Parliamentary Budget Officer tells it like it is

[Smallc]

People are always looking out for themselves.

Which is why we (thankfully) have a government.

[blueblood]

Which is why we (thankfully) have a government.

And why government respects our individualism. The people are always right and any gov't who wants to remain in power has to realize that.

You think it is up to the government's position is to set policy and dictate to the people what the business of the country is.

I think it is the government's position to let the people of the country set policy and represent the people's wishes of what the business of the country is.

That is our fundamental difference.

[punked]

And why government respects our individualism. The people are always right and any gov't who wants to remain in power has to realize that.

You think it is up to the government's position is to set policy and dictate to the people what the business of the country is.

I think it is the government's position to let the people of the country set policy and represent the people's wishes of what the business of the country is.

That is our fundamental difference.

Funny thing about a western nation, the governments job is to protect those who can't protect themselves. The people are not always right in this situation. If the people want lynch black people and the government makes that against the law the people are not right. If the people want slaves to work for them and make them rich and government makes laws against that, again the people are wrong and the government is right. I think the fundamental difference here is the idea is that government first has the responsibility to protect those who can not protect themselves then has to look to the people to set policy.

[Smallc]

I think the fundamental difference here is the idea is that government first has the responsibility to protect those who can not protect themselves then has to look to the people to set policy.

You would be very correct in your thinking. I have no problem with free markets...I just want to make sure the people they leave behind aren't left to the wolves. At times such as this, I also want to make sure that our economy is not destroyed (even temporarily) in the name of a free market.

[punked]

You would be very correct in your thinking. I have no problem with free markets...I just want to make sure the people they leave behind aren't left to the wolves. At times such as this, I also want to make sure that our economy is not destroyed (even temporarily) in the name of a free market.

Too bad the Conservatives pounded out the progressives in themselves.

[blueblood]

Funny thing about a western nation, the governments job is to protect those who can't protect themselves. The people are not always right in this situation. If the people want lynch black people and the government makes that against the law the people are not right. If the people want slaves to work for them and make them rich and government makes laws against that, again the people are wrong and the government is right. I think the fundamental difference here is the idea is that government first has the responsibility to protect those who can not protect themselves then has to look to the people to set policy.

Hogwash, the gov'ts job is to represent the people. A socialist gov't job is to protect those who can't protect themselves by punishing success and quite frankly that track record flat out sucks. A western gov't's "job" is to provide an environment where all individuals have a chance to succeed. That means not punishing people for getting ahead.

As far as lynching black people is concerned, a lot of people thought that was wrong, hence the gov't passed a law fixing that. The gov't passes laws which the people want, in the 1800's people started to think slavery was a load of hooey, the gov't acted. The people are never wrong when it comes to the government. That line of thinking is what caused the USSR to collapse. The very fact that constitutions can be ammended (although extremely difficult) shows that the people are always right. To say that people are fools is a slap in the face of democracy.

Same goes in the middle eastern countries, namely Gaza. The Palestinian's elected a gov't that best suits their interests. That gov't is accountable to the Palestinians. I think we can say lobbing rockets and participating in instability is wrong, but to the Palestinian's it is right. Hamas's priority 1 is to it's people, whether they are in the right or not.

A gov'ts job is to carry out it's jurisdictions agenda, and the customer is always right. Writing off the will of the people has caused gov'ts to fail time and time again.

[blueblood]

You would be very correct in your thinking. I have no problem with free markets...I just want to make sure the people they leave behind aren't left to the wolves. At times such as this, I also want to make sure that our economy is not destroyed (even temporarily) in the name of a free market.

In a free market the only hindrance on success is the individual. How much are you willing to give up to make sure "nobody is left behind"? Why should you be punished for someone else's shortcomings?

A free market will not result in the destruction of our economy. People are still buying and selling things, they just aren't worth as much because people are buying less. This is called the trough in the market cycle, it will pick back up when the price is right for people to start spending again.

[Smallc]

and the customer is always right.

You have got to be kidding me. I have spent enough years in retail to know that is not the case. Even if you make them think they're right (and you can't always do that), the fact is, they can be wrong. The same goes for the people.

[Smallc]

How much are you willing to give up to make sure "nobody is left behind"? Why should you be punished for someone else's shortcomings?

I don't look at it as a punishment. I look at it as a shared duty we have as a society. Yes, we have to have personal success, but we also have to be successful as a whole. Some people need help. Some people can't do the things that others can. I don't see helping them as punishment.

[blueblood]

You have got to be kidding me. I have spent enough years in retail to know that is not the case. Even if you make them think they're right (and you can't always do that), the fact is, they can be wrong. The same goes for the people.

And how big is the retail your spending your time in? The customer at the end of the day is always right, try running a business where you the entrepreneur dictates policy to the customer and we'll see how long you last. Part of Walmart's success has been built around customer relations and giving a good shopping experience, ever return something to Walmart, no problems at all. The people who vote in representatives to write and change laws are never wrong. What you call right and wrong, I call a change of the times. What's "right" today might not be "right" tomorrow.

[Mr.Canada]

I don't look at it as a punishment. I look at it as a shared duty we have as a society. Yes, we have to have personal success, but we also have to be successful as a whole. Some people need help. Some people can't do the things that others can. I don't see helping them as punishment.

I do agree that a certain amount of social responsibility should be allowed to help those in need but when is it enough? Can government continue to bleed us dry forever, taking more and more? Surely there must come a point when enough is enough and personal responsibility comes into the equation, right?

[punked]

Hogwash, the gov'ts job is to represent the people. A socialist gov't job is to protect those who can't protect themselves by punishing success and quite frankly that track record flat out sucks. A western gov't's "job" is to provide an environment where all individuals have a chance to succeed. That means not punishing people for getting ahead.

As far as lynching black people is concerned, a lot of people thought that was wrong, hence the gov't passed a law fixing that. The gov't passes laws which the people want, in the 1800's people started to think slavery was a load of hooey, the gov't acted. The people are never wrong when it comes to the government. That line of thinking is what caused the USSR to collapse. The very fact that constitutions can be ammended (although extremely difficult) shows that the people are always right. To say that people are fools is a slap in the face of democracy.

Same goes in the middle eastern countries, namely Gaza. The Palestinian's elected a gov't that best suits their interests. That gov't is accountable to the Palestinians. I think we can say lobbing rockets and participating in instability is wrong, but to the Palestinian's it is right. Hamas's priority 1 is to it's people, whether they are in the right or not.

A gov'ts job is to carry out it's jurisdictions agenda, and the customer is always right. Writing off the will of the people has caused gov'ts to fail time and time again.

You are wrong. Most the time the government does these things and public opinion fallows look at gay marriage, and Slavery in the US as examples. Also there are plenty of times when public opinion should not dictate what the government does look to the Iraq war in the US as another example. You are clearly wrong here.

[Smallc]

Part of Walmart's success has been built around customer relations and giving a good shopping experience

Yes, and the try to be as accommodating as possible, but even they do not subscribe to the policy of the customer always being right. They will eventually tell you no. They've never done it to me, but I've seen it. People can be wrong and even if they couldn't be, the government isn't a business.

[blueblood]

I don't look at it as a punishment. I look at it as a shared duty we have as a society. Yes, we have to have personal success, but we also have to be successful as a whole. Some people need help. Some people can't do the things that others can. I don't see helping them as punishment.

The Soviets looked at their system as a shared duty, what did they get for it? A piss poor standard of living and they couldn't even feed themselves. Let people help each other out on their own accord, not the government force everyone. It's better to let a person succeed and build his business and instead of forcibly taking his money through taxes to fund welfare, lets let him keep that money and hire another person to help his business grow. Everybody wins. Forcing people to "help" other people is punishment. I look at success as a whole as each individual succeeding on their own merits, not taking away from others to better themselves.

[punked]

The Soviets looked at their system as a shared duty, what did they get for it? A piss poor standard of living and they couldn't even feed themselves. Let people help each other out on their own accord, not the government force everyone. It's better to let a person succeed and build his business and instead of forcibly taking his money through taxes to fund welfare, lets let him keep that money and hire another person to help his business grow. Everybody wins. Forcing people to "help" other people is punishment. I look at success as a whole as each individual succeeding on their own merits, not taking away from others to better themselves.

No is advocating communism however basic human rights is what we are saying is need in these times. There should be no shock doctrine implemented by you guys. We know it is coming and we will fight it every step.

[blueblood]

You are wrong. Most the time the government does these things and public opinion fallows look at gay marriage, and Slavery in the US as examples. Also there are plenty of times when public opinion should not dictate what the government does look to the Iraq war in the US as another example. You are clearly wrong here.

Public opinion wanted gay marriage. They got it. hell even harper put that issue to rest with his sham of a vote. Gay marriage in canada is here to stay. Slavery was abolished because of public opinion. Same with the civil rights movement. Public opinion got the troops in and out of vietnam, and sent the troops to iraq and is bringing them home.

Government can try and influence public opinion, key in on that influence public opinion, that means they are trying to sell their message and hope the people buy it, if they don't it's bye bye gov't. At the end of the day the government is accountable to the people and in a democracy the people are always right. This is also why Jack Layton will never see his butt sit on the Prime Minister's chair.

[blueblood]

Yes, and the try to be as accommodating as possible, but even they do not subscribe to the policy of the customer always being right. They will eventually tell you no. They've never done it to me, but I've seen it. People can be wrong and even if they couldn't be, the government isn't a business.

They can say "no" and lose that customer then. Have you seen how a vegas casino works? Their high rollers are never told no. You and I have a different view of where true power lies...

[punked]

Public opinion wanted gay marriage. They got it. hell even harper put that issue to rest with his sham of a vote. Gay marriage in canada is here to stay. Slavery was abolished because of public opinion. Same with the civil rights movement. Public opinion got the troops in and out of vietnam, and sent the troops to iraq and is bringing them home.

Government can try and influence public opinion, key in on that influence public opinion, that means they are trying to sell their message and hope the people buy it, if they don't it's bye bye gov't. At the end of the day the government is accountable to the people and in a democracy the people are always right. This is also why Jack Layton will never see his butt sit on the Prime Minister's chair.

Again I call the right wing posters of this board liars. Public opinion was against gay marriage at the time.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/04/10/...age-050410.html

The Iraq war has not been the popular war of the people sense 2006, and I contend the public opinion which got them into it was wrong at the time. Sometimes you have to do what you think the public will think is right in the long run. Truman knew this, Diefenbaker knew this, heck it is George Bushes whole presidency. You are wrong First a government must protect it's weakest and what it stands for then it can look to the people for what way the wind blows that day.

[blueblood]

No is advocating communism however basic human rights is what we are saying is need in these times. There should be no shock doctrine implemented by you guys. We know it is coming and we will fight it every step.

Every Canadian believes in basic human rights. Any gov't that doesn't accept that will either be thrown out of office or won't get elected. Why would Harper who is an elected politician in one of the most stable democracies in the world with an iron clad constitution, implement some shock doctrine when the people will just toss him out.

Revolutions get started because of shock doctrines. Elections are lost because of shock doctrines. The Canadian people this day and age behave a certain way and the LPC and the CPC are constantly adjusting to accomodate their needs to get themselves elected. Jack Layton the fool that he is will not accomodate the people's needs and as a result will not ever be elected.

[punked]

Every Canadian believes in basic human rights. Any gov't that doesn't accept that will either be thrown out of office or won't get elected. Why would Harper who is an elected politician in one of the most stable democracies in the world with an iron clad constitution, implement some shock doctrine when the people will just toss him out.

Revolutions get started because of shock doctrines. Elections are lost because of shock doctrines. The Canadian people this day and age behave a certain way and the LPC and the CPC are constantly adjusting to accomodate their needs to get themselves elected. Jack Layton the fool that he is will not accomodate the people's needs and as a result will not ever be elected.

I know you don't really know what the shock doctrine is but whatever. When Harper tired to cut party funding during an economic crises Naomi Klein (you might not know her but she is the one who came up with the idea of shock doctrine) said that the Liberals and NDP had just shot down Harpers own attempt at the shock doctrine. So when you say why would Harper do that, remember he already did ok. It already happened you are denning something Harper already did. Thank you right wing for lying to us once again. I call a spade and spade and it happened and we are ready for it again.

[blueblood]

Again I call the right wing posters of this board liars. Public opinion was against gay marriage at the time.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/04/10/...age-050410.html

The Iraq war has not been the popular war of the people sense 2006, and I contend the public opinion which got them into it was wrong at the time. Sometimes you have to do what you think the public will think is right in the long run. Truman knew this, Diefenbaker knew this, heck it is George Bushes whole presidency. You are wrong First a government must protect it's weakest and what it stands for then it can look to the people for what way the wind blows that day.

And again look at your source, almost 50-50 and based along age lines. One politician took one side and another the other. The Liberals looked at the age demographic and based on a large amount of support over younger people, they felt and rightfully so that this was an appropriate time to change the law. The people have spoken again. Gay marriage was coming and there was no stopping it as public support for it kept growing and growing, the Liberals had the foresight to see that. Laws do last longer than politicians are in power and are changed by public opinion trends and momentum.

It was popular enough in 2003, and in 2006 there was talk of exit strategies and the like. Also remember in the US, a second term president has free reign to do whatever he wants because he isn't accountable to anyone because of no third election. Had there been a third election, I think the war in Iraq would have been done by now. Due to Obama's victory, it shows that he is listening to the American people and putting a stop to the war.

Truman had to contend with people wanting the war to end and the American's being sick of their own men dying, hence the A bomb. Diefenbaker was listening to Canadians wanting action concerning rights and listening to popular opinion concerning medicare. It was George Bush's second term that he didn't listen to the people, he didn't have to he was on his way out anyway, his first term however had him keeping his finger on the pulse of the nation so he could get back in the President's chair.

A government owes nothing to its weakest and everything to its voters/people it represents. Kennedy said it best, "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" A government in one way or another always looks to what the people want. If the people want to protect the weakest, then they get protected. In Canada that occurs due to our numerous social programs that people wanted put in place.

[blueblood]

I know you don't really know what the shock doctrine is but whatever. When Harper tired to cut party funding during an economic crises Naomi Klein (you might not know her but she is the one who came up with the idea of shock doctrine) said that the Liberals and NDP had just shot down Harpers own attempt at the shock doctrine. So when you say why would Harper do that, remember he already did ok. It already happened you are denning something Harper already did. Thank you right wing for lying to us once again. I call a spade and spade and it happened and we are ready for it again.

Harper was listening to the electorate in that they want tax dollars spent more wisely. He thought party funding was an area that could be cut, guess what the people of the country agree with him. That I can assure you will not go away due to the fact that it's popular with the electorate. Once again the people are always right. The same goes for the coalition, Ignatieff at first tried to distance himself from it, now that 50% of the people want it, Ignatieff might look at that option.

People are a lot smarter than you give them credit for

[punked]

And again look at your source, almost 50-50 and based along age lines. One politician took one side and another the other. The Liberals looked at the age demographic and based on a large amount of support over younger people, they felt and rightfully so that this was an appropriate time to change the law. The people have spoken again. Gay marriage was coming and there was no stopping it as public support for it kept growing and growing, the Liberals had the foresight to see that. Laws do last longer than politicians are in power and are changed by public opinion trends and momentum.

It was popular enough in 2003, and in 2006 there was talk of exit strategies and the like. Also remember in the US, a second term president has free reign to do whatever he wants because he isn't accountable to anyone because of no third election. Had there been a third election, I think the war in Iraq would have been done by now. Due to Obama's victory, it shows that he is listening to the American people and putting a stop to the war.

Truman had to contend with people wanting the war to end and the American's being sick of their own men dying, hence the A bomb. Diefenbaker was listening to Canadians wanting action concerning rights and listening to popular opinion concerning medicare. It was George Bush's second term that he didn't listen to the people, he didn't have to he was on his way out anyway, his first term however had him keeping his finger on the pulse of the nation so he could get back in the President's chair.

A government owes nothing to its weakest and everything to its voters/people it represents. Kennedy said it best, "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" A government in one way or another always looks to what the people want. If the people want to protect the weakest, then they get protected. In Canada that occurs due to our numerous social programs that people wanted put in place.

Like I said it was is right over all. If it is right public opinion will come around, so we are in agreement a government should not listen to the people it should do what is right at least in the larger social and moral issues (like rights and freedoms) and the people will come around.

Kennedy that is who you quote as the one who you believe represents your idea that a government should not help the weak?

"If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich."-I think that was a few lines before your quote in his address.

Edited January 22, 2009 by punked

[blueblood]

Like I said it was is right over all. If it is right public opinion will come around, so we are in agreement a government should not listen to the people it should do what is right at least in the larger social and moral issues (like rights and freedoms) and the people will come around.

Kennedy that is who you quote as the one who you believe represents your idea that a government should not help the weak?

"If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich."-I think that was a few lines before your quote in his address.

And 50% of the populace with momentum agreed with that, so did the gov't. Had it been 5% with no momentum, well I don't think we'd be seeing Gay Marriage anytime soon. The gov'ts listen to the public whether you believe it or not. There was also a lot of public support for the civil rights movement as well. If a government does not listen to the people it will not get elected or keep power, it is as simple as that. The governments are the ones that come around, not the people.

Kennedy is the one who I quoted as saying we should not punish ourselves, and that the government does what it's citizen's want. Kennedy was suggesting that everyone step up, not screw over people in order to benefit somebody else. Your definition of helping the poor means screwing over people who succeed, my definition of helping the poor is providing opportunity for them to get ahead without punishing those who succeed - everyone wins. As being involved in the exporting business, it is in my best interests to have as much customers who can afford my products as possible. How do we do that, by forcing corporations to hand over forkloads of money? or by letting them on their own invest in poor countries making both the corporation and the citizen of that poor country both richer? In a free society, people are free to help the poor or not to help the poor. However, by helping the poor by providing employment saves the few that are rich, instead of punishing them. Punishing the rich by just throwing money at the poor is the evil that is socialism and why it is a failure.

[msj]

And how big is the retail your spending your time in? The customer at the end of the day is always right, try running a business where you the entrepreneur dictates policy to the customer and we'll see how long you last. Part of Walmart's success has been built around customer relations and giving a good shopping experience, ever return something to Walmart, no problems at all. The people who vote in representatives to write and change laws are never wrong. What you call right and wrong, I call a change of the times. What's "right" today might not be "right" tomorrow.

Off topic nonsense but this really is ridiculous.

Granted I'm not in retail. I'm in the professional services business.

Every year I grade my clients from A to F (based on things like total billings, how quickly they pay their bill, mark up/down on the file, complexity/interesting work, risk (audit/tax work), do I like dealing with the client, do my staff like dealing with the client, is the client ethical or a sleazebag etc).

Those who are F's I try to bring them up to at least a C+ within two years (the sleazebags I try to fire as soon as it becomes obvious - so far only two out of several hundred in the past few years).

After that, the client is no longer "right."

The client, and myself, obviously are not meeting each others needs so I find a way to end the relationship so they can find someone to meet their needs and so that I can spend more time helping my A and B clients (or spend more time with the wife, for that matter).

That is the way any business should be doing business - focus on the customers you want and let the one's you don't want go somewhere else.

Businesses that spend their time/resources sucking up to the 2-10% of "right" clients are missing the opportunity of up selling to the remaining 90-98% of excellent/good/decent clients.

And that's just wrong.

Edited January 22, 2009 by msj