bleeding heart

Sure, I see what you mean. You may well be right.

Not in the actually-existing world, no. But in certain theoretical...sorry...in certain hypothetical realms, that do not apply too well to lived reality, it's an awesome idea.

Jeez...my eyes somehow skipped right over that. That first line is more important than the subject of the article itself, I think. It's a hell of a lot of money. If it's justifiable, then they must be able to explain it, plainly and without equivocation.

I more or less disagree (it depends, I guess, on what exactly would be done), but my personal disagreement is beside the point; I would love to watch someone try to get elected in Canada on a Privatize Health Care proposal! Watching crashes and burns is part of political theatre, I guess. They're troubled; to call them "broken" is worse than exaggeration.

Mission accomplished, then.

It does sound bad, and worse than I would have guessed. As for the OP...well, I can't imagine trying to defend that nonsense.

CanCon only requires two-thirds Canadian, so it more than suffices.

Of course he believes in American exceptionalism. That's not a criticism of him, by the way. It's the way it is. Obviously he does not. You have offered no evidence, in an entire post about the evils of creeping, sly socialism. None. There's another term for this truism, which extrapolates universally, and it's called "democratic politics." People will object to too much overreach, too much misuse of power, as you say...that kind of solves the dilemma you warn about so apocalyptically, doesn't it? The chances remain good that Americans have little to truly fear from President Obama, or from President Romney....or rather, not in the portentous way you describe. People elsewhere, in specific and targeted geostrategic realms...now they doubtless have some legitimate fears.

Well of course...anyone who wasn't completely blinded by ideology would understand this the instant they talked about "holding hostage."

All I'm asking, perhaps with insufficient respect, is that we stop talking about "sharing the pain" as if that's truly what's occurring. "Things are tough all over," when used as an answering point in an actual debate, is an empty platitude. It verges on being flatly untrue, in fact. I'm not suggesting prescriptions; I don't have the insight or wisdom to come up with them. To be fair to me, it appears that neither do our leaders, planners, and policymakers...not that it's on their radar anyway. But that doesn't mean that nothing can be done. In a global era of truly momentous changes, that's almost a counterintuitive idea. But what you pointed out on another post is certainly correct: it takes trmendous political will to effect changes...whatever they might be. I know, but I was responding directly to declarative sentences about the way the pain is shared, and so on. It's not diverting from the topic if I respond to points people are actually making. At any rate, it brings me back to my final complaint: if i were opining about any number of injustices, there would be zero controversy. Raise issues about the way government policy affects the poor more than the rich...and there's a loud "Meh." I'm not quite sure why, my earlier speculation notwithstanding. I agree. They've been quite helpful in a lot of ways. I don't think it's a conspiracy at all, at least not as the term is connotatively understood.It's a sort of institutional lunacy, hallowed by time, sanctified by intellectuals (courtiers, in effect if not intent), and driven by the terrific human weakness of sycophancy, or worship of powerful men. (And women...well, no, pretty much men.)

Do you object to the term? Your point is unclear.

You have continually insisted that there is tremendous substance to it...all pointing directly at Jack Layton's likely machinations.

No. much of what they do is workaday, ordinary, and we know they work thanks to a history of seeing it in action. We're here talking about something out of the ordinary, and...to reiterate my point--is a fairly unconservative way of thinking. Really? Assume it? So why debates, why Parliamentary debates, why an Opposition, why any democratic forms whatsoever? We know we can trust the wise heads to do the right thing, after all. My complaints (not denunciations, but a timid suggestion of caution) are meaningless, as you say... ...and yet, for some reason (unstated) your full-throated defense and support of it--and your opposition to a cautious approach--is meaningful, indeed. Sure there is. And by the way, it may well be nothing more than that. But it's certainly the case that there's a strong ideological wing to conservatism that has always said "shrink the government"...while ignoring the threat of increased power in the hands of a private minority. That's a lot scarier than "big government" (and in fact, it remains "big government," just in a different, less representative way). Yes, they're not being dishonest--that we know of--nor are they reneging on their goals. I get that, and as a citizen in a democratic state, them's the breaks for those who feel as I do, that slow and easy is safer and wiser. This is totally, utterly divorced from the points I made on this particular subject. Completely different topic. But since you bring it up...there are not a few conservatives who feel little victims like Walmart are too encumbered by overbearing labour and safety laws. I've debated with them on this forum. It would appear you're not one of them, fortunately. I'm not so sure about our Prime Minister, however. If he can openly and to a foreign audience mock and condemn nationalized health care, comparing us to the Soviets...I don't see why labour laws couldn't be on the table, as well. I am? With all due respect, Moonbox--andI think you'll see it if you reread our exchange--only one of us has gone out of his way to allow for the other's view at all. Well, I'm not positive you're wrong, as I already pointed out. If it seems I'm waffling on this point (trying to have it both ways, or what have you) it's only because I don't feel as sure abotu all this as you seem to. And I find so much surety about such an unknown a little curious.

Fair enough. I didn't think the illogic suited you.

That's my impression, too. And it transcends political boundaries, so is a sort of democratic foolishness. "Socialist" is gone; maybe some other deserving folks will fade away too.

Your wit is exceeded only by your intelligence.

How is it that the red-blooded military fetishists among us are unaware of these interesting little facts?

Well, at least the people of Michigan can take confort in the fact that they used to be good for something.

By "true consumers," I assume you mean "consumers." Ah...spend our tax money on the private sector! So much for "free markets."

Of course. I'm only pointing out who gets hurt most by austerity policies--in reply to your stated view that the biggies "hurt" as well. Most of the Earth would welcome that kind of "pain." It's like President Carter's remarks about the Vietnam War that "the destruction was mutual." As for "this is the world"...it's not an earthquake or a hurricane. It's human policy, governed through the choices, and the stronger and wealthier you are, the bigger hand you've had in making this system what it is (institutionally)...and it's designed to hurt the poor more than the rich. That is, if someone's got to hurt...it should be the lower orders. This is actually surprisingly explicit; I don't know if that's a sign of political awakening on a broad scale, or rather a growing lack of concern for others. Yes, the pain increases the lower on the ladder one sits. No I'm not. How so? By mentioning it? You're agreeing with me that austerity would never be implemented if it were to hurt the moneyed classes too severely; which means--by definition, mind you--that you agree it is an elitist policy, and defended largely by top-down class warriors. Again, this isn't railing at "the way of the world," at least no moreso than proclaiming that violent crime is bad. (It's always been with us, and likely always will.) I can't imagine why such in-our-face class issues are somehow boring, has-been topics, and complaints are just tilting at windmills. Unlike, say, rape or murder, or...heavens forfend! ...theft. I assume it's our widespread, indoctrinated acceptance of the innate superiority of people with wealth over those who lack it. I honestly can't think of another explanation why this topic, almost alone, is the one that mainstream liberals (never mind conservatives) get so...yaaawwwwn-y about. No other topics, mind; just this one.

Agreed. You never know. I seem to remember a not-too-long-ago Canadian election in which the conventional wisdom was that it was a waste of time, because everyone would remain exactly in the same position. One majority government, one decimation of the country's traditionally most successful Party, one even bigger decimation of another Party, and one astonishing showing for the embattled leftists later...well, hardly anybody predicted it correctly.

A worthy addition to the argument. Contrary to what some people might think, there are serious costs involved in instituting a system of executions. Unless we do away with appeals, prisoners' rights, and use the old kneeling-convict-shot-in-the-head bit; and I don't think Canada wants to quite go down that road.

Exactly so. As you say, there's nothing to really blame the conservatives for--not as a Party-comparative exercise, anyway. But neither do they deserve tremendous accolades.

Granted. But we don't know how or how good it's being done now; you've conceded that we cannot know (which is actually a gloomier forecast than I hold to, interestingly); so we're to take massive cuts as an article of faith? And just to clarify, since I know I haven't been clear: I am not inherently and automatically opposed to public service cuts. I simply feel that there's a wanton sense of incaution around pretty large-scale changes....changes which, oh-so-coincidentally, match long-cherished conservative notions about "shrinking the government" (and thereby increasing the power of unelected and unrepresentative private entities...and that really is a zero sum game, because we're talking about who holds power and influence. I'm just being more...conservative...on this matter than are the no-holds-barred Conservative supporters. Yes, but (very real) union issues aside, they are a bulwark. Private entities are legally-bound not to give a damn about what most poeple want...only shareholders. In fact, that's too generous, as we see the "ethical shareholders" of Walmart literally laughed out of the board meeting for voicing their concerns about treatment of labour. So a private entity owes its allegiance to its owners or (by law) to its shareholders (the major ones, the rich ones)...period. They can and sometimes do bend to the public will, but not generally. Consumerism aside, only government has the muscle to force them into right behaviours. (I'm speaking, of course, of those who misbehave; not all do, and not all to the same degrees.) The trouble with the shrink government argument is that it isn't--ever--only about costs, but also about an ideological affinity with powerful men. Usually it is sincere; based on certain aspects of economic theory; but the libertarianism of it is blind to the fact that someone will rule...less government does mean more private rule, in the absence of grassroots democratic institutions, which are anemic at best. And the chief difference between government rule and privatized rule is that the latter are not bound by niceties such as elections or representatives. Hell, they are already far more powerful than, oh, say, Public Sector Unions. And this answers my complaint nicely, which I appreciate--I see you've anticipated me--but how's that going to work? We're going to increase the political pwoer of the private sector--already far too large--and then....the Harper Conservatives are going to call for stricter regulations on their behaviour? All voluntary, of course, a bizarre late addendum to free market theory.

No. Private management drives efficiencies for profit, generally. If it's profitable to be less efficient, then that is the "efficient" choice, and will be automatically adhered to.