Archanfel

Try look up how much that needs to be and past fare increases before drawing conclusions. That of course is assuming no cost cutting.

The problem is there will be no incentive to work hard since the cheques would not grow or shrink either way. Another problem is that it will be a government sponsored job grab from ordinary citizens. If the sole purpose of social welfare is to help people in tough spots then it should be a short term loan (just like the student loans) rather than a handout. I also would expect people to pay back these loans plus the corresponding interests based on the default rate. The default rate can be kept low by only issuing loans to people who with proven skills, will to invest in themselves and good work ethics. The system does not have to turn a profit, but it needs to be self-funding to prove that welfare does help people out of poverty. Disabled people should not be on welfare, there should be a separate long term disability insurance system that cater to their specific needs.

eh, wasn't it you who said TTC ridership and revenue kept on going up? You knew that the fare has been raised numerous time, right? What made you think another raise would put transit out of reach for many and decrease ridership and revenue?

Oh, my life is not tough at all, thanks for asking. I find most people in Toronto to be warm, generous and intelligent, instead of ideological, selfish, ignorant or gullible. Toronto is a great city. I am sorry you don't feel the same way.

I'd say your life must be pretty sad living among a population that you believe is largely ideological, selfish, ignorant or gullible. You are not just trying to set up a defense before starting to shoot people, are you?

So by your definition, everybody "wanting to keep more of your money in exchange for less "services"" is selfish? Again, are you listening to yourself?

So you are saying that 47% of the voters are ideological, selfish, ignorant or gullible. Are you listening to yourself? And you say I have a dogma? BTW, a lot of the same voters voted for Miller 5 years ago. Were they also ideological, selfish, ignorant or gullible then or did IQ suddenly dropped in Toronto under Miller's rule?

My point is the people of Toronto made our choices democratically and if you think 47% of voters are blind adherence to a given dogma, then I think you are the one who is blind.

Why is the solution for everything more taxes? It requires TTC to be profitable and better usage of existing tax revenues. I am perfectly fine with both measures. TTC's problem is not too many riders, it's too many riders not paying enough to cover the costs. (You can either blame below market fair or high costs, your pick).

Attn: cybercoma No, you don't and you are not the common sense. Best regards, Archanfel

I understand it fine, I just disagree with you on the purpose of taxes or the role of the government. You seems to have trouble grasping the fact people can disagree with you. You are entitled to your opinions, I am entitled to mine. Thankfully, the people of Toronto don't choose mayors based on your opinion, we had a democratic election and we chose Rob Ford as our mayor. I don't agree with him completely, but I like that he is cutting taxes and reducing government work force. I know perfectly well without the tax cut we wouldn't have to cut services as much, but in my opinion he made a good call. The days of 3.8% tax hikes and vehicle taxes are behind us.

Unfortunately, you will continue to be a party whether Toronto ban shark fins or not.

LOL. I actually agree with you on that.

Do they need a "downside" to bash Ford? The "downside" is Doug Ford's name is somehow involved. If Doug Ford was advocating Mother Teresa helping out in schools, you can bet they would still be bashing him.

Except that's not what they are protesting against. They are protesting against the middle class who are already under heavy tax burden. They simply want more bailout for individuals and an even more progressive tax system. That's not going to hurt the wealthy elites much, but would crash the middle class which is already shrinking. Of course, they can't say that, so the message is vague at best with no concrete proposals other than rhetoric. They are not saying "Stop bailing out the corporations so that we can cut taxes for the middle class", they are saying "Stop bailing out the corporations so that we can bail out the people" Who are the "people"? Not the middle class for sure, since we don't need a bail out, we just need less taxes. Unless the corporation doesn't employee anybody in Canada, it will hurt a lot more people than just the shareholders. Not only that, the ripple effect in the local economy would be traumatizing. However, that's necessary for the economy to realign. Remove unneeded capacity and move people to more productive roles. Yes, it's painful, but neither the communists nor Keynes have found a better way. I am all for social safety net. If somebody really gets into a tough spot through no faults of his/her own, then we as a society should lend a helping hand, if only so that they can pay more taxes later. However, that's simply not the case for a lot of people. I am not talking about frauds. Take the golden girl of TCHC Munira Abukar for example. Is she or her parents still in a worst case scenario? I don't think they are committing welfare or housing fraud, but I'd say they are getting pretty comfy there. How many urban Canadian couples can afford 9 kids or a 5 bedroom apartment in Toronto? That's not a worst case scenario for these people, it's a nightmare for the middle class who are paying their bills. The scary part is these people don't feel apologetic at all, while in the mean time, hundreds of people who are really in their worst case scenario languish on the waiting list. Moral hazard (which has nothing to do with moral, but everything to do with risk managements) is the key phrase here. I am not against corporation bailout because it is wrong or anything, but because it creates moral hazards. Same goes for the social programs. Social safety net is necessary to help people out, but let's make sure that these people are willing to put in an effort to get out first.

Hahaha, that's funny. However, you need to remember that being left-wing is a brand. Just like Fox news being the right wing is a brand. It doesn't matter what the Star management believes in, their loyal readers expect them to be left-wing. It's a service the Star provides to its readers just like when Fox stirs up right wing sentiments. All in the name of money making.

What movement? The protests never made clear what is it they are protesting against. I wouldn't call it a movement, more like a bunch of people ranting about nothing. I don't think the government should bail out private companies, nor do I think it should bail out private weed smoking individuals. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Do you hold the same view about welfare recipients? How much do we spend each year bailing out private individuals? And how many of them require bailout again the next year? And the year after? And the year after?

You know what's another sport that is violent, aggressive and usually leaves its players with teeth loss? That's right, hockey. We really should ban hockey players from interacting with school children. And the thought that Muhammad Ali being a bad influence on our children. How about those parents who send their kids to Kung Fu class or Karate? Are they teaching their kids how to bully? What a bunch of hypocrites! And where was the Star when Dalton lifted UFC ban and made it an legitimate sport in Ontario? Is he an idiot too? That might be something I can actually agree with.

Just in case you don't know, China is not a democracy and even if it was, their people would not react to these kind of actions favorably. Especially since our society did and are still doing far more damage to the environment per capita than them. These kind of hypocritical actions would only further marginalize the Chinese population, both in Canada and in China. I am of the attitude that if we can't do anything practical, we shouldn't do anything. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Then again, I am not even sure whether the politician's intentions are good. Think about it. Did EU's decision to ban Canadian seal pelts made us more likely to pressure our government? Or did it make us feel picked on unfairly? Now imagine what if 99% of the seal pelts market is in Canada and our people are far more scared by our past encounters with the Europeans, maybe even fought several wars against them and lost? Do you see the harm of EU's unilateral action? Would you think we are more likely or less likely to enter negotiations with the EU on limiting seal hunts?

uh, Rob Ford being the mayor is not evidence enough for you? Let's be honest. Rob Ford? How desperate Toronto tax payers had become? The fact is Toronto elected Rob Ford to reduce taxes and that's what he is doing. Yes, people would be happier if no services were cut, but everybody knew there's a large risk of service cuts and were willing to take the risk. Politicians always lie, but don't tell me you thought there would be no service cut or lay off. Of course, I might be wrong here. Maybe enough "knowledgeable" homeowners will donate their saved taxes to cover the services being cut. We will see shelters, pools, arenas being run by private donors like all the good folks here. Surely these home owners wouldn't have any problem coming up with $88 million dollars? Do you believe it will happen? Or do you believe nobody (including yourself) will do more than lip services and these services will be cut? Let's be honest here. Tell us what you believe. What's the medium here? Is this a place where people make meaningful discussion and stand behind their ideas or just a place that people like you rant? My definition of "bloated" is government spending that is rising above the rate of inflation consistently. Can you tell me our budgets hasn't been rising above the rate of inflation consistently? My definition of bloated is when we subsidize people year over year. Back to the kid analogy, if my kids needed a little help paying the down payment, I would be more than happy to help out. However, if they couldn't pay their mortgage month over month over month, then I would seriously question either their job performances or their life styles. Can you tell me that we haven't been subsidizing people year over year? My definition of bloated if when public employees enjoy perks that nobody in private sector would even dream off. Can you tell me our public employees are moving to defined contribution pensions? What's your definition of a lean government? And how can you call others selfish when you are trying to get others to pay for services only you care about? If you are not selfish, are you willing to cover the cost yourself? Is your definition of selfless based on spending other people's money? How many of you, donated a cent of the taxes you saved last year to the city?

But that's not what we are doing, is it? We are not banning the import of shark fins, we just moved the consumption from Toronto to Markham, probably along with several tons of CO2 produced. And we are not banning the sales of all shark products in Toronto either. Given how little effect this ban will have on the shark population, can you really say with a straight face that this is about saving sharks? I highly doubt it. Also, sharks are not threatened by Torontonians eating them. They are threatened because a large part of the Chinese population were lifted out of poverty over the last 20, 30 years. Therefore, I'd think banning all Chinese imports and throw them right back to poverty will help a lot more than banning shark fins in Toronto. The question is do you have the stomach for it when it inconvenient your life and possibly run against your morality. And if we think a bit broader than sharks. The best way to save endangered species is to reduce world population. Even if we could ban all consumption of animals, sharks and other animals would be threaten by the constant human intruding into their habitat. Other than things like tats and cockroaches, every species is being threatened by human population growth. And you know what's the two best tools to reduce population? Wars and Famines. Again, do you have the stomach for them? Given our ideologies and to be honest, our humanity, we can't save endangered species by limiting our consumption without a global efforts. The best thing we can do is to find alternative supplies and share the technology or knowledge with the rest of the world.

Of course, while we are bickering about subway v.s. LRT, Shanghai already got 7 subway and many LRT lines built in 10 years. Their highest fair is $1.5 and can be as low as $.45. They also built a maglev line to their airport, which costs about $8 to ride. And if their government is not lying (big if), they don't have to subsidize the day to day operation of their public transit. On a related note, a friend of mine did a term of coop at TTC. His job was to clean 2 streetcars per day. It took him about 30 minutes to do so and he spent the rest of the day playing cards with other employees. hmm.... I wonder whether it's the same in Shanghai.

Actually I doubt it. The grass on lawns is far from natural. Weeds will likely take over. Now, personally I like weeds, but maybe that's just because I am too lazy to deal with them.

The question is really whether you want to treat The Toronto Star as a serious, balanced, objective political commentator. I don't usually. Similarly, I don't take The Toronto Sun seriously either. It's not necessarily about their positions. I find it hard to listen to AM640 although I do not necessarily disagree with them. The key is to take any editorials with a grain of salt and remember that the journalists' number one job is to sell newspapers. Even if the journalists themselves are not biased, which they are, they need to keep with the brand of the newspaper. An article in the Sun praising the unions will hurt their sales and vice versa for the Star.

There's little reason for a shark farm to catch the shark for just the fin. The reason finning practice exists is because it's easier to bring back fins only from the high sea. For shark farming, that would not a problem. And if fins are really where the money is (I doubt it), they can always engineer sharks with bigger fins. The real question is whether it's cost effective to farm sharks. My point is not necessarily about shark farming. It's about finding real solutions for the problem rather than make a grant gesture that does nothing. The goal of any solution should be saving wild sharks, not making some people feel more righteous.