Moonlight Graham

I never said anything about overthrowing any government. In fact, I'm supporting the criticism in the OP of the overthrow of the Iranian regime. Not supporting a regime is different from overthrowing it. Tiresome intellectual lightweight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

By Jacob G. Hornberger: In response to above by Matthew Good, well said: And Hornberger continues, using a popular example: This is Exhibit A of why even our "favorite" Western leaders, from JFK/Reagan/Clinton/Obama, to Trudeau, de Gaulle etc. are all complete shills. These men aren't significantly "kinder" people than the politicians we despise, like Bush/Nixon/Harper etc., they are just way better at selling the B.S. to us, they do it with a joke and a friendly smile. It's appalling when the US and other Western governments choose to support, or not, brutal dictatorships based on how well they fall in line. Consider also Iran, North Korea, Iraq, Syria vs Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Pinochet's Chile etc. It's even more appalling that we the citizenry put up with this nonsense. States do as they do in order to secure the "national interest", but what if our citizenry's "national interest" included being interested in basic human rights over oil prices & military bases, and the fate of elections/support in part depended on this? We love our freedom, but won't support yours unless we get something out of it. So do you support human rights and liberty for all, or "national security" and the "national interests"?

LOL, Jan. 2008. Unless the pictures are still up I guess this is really old news.

Communist. Terrorist. Vagina!

According to the article, your numbers are wrong.

Exactly.

My point in the OP isn't that government workers work hard, earn their salaries, or shouldn't be reduced in number. My point is that large cuts of government jobs during tough economic times isn't a very good tactic for economic growth.

For the record, I never said anything about a shrinking tax base. I agree that jacee is off the mark. Taxes payed by government salaries seems just like moving money around in circles.

So let me get this straight. The Harper government implemented a economic stimulus plan equaling $47 billion (from 2009-2010, was there even more since then?). They obviously wanted to grow economic activity & stem unemployment etc. with this spending. Fast-forward to 2012, where in recent months the Harper gov had ordered all government departments to find ways to cut a certain percentage of their budgets (originally between 5-10%) in order to decrease overall government spending (austerity, in short). Seems fiscally prudent at first glace. But what is illogical is that numerous departments have laid off thousands of government workers in order to meet their budget cut obligations, & in the March 2012 budget the Harper gov "announced it would cut 19,200 public service jobs over three years in a bid to save $5.2 billion per year". How exactly do these layoffs help the Canadian economy? In a recession with high unemployment, they have raised unemployment #'s even more with this & added tens of thousands more people to an already large job-seeker pool in an already tough/competitive job market. Now unemployed, more people have to get on EI and other benefits & drain even more money from government coffers. Also, with these laid-off workers obviously not making the money they were, it decreases overall Canadian consumer spending which negatively impacts our economy. This is clearly an anti-stimulus policy by the government, and I don't see how it helps our economy, but rather worsens it; increases unemployment, decreases consumer spending, and puts more strain on our welfare system. Are the government savings from this worth the cost? If anything, such a recession is the time when you should NOT be laying off tens of thousands of federal employees. Some austerity measures may certainly be prudent, but maybe there should be a policy of trying to find cuts without mass layoffs, and rather wait for stronger economic times to cut federal jobs for savings.

Well, I never said Harper was the cause of Canada's strong fiscal situation. I also wouldn't be so quick to simply give Paul Martin all the credit. The Chretien government cut the deficit/debt, and the Finance Minister in any Canadian government certainly does not have absolute influence and authority over the budget. They, like most ministers, ultimately take their orders from the top. How much influence did Chretien/Martin/others have on the Liberal budgets? One can only speculate the breakdown. Also, our banking and finance sectors are regulated well, apparently, and I honestly have no idea who is responsible for that, but it certainly wasn't Harper. If Harper was smart diplomatically and still wanted to keep his nose out of the Eurozone crisis he should just flip them 50 million, say he helped, and call it a day.

On the other hand, I do agree with you. Yours was my original stance. Yes, it's probable Canada will at some point need some outside help, and it's not wise to brush off close allies. Also, what's best for Europe's economy is in large part best for ours. A huge dip in their economic health hurts us inevitability. On the other hand, Europe wants Canada to give $430 billion in a bailout package to the IMF for Europe. That's almost $24,000 for every working Canadian (about 18,000,000). STICK IT IN YER EAR!

Europe is in economic shambles and clearly Canada has the record to give whatever advice it wants to the EU, so maybe the EU should take heed since they clearly don't know what the heck they're doing. This Barroso guy seems like a clown. As for Canada giving Europe funds, Harper summed it up quite well: Europe is rich! There are plenty of countries in Europe doing ok, and since much of this crisis is their own fault maybe they should solve it with their own money. I wouldn't be 100% against a plan for Canada to give a loan to European countries, as long as that money is paid back within a decent timeframe...with interest! No doubt that the recent global recession had much of its roots in the US, but the fact that some European countries are absolutely buckling (while others aren't) is not the fault of the US.

Or more accurately, they love their power. The Harper gov wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for all their power-hungry BS moves they've been trying to pull since they 1st took power. I couldn't even imagine what cabinet/caucus meetings are like for the other CPC members trying to work with Harper. He must be a total douche to work under.

Check your spelling.

Darn right. Or they must have probable cause, but what is to stop anyone working the mics from eavesdropping at their leisure, or when the boss isn't around? This is too dangerous, too covert, too easily susceptible to corruption. The terrorism security situation in Canada is under enough control by our state that such a breach of civil liberty/legal rights is not necessary or defensible. I think this is arguably a violation of Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: "8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure". It seems like just more ridiculous Big Brother bullshit from Vic Toews and the CPC. They clearly want more power to spy on the citizenry, and they will not get it I hope. Some bunch of "conservatives" they are! I thought conservatives are supposed to have great mistrust of the state & wish to minimize its influence? The thing is, Vic Toews isn't an idiot. He's a lawyer, he knows the law & the constitution, he knows exactly what he's doing, and knows exactly how to manipulate the law and find cracks/loopholes in the law to achieve whatever bullcrap authoritarian agenda he or the CPC has.

Word. But I will always admire his fine style of dress, and his refusal to wear ties, and shirts buttoned to the top. So constricting!

Rankings from various polls of scholars and whatnot, pretty interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States#Scholar_survey_results

They should keep Kevin O'Leary on just as a reminder to all of us just what type of people are running and operating on Wall Street and Bay Street. Greedy heartless ruthless dirtbags.

Monday will look like this then:

On the plus side, command chains are very efficient. Democracy slows things down. If businesses were democracies among employees nothing would ever get done.

This is an interesting issue. Personally, I like using profanity and don't mind hearing it since I find it both humourous and an effective & relatively harmless way to express strong emotions (psychological studies have shown the use of profanity to be a healthy way to relieve stress, emotional/physical pain, anger etc.). Many others feel the same as I (though of course not all), & over the past few decades profanity has become far more socially acceptable (see: use in media). However, there is still a stigma about using profanity around children. We don't want to be the ones to be teaching little Johnny the F-word, and it is still odd and often obscene in most people's minds to hear a child using profanity. But should we care if we use profanity around children, especially our own, if we like to use profanity ourselves when they aren't around? Why should we discourage children from using profanity if 1) it's hilarious, 2) it's a rather harmless & emotionally healthy way form expression (sticks & stones...), and 3) kids are likely just going to grow up and hear these words and start using them themselves eventually? I'd like to know your personal thoughts on profanity (like it? hate it?), as well as the question of exposure to children & children using it.

I don't know why, but I don't have much of a problem with consenting adults doing stupid things for our entertainment. As long as they know exactly what they're getting into. Maybe that's why I like porn and the UFC and America's Funniest Videos.

100% agreed.

How is what I said having to do with an absolute monarchy? I said the monarchy has power, not absolute power, via bloodlines. It's still stupid.