segnosaur

why can't taxpayers find out the true cost of super planes? I assume you're referring to the purchase of the F35. The 2 situations aren't really comparable. In the case of the F35, we don't know the true cost of the planes because the cost hasn't been finalized yet. The details of the agreement have to be worked out. The F35 is a relatively new piece of hardware and for better or worse there are unknown factors. When it comes time to finalize the deal then we'll know the cost. This is different from the CBC party, which has already gone on. (And even if the government were somehow able to 'hide' the costs, eventually the conservatives will loose power, and whatever party comes after them will have access to the government's books. They can release them if the want. The CBC is more protective of its financials.)

You are of course making the mistake of assuming that just because they favor certain cuts that the individual is a member of a "Canadian Tea Party". Frankly, the U.S. Tea Party scares me. I believe in reducing the size and impact of government, but I believe the Tea party is really out to lunch. Another false assumption... I have felt the CBC should have been cut years ago (long before the "tea party" existed. I'm sure others have too. Well, according to Wikipedia, the National Film Board's budget is roughly $70 million/year (of which $60 million comes from the government). The CBC receives roughly $1 billion (give or take a little.) So, the CBC receives around 16 times the funding of the NFB. Anyone looking to cut wasteful government spending should consider targeting the largest expenditures first. (Someone could also point out that the NFB does do some things that are a little more 'distinctive' than the CBC, in that there is less overlap with what the private sector does. However, for me that's only a minor consideration. The bigger budget of the CBC is the reason its more of an issue for me.

Ummm.... first of all, the article makes it clear that they were referring to a specific event (an NDP meeting). Secondly, you DO realize that the rules for party contributions has changed lately, don't you? Rules have been brought in that limit how much an individual or organization can donate. Perhaps the conservatives didn't complain a few years ago because it wasn't against the law a few years ago. There are specific rules to set up to help avoid people skirting election finance rules. If I own an advertising firm, I am limited to (I think) a $500 donation. I cannot skirt the law and offer to print all of a party's election literature (worth thousands of dollars) for a token sum of $1 because the token sum doesn't represent the real value. This doesn't mean that the NDP actually broke the law, but its the type of law that must be respected to ensure a level playing field.

Good question. What exactly did BC do with the subsidy it received? (Ontario basically used the money to send cheques to taxpayers... kind of like bribery.)

Actually, I'm not making ad-hominems attacks. An ad-Hominem involves attacking qualities of the poster, not the argument the poster made. However, since you never really made an argument, there was nothing for me to actually deal with. My suggestion that you "dismiss things with a wave of your mighty hand" is not a ad hominem; it is an observation regarding your posting style. At least I'm making arguments. Still waiting to hear how you justify your "thin edge of the wedge" argument (as well as everything else) in the health care thread. If you feel wronged then you have ever right to report it. Technically the only one who can determine whether I "stepped over the line" is the moderator/owner of the forum.

And cops couldn't get a higher priority? What are the chances of 10 fires happening at the same time? By the nature of their job, there are more available policing "units" than there are firefighting "units". And while the chance of 10 fires happening at one time is low, you still want to maximize response time, something that will not happen if your local fire team is out of place and a truck must respond from a station located further away. Makes no sense... "You were just arrested for shooting someone. But since I can't fit you on my Segway I'll just let you go". Emergency responders have to plan for worst case scenarios.

You're right, you're not like me. That's because I make it a point to try to address every point that is made by an opponent in any sort of on-line debate. You, on the other hand, seem to ignore points, or dismiss them with a wave of that mighty hand. Nobody can 'understand' someone if they never actually say anything. I pointed out reasons why going after relatively "minor" crimes might be beneficial. You never provided any response, only returned to your original claim that I had debunked. I do keep to the topic. I make it a point to try to address every point an opponent makes. And in the rare occasion I defer to an earlier post, I at least state what post it was. You are more than welcome to report me. The owner of this site can and should have free reign to run this site as he sees fit. If I have stepped over the line, the owner can take appropriate actions.

Still waiting to see evidence that Canada pays its own way at such summits, or details about what the "accomidation costs" were for. Results of the summit... - Agreements to impose tax on financial services organizations - Agreement to reduce Debt/GDP ratio - Free trade agreements made Also, keep in mind that other summits have produced valuable results: - 2009 agreement to regulate hedge funds - Financial aid to struggling economies These type of meetings DO produce results, even if the Canadian meeting didn't have any major announcements. Show me how many multinational corporations require the rather large security accomodations that the summit required. Not really. I doubt the Toronto police force had only limited resources. Ummm... where exactly do you think a "secure locality" is?

See: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/06/09/auditor-general-g8-g20-report-harper-clement-muskoka-toronto_n_873746.html the auditor general says it appears the initially budgeted $1.1 billion for the summits will actually come in around $664 million. That's because poor co-ordination forced departments to over-budget and set up contingency funds that were not needed.

Actually, you can do broadband internet via satellite starting from $40/month. (Its not perfect...for example, the upload/download speed is asymetrical, but it would probably serve the required purpose). The subsidies that we give to the CBC would be able to fund such service to roughly 2 million Canadians. Given the fact that there are only around 100,000 in the northern territories, we could cover the cost full internet for them and have plenty of money left over if we scrapped the CBC. Ummm.. yes they do. That's kind of the point. They do have CBC radio. The question is, do we actually need to fund an entire network just to give radio service to a few remote communities, or are there ways we can help them get news/information but with us spending less taxpayer money.

I don't think the "estimates" for the entire conference were ever less than $200 million. They may have made initial budgetary requests for portions of the conference that were under $200 but that doesn't mean they expected that to be the final price. (I believe the auditor general made the same statement) Ummm... first of all, do you have any proof that Canada payed for its own accomidations at other G8/G20 meetings? Secondly... there's not a heck of a lot of details in your post, just $17 million for Toronto "accommodation". Its possible that that cost includes things like rental of meeting rooms (not just sleeping areas), and/or places for out-of-town Canadian delegates and security people to sleep. So even if we weren't paying for Obama's hotel room and mini-bar there would be costs involved.

The fact that people are objecting to one tax measure/tax grab, does not necessarily mean that they are objecting to all tax measures. I could say "I don't mind paying 30% income tax" and still object if the government decided to raise it to 40%. Quite possibly. Not necessarily saying it would be a good model or bad. It does run the risk of handcuffing the government. Frankly, I'd like to see more effort put into explaining to people what the cause/effect is of various spending and tax programs. (Something along the lines of "If you want program X, be prepared to pay $Y out of your pocket".)

And yet, when this happened you didn't call the police yourself? Or did you? I guess we both have a different explanation for why people don't report crimes to the police. There can be many reasons, to be sure. One that I put forward is, they felt the crime was too petty to call the cops. Why? because as you said, "There's nothing they can do about it". My exact word that I used was "ineffective". That's different than saing there's nothing they can do about it. Being ineffective means that the case won't be solved, whether its due to the fact that a case is impossible to solve, or that they simply don't have the interest to solve the case. From the Forum rules: "Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent..." Did I hurt your feelings? Yeah, I'm insulting. Sometimes rude. But there's a reason. Because I have very little respect for people who engage in debates without ever actually saying anything useful. If I say "You're wrong on point X because of Y", then you should either try to come up with your own rebuttal, or acknowledge a possible flaw in your argument. However, what you did is you simply responded with X. That type of mentality deserves no respect.

Well, if the firefighters are on part of their regular duty, they may not be able to direct traffic (since they could be called out to a fire at any time.) If we need traffic direction so few times in a year, then that's not a big usage of police research. So thinking that it will somehow save money probably wouldn't work. While stationing police in cars may not make them appear "friendly", it may be necessary for pragmatic purposes. Your idea of "community based policing" can only be carried so far; not all areas will have the population density to support their own "local force", not to mention the need for cars to (for example) transport prisoners/police roadways.

I do have to wonder about why the poor people are there. (I know its not necessarily a question that can be answered). Is there a reason that they cannot move to a more populous area, where there might be more opportunities? (We do have a fairly mobile population here in Canada.) Perhaps they're staying in their remote area simply because they like the lifestyle (i.e. they're considered 'poor' but its actually a deliberate decision to prefer freedom/isolation over material wealth), in which case I don't have much sympathy.

In 2005, Ontario police were earning in the area of 60-70K for a "first class constable". (See: http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20051103/police_salary_comparisons_051103/20051103/?site_codename=toronto) A "first class firefighter" earns $73K. (See: http://howtoliveincanada.com/work-as-a-firefighter-in-toronto/) I don't think you're going to save much if you replace police with firefighters for things like directing traffic. As for bylaw enforcement, I always assumed that they were not full policemen. (I know Ottawa has separate bylaw enforcement officers that have different vehicles than the regular police.)

Because, it's a waste of their time and resources when they should be going after the big boys? Wow, just.. amazing. Boggles the mind. I gave multiple justifications why its more than justified for the police to go after such minor crimes. (Hint: See post #23). Yet you manage to ignore all the points I made, and instead of addressing them you return and make the same retarded comment you made before. Tell me, was that actually accompanied by a mighty wave of your and and a fart? Do you ever actually, you know, address points? Or do you just go on online forums and post random garbage? Oh, but wait a second... a second ago you claimed that dealing with such small crimes was a "waste of resources". First of all, if you recall, I brought up the issue that we don't really know how many people are arrested for "mere posession". When people are arrested for multiple offenses, statistics concentrate only on the most serious crimes. Your thief who gets caught with drugs on them will get reported as a drug crime even though the individual would have been arrested anyways. Secondly, if you want to argue that they should reform drug laws in order to free up police resources for other crimes, there may be some validity to that argument. But that is not the same argument as "Do we have too many cops".

Uhhh... no. If you remember, I specifically said the police would not have done anything, and I did not need it for insurance purposes, so why waste my time and effort. Vandalism that cost me time and money. You really think such actions should just be shrugged off? How many other acts do you think the people caused? Think they honestly would have stopped at just my bike?

C: while not nice, they are petty crimes and a waste of time for cops, who should be dealing with serious crimes. Ummm... why exactly are those types of crimes a "waste of time"? The bike, while it was relatively cheap, cost me over $100 at a department store (this was decades ago). Replacing the tires on the bike cost around $40 (plus my time and effort). I doubt very much anyone willing to steal or wreck a bike only stops at the one instance, so you basically have them costing society possibly thousands, perhaps even 10s of thousands of dollars. Then you also have the secondary benefits... an area where even such 'petty crimes' are rampant is going to be seen as an undesirable place to live. There's also the "broken windows" theory... the idea that criminals often start with petty crimes and "work up" to more serious crimes. If you intercede while the crimes are small (and ensure punishment is given), you provide better social conditions to keep crime from spreading. While the evidence is not completely conclusive, the concept has been applied to places like New York and the Netherlands. (Heck, if I remember correctly, New York actually saw the number of people in jail DROP when they started prosecuting more petty crimes, which is the opposite of what you'd expect.)

Assuming of course that they would even bother filing a claim. With insurance deductables, filing a claim may not be worth it depending on the theft. In the past few decades I have: - Had one bicycle stolen (lock cut) - Tires slashed on another bike (petty vandalism) - Had a few small items (VHS tapes, etc) stolen by a former 'friend' I did not report any of these crimes to the police, because A: The police would be ineffective in solving the crime, and B: the value of the objects was low enough that it did not justify an insurance claim.

Well, I have to say, its an interesting concept. Looking at their web site, they seem to offer certain services (e.g. CAT scans) that might otherwise have a waiting list in other provinces, so it appears that at least some of those membership fees are going towards giving people better care. (And I could also add that when individuals use those facilities at the private center, they no longer have to use the public facilities, so people sticking to the public system end up better off too.) That said, I don't know enough about the quality of care/services to say whether this is a good organization or not. All I can say is that it appears to be going in the right direction.

A few points... - As I mentioned before, its actually the reported crime rate that is down. We don't actually know what the actual crime rate is at this point. - its possible for the crime rate to go down and still have more crimes committed/more people arrested, simply because of population growth - Even if "crime rate" is down, does that mean it is as low as it could be? Is there a reason people are assuming "We don't have any more crime so we're successful?" What if there's 100,000 murders one year and only 99,999 murders the next, should we say "hurray! killings are down"? Shouldn't we instead be saying "Umm... why do we keep having so many murders?" - Petty crime is still crime. Even if you ignore things like "victimless crime", even minor things like shoplifting, vandalism, etc. cost society. Well, for better or worse, the "underclass" probably commits a greater proportion of the crimes. Not necessarily saying the wealthy never break the law (Bernie Madoff anyone?), but social and economic pressures may result in more crime by those with less income. So, because someone can't find a job, I should put up with (for example) having people steal from my store? Yes there are other problems in society. But that doesn't mean policing should be ignored. Do you really think it will improve the economic and social situation of the lower classes if they live in an environment where they can steal (or get stolen from) with impunity?

To be honest, I do not know enough about the Copeman centers to really make any useful statement. I have to admit, I am surprised that they would be charging "out of pocket" membership fees. (Not saying its a good thing or bad thing... just that I had assumed the federal government would have tried to stop them.) Perhaps they do offer a degree of "private" health care, in which case I'm wondering why I don't hear more of an uproar from the more left-wing groups. (Then again, I am in Ontario, and it looks like the Copeman centers are based out west.) And I never really stated what exactly I'm "lobbying" for... I do have a few ideas that I think might improve the system e.g. allow for-pay MRI clinics (while keeping existing public facilities), bring in a co-pay for certain services for those earning more than a certain income, and allow doctors to charge extra if they work "overtime". All of those might improve the system (without requiring the need for additional MDs, without requiring a massive over hall of the system, and while continuing to provide the same level of care for the "poor".)

Of course, if you're too aggressive in "putting downward pressure on prices" you run the risk of costing lives, either by curtailing use of existing technology, or by putting a damper on new technology. The problem is, most medical problems are actually pretty cheap to solve (vaccinations, simple operations, etc.). However, we (as a society) want to squeeze out every last possible year of life. That means new (and possibly more expensive) treatments. On the other hand, if one of those "good doctors" can earn 450K going to the U.S., we might loose them. And keep in mind that many of the reasons we loose doctors to the U.S. is not because of money, but because the U.S. gives them more flexibility/resources (e.g. more access to diagnostic tools, operating rooms, etc.) But having such options available costs money (one of the reasons health care is more expensive in the U.S. is the "excess capacity".)

How many cops are working on unreported cases ? That one made me scratch my head. They aren't. But the fact that many crimes go unreported means that we may not necessarily be "safer". Added policing might create a deterrent effect. Or perhaps if the citizens affected by such crimes recognize that the cops might actually act on a crime they might be more willing to report it.