Renegade

eureka, there is a lot of things I disagree with you on, but I'm 100% in agreement of your sentiment on this.

It is always interesting how much of the political left points to reduced debt loads as a beneficial thing, when they fought tooth and nail against paying down the debt and to increase social spending. They were also very much responsible for the social spending mentality which was prevalent in the 60's, 70's, and 80's which led to the debt in the first place.

Cheers, <{POST_SNAPBACK}> mirror, you orginally stated that most people enjoyed paying taxes, now your statement and post indiate that taxes are necessary. I never disputed that taxes are necessary, only disputed that people enjoy paying them. For most people auto insurance is necessary, but no one I know enjoys paying them. When the cost of auto insurance goes beyond the percieved value is of that insurance, then people are very resentful of the insurance company, despite the fact that the continue to buy insurance. The situation is the same with taxes. People do it because they are forced to. Most would concede that taxation is necessary. Most would say that they are taxed too highly for the benefits they get. Warren Buffet is entitled to his opinion, and his reputation is as an investor not as a philosopher on social issues. If Buffet feels strongly that corporations and the wealthy are undertaxed, why is he not acting as a role model for his beliefs and making the corporations he controls, or himself individually, voluntarily paying more tax? I'll tell you why, because the investors who support his company, would abandon him in droves. He may feel tlhat way personally, but I highly doubt he is representative of the investors who fuel his corporation.

mirror, your scenario does not provide much support for your contention that most people enjoy paying taxes. 1. People would agree to pay taxes if they saw fair benefit for themselves for the taxes they pay. In the situation you describe it is very much like insurance, where people would agree to pay becaue they thought that the benefit may also apply to them if the event occured. But what if there was more context around the scenario. Suppose only Richmond and its surrounding community were in the earthquake zone, and the taxes for relief were only restricted to earthquake relief. Do you think the rest of the country would be as ready to be taxed to support a fund for which they woudl see no benefit? 2. Your original statement was that most people enjoy paying taxes. You have painted a scenario which only depicts one benefit for the tax they pay. Even if people agree that they would contribute to the tax because they would like to enjoy the disaster relief benefit, it doesn't mean the enjoy paying all the other taxes which fund programs for which they may see no or very little benefit (eg CBC) 3. The scenario you describe doesn't include costs. If I asked someone "Would you agree to have 90% of your income taxed so that you may be provided with disaster relief in case of an earthquake?" He/she is more than likely to say "I'll take my chances with the earthquake". My point is that in a cost/benefit analysis which most taxpayers do in their head, they have concluded that overall, they don't get the benefit for which they pay, as evidenced by the results of the survey I posted.

mirror, to match police officers up to communities on a racial basis would smack of segegration. I'm be more inclined to accept it if was a case of assigning officers to communities in the closest proximity to where they live or grew up. Having a community exposed to officers of a different race can be beneficial as they are then exposed to races other than their own. It is only when there are extremes in representation that problems occur. My preference is to attack the biases in the selection process which excludes minority canidates, rather than impose "quotas"

Interesting point mirror. It is what I referred to when I asked the question "Is it possible that racial background IS an important attribute which is required of the position?" The problem is how do you prove that a minority canidate is more in tune with the minority community? And if you make that assumption, that they are because solely of their race, then I guess you would also conclude that a white officer would be more in tune with a white community. Would you then permit an all-white community to discrimminate against accepting a black officer because he was not "in tune with the community"

The question here is should we adopt an affirmative action policy where race can potentially outweigh the attributes required for the position. Is it possible that racial background IS an important attribute which is required of the position? For example, all other things being equal, is a black cop a better cop than a white cop in a black neighborhood because the black cop is more likely to be trusted? If the answer is yes, then it brings up the question of whether we let other people’s biases dictate the best choice of the candidate for a position. For myself, I am very much against affirmative action. People's fit for a role should be judged upon their skills for the job. Racial background should not be one of the attributes considered, and it is abhorrent to me that more qualified candidates would be passed over by less qualified ones just because they don't have the correct racial background.

eureka, while I disagree with you on why we should cut taxes, I'm not looking to hijack this thread by debating it here. My point was only to refute mirror's claim that "most Canadians enjoy paying taxes"

dear mirror, since you believe strongly that most canadians love paying taxes, have a look at these poll results. Three-Quarters (73%) of Canadians Say They Don’t Get Enough for Their Taxes

Come now mirror, so your position is that the poor and middle class love the government, but only complain because they are by nature the biggest complainers? BTW, the poor and middle class don't use the services because they are happy with them, it is because they have NO choice. (Isn't it ironic it is a position you endorse not to give them a choice?) No I read that. I just chose not to respond in kind. BTW, it is not me that is programmed and brainwashed. Tell me mirror, is there ANY industry you think the government should not run and own? It would seem that in your view that there only should be government-run industry and then we would have the best possible product and service? Is that correct?

I do. That's why I think they are justified in their complaints.

Actually there are no end to complaints about public transit, the state of the roads, the state of healthcare, and our schools. By your argument that would indicate that they are not very happy with the services provided by the government.

The majority of Canadians are middle-class not rich, and no even the middle class doesn't "enjoy" paying taxes. From what did you jump to that conclusion?

It doesn't really demonstrate that a socialist govenment is necessary. Even a facist government would have mobilized to build the infrastructure necessary to prepare for such an event and then recover from it. What it does demonstrate is that in times of emergencies a strong authority with power to act is the most effective way to mobilize resources in an emergency.

Most Canadians enjoy paying taxes???? What a load of nonsense. The people who shoulder the bulk of the tax load don't see benefits comparable to the taxes they pay. That's why they aren't given the choice, because if given, they would opt not to pay it.

I agree that intelligence is one attribute which led to the survival of the human species, however it is not the only one. Imagine a situation where one individual lives in a particualry harsh environment with little vegation and severe climatic conditions. Such an individual would need considerable ingenuity as well as physical skills to survive and thrive. Imagine another individual, who lives in a lush tropical garden where fruit and game is plentiful. Is it inconcieviable that one set of conditions would lead only the most intellectually fit of the species to survive? You seem to accept that there are physical differences between races. Such differences appeared without genitic mutation, so why would it not be possible for mental attributes be the same? It does seem that you are so closed to the possibility that you refuse to look at the evidence. Based upon what do you assume that there is assumption of superiority of one's own group? From what I have read of the people presenting the evidence, it hasn't been the presenter's race which has come out on top.

Why don't YOU address the issue YOU raised? You accuse me of have a position that welfare recepients abuse the system, but don't provide any statements or backup for your statement, then refuse to state what you mean by abuse. Oooh I'm so intimidated by your personal insults. Frankly your scenario makes no sense. To revolt a citizen would have to have both the will and the power to do so. Under what scenario does that exist in our soceity. It is always amusing to me how leftists phrase letting the people who earn money keep it, as "took money away from the poor, and gave it to the rich". It was never the poor's money and it belonged to those who earned it. They can do with it as they like, build a deck or blow it all gambling in Vegas. Its not the job market's responsibility to provide him opportunities, it's his responsibility to adapt to the job market. Care to explain what you mean by taking into account religious status? It is pure fantasy to equate "poor" to "good" and "rich" to "evil". Do you have any evidence to show that all "poor" are good, or all "rich" are "evil", or is this just one of your opinion with no basis in fact? A human being has sustinance requirements which don't differ based upon which country they come from or how long they live in the country. If you asked me many people who have lived in the country and depend upon social assistance to make up for what they did not themselves earn, can take a lesson on how to economize from refugees and immigrants. Where did you draw a conclusion that "democracy"="welfare state". Democracy is simply the system by which the citizens choose who will govern them. They are free to choose the extent of state intervention or not. Do you care to expand upon what " plethora of laws and by-laws, not to mention frivolous taxes on the people " are imposed which preclude anyone taking responsiblity for their welbeing? Are you saying that if those laws and taxes were not in place, you would agree that people should be responsible for their own wellbeing? I live as far north as I care to, and I'm grateful I haven't been contaminated by the "socialist hellhole of an ideology prevalent." If you think I'm defending social workers who behave as you have described, you are clearly misreading my statements. Applying for welfare isn't humiliating? That's pretty sad that anyone would not have the pride in self-reliance that would make applying for welfare humiliating on its own.

I agree. There is no suggestion that Blacks have superior physical skills in all areas. Where a particular physical attribute gives blacks an advantage in a particular sport, they may dominate that sport. Other races may equally well have other skills which give them an advantage in another sport. The point is that all races are not on equal footing when it comes to physical attributes. You may not accept that there is a significant difference in intelligence between races, but you do so contrary to both the evidence and common sense. Look at the following scenario: 1. At some point all races had a common set of ancestors. 2. At some point each race branched off and developed different physical characteristics which gave them an evolutionary advantage in their environment. 3. The only way all races would have no differences in intelligence, is if you believe that mental abilities of the races did not evolve and remain static from the time of the evolutionary split or, if by some remarkable coincidence all races evolved their mental abilities to exactly the same point today. Both are extremely unlikely scenarios. The statement that evolution would "have seen the extinction of those racial groups that are supposedly inferior." is simply wrong. Intelligence is not the only attribute which promotes survival of a species. In some environments physical skills and strength would confer greater survival advantage than intellect. There are many other "intellectually inferior" species than humans, yet the have been just as evolutionary successful as humans. Some would argue in fact that human intellect is an evolutionary disadvantage because it is human intellect which has led it to develop ways to kill themselves, each other, and the planet as a whole. You may dispute the tests, the testers, and the test results, which show the differences, but I fail to see based upon what evidience you have drawn the conclusion that races have equal average intelligence.

So lets say the all the provinces decide to set the maximium price for gas.. Now let's also say that the price of gas continues to rise and the market price is above the maximium. For a short while, people celebrate as they are getting gas at a below market price. Pretty soon the companies who own and control the gas decide that there is not enough to be gained by selling to Canada and they ship their gas elsewhere where the selling price reflects the market price. So pretty soon thereafter, Canada has gas shortages, and the same people formely celebrating, are now rioting and would happily buy gas at any price.

It is surprising to me the extent to which people will put blinders on, and despite the evidence, won't consider that race and genetics play a factor in intellectual achievement. It is clear that there are on average differences in physical attributes between races. These differences manifest themselves as skills which corelate to performance in a particular activity (eg sport). It should surprise no-one that at the extremes of performance (eg elite athletes) one racial group, which is geneticly advantaged in that skill, would dominate over other groups. It is similarly true for mental attributes. Even if we discount biases in testing such as with IQ, other tests show differnces between races. Testing of decision-times of 9-year old children found that Asian kids to have the fastest times, followed by Whites, and then Blacks. The study found that movement times (time to execute the decision) was substantially higher in Blacks, than Whites and Asians. If the evidence suggest that mental skills may be different between races, doesn't that make it plausable, even probable that there are differences in average IQ between races? Since IQ does corelate to academic achievement, I think it helps explain the overrepresentation of certain races in the academic elite. As I've said before, I don't think it is the only factor, undoubtly parental attitude, peer pressure, and selective population filtering all play a part. Does this mean that we have cause to discriminate based upon race? Absolutely not!!!!! As Spar pointed out the variations between members of a racial group far outweigh the average differences between races, so generalizations applied to a race cannot be applied to individual members and to draw a conclusion that Race A is "better" than Race B would be a complete distortion.

An even better graph of Race-and-intelligence

Sorry forgot to include the link: IQ and the Wealth of Nations

I doubt that the barriers we put in place in selecting immigrants is the only cause. I would guess that it probably due to multiple effects each compounding each other. The issues as previously mentioned which I expect all play a factor, include genetics, cultural attitutde toward education, and immigration barriers which encourage only the 'elite' to immigrate to North America' As an aside, here is a estimated breakdown of IQ by nation: Is it a surprise that the top nations are all oriental?

I never said that the welfare system is systematically abused. If that's the impression I have conveyed, then I apologize because that's not what I meant. While I believe that there is some abuse, (as you would expect with any program) it is far from systemic and the majority are qualified recepients according to the rules. (As an aside, what do we mean by abuse? If a welfare recepient opts to buy alcohol or drugs with the money, is that abuse?) I agree that some level of welfare is necessary, for the simple practical reason that by maintaining a minimal level of welfare we reduce the propensity or recepients to revolt or otherwise resort to crime. I assume you mean the gap between the rich and poor. I've never followed this argument and it doesn't make sense to me. If the rich get richer, it doesn't make the poor any poorer except in relative terms when compared to the rich. Why does that even matter? I define able-bodied as unimpared by a phsysical or mental handicap. The government or others may define it differently. Yes I do think it is reasonable that a person should work at ANY job he/she can do instead of receiveing welfare. And yes, if a person is on welfare, why is not reasonable to ask him to work for the welfare payment? I know students and immigrants who get by on that amount or less. How do they do it? Well they end up pooling their resources by sharing accomodations, food, etc. They end up being very frugal with their expenses. I don't dispute that the $536 minimium welfare payment doesn't buy you much, but the question is it enough to sustain? If you think it is not, point me to the last incidence of someone on welfare dying of malnutrition. I reiterate to you that each person is responsible for his own wellbeing. The state is not a nanny to make sure you provide for your own contingencies. Why exactly is Mr Joe in the circumstances he finds himself in? Is he not employable, has he not planned for potentially being out-of-work, is he a drug addict, or is he disabled and cannot work? I won't defend the behaviour of social workers. They seem to have forgotten that they are employees of the public they serve. Even without the behavour of the workers, applying for welfare is a humiliating experience, but is this really a surprse? Afterall asking for a handout is not an action I would be proud undertaking.

If you are touched by the devastation that this hurricane has caused and want to help: American Red Cross (800) HELP NOW (435-7669) English; (800) 257-7575 Spanish Operation Blessing (800) 436-6348 America's Second Harvest (800) 344-8070