, but is not.
> >
> > That makes them both cowards and liars.
>
> I was not passing judgement on other posters. I'll leave that to Judge
> Johnny. I was simply making the point, a rather obvious one, so I don't
> understand your resistance to it, that there is simply no way of knowing
> whether or not someone is using a real name, unless they voluntarily
include
> further information.
>
> >
> > [Please understand...I have no serious problem with anyone coming here
> > anonymously, so long as he or she is civil and not looking to
> > assassinate the character of others.]
> >
> > >I can think of lots of legitimate reasons why someone may want to post
> under
> > >a pseudonym.
> >
> > Really? They are in for a disappointment then, since *everyone* who
> > posts here can be identified rather easily - I have had a lawyer do
> > this for me twice, when I was contemplating legal action - any
> > protection that people think they get from using a name other than
> > their own here is illusory.
>
> Well, if they use an anonymous remailer, it may not be all that easy.
>
> And what is the result of your legal actions, apart from your giving some
of
> your money over to a lawyer?
>
> <snip>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jennifer
>
>
> That's what's said, all right (along with "sharing" and all that),
>but in fact all too often it's to bring down those on top, as you
>point out, and it is that way from the start rather than a derivative.
Taxes on the wealthy are designed to "bring them down"?
What nonsense! What paranoia! What self-referencing!
Taxes on the wealthy are like all taxes - designed to finance
government.