Argus Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 Think I've said in my opening post that I am curious as to why the cut was made because of the costs associated with FAS. I am still left with the impression that the government does want to talk about. I think it's you who is trying to leave that impression, especially as you continue to refer to "cuts" which have not taken place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted March 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 I think it's you who is trying to leave that impression, especially as you continue to refer to "cuts" which have not taken place. Money not spent is a cut in spending in that year or do you disagree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted March 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 Is there any evidence whatsoever that they are trying to avoid responsibility for their actions? The inability to answer questions is avoidance of responsibility. The Public Health Agency of Canada did not respond to questions about why money has been cut repeatedly from the fetal-alcohol initiative. I mean, in the way you, on behalf of the Liberal Party, are trying to avoid any responsibility for the deficit? I realize that it is the strategy of the Conservatives to completely blame the Liberals for the deficit but the buck eventually stops at the top dog. If they called for this report, then clearly they wondered what was wrong there, and so had someone look into it. Are you saying they shouldn't have looked into it? They looked into it and are not prepared to answer questions about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 It is sheer idiocy, for example, anxiously to preserve the life of a Fetal Alcohol Syndrome child to afflict its hapless parents and be a burden on society for a lifetime, wasting not only money and the time of many persons who would otherwise perform useful tasks, but constantly blighting the lives of the unfortunate man and woman who inadvertently or (equally disheartening) perhaps knowingly brought it into being. Yeah, because nobody in a tough situation, or a tough childhood ever amounts to . So, if one's unfortunately born into a less than ideal situation, your solution is death? So adult alcoholics receive government money for treatment, but babies deserve nothing but their life terminated? Wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 (edited) Money not spent is a cut in spending in that year or do you disagree? Disagree....it's simply money not spent. The irony is that until recently, government departments used to go on a fiscal year-end spending binge to use up their budgets so that they wouldn't be "cut" the next year. I used to do business with Provincial and Federal agencies in the 80's and 90's and it was almost comical how they contacted me to find ways of spending more money before year-end. In this particular case, the money has never been fully spent - yet the budget allocation has never been cut. What's missing in the report is why the money has never been fully spent since the beginning......but as the report implies at the end, it's likely due to the fact that there does not appear to be any umbrella oversight for FAS programs to effectively channel taxpayer money. I would imagine that there is currently an investigation underway. Edited March 22, 2009 by Keepitsimple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 The inability to answer questions is avoidance of responsibility. Has any such question been put to a member of the government? All I saw was that a small department didn't have a comment - at that time. Which simply suggests no one was around who cared to take responsibilty for making a statement. Unsurprising, as public service executives avoid responsibility like the plague. I realize that it is the strategy of the Conservatives to completely blame the Liberals for the deficit but the buck eventually stops at the top dog. Can you find me a single statement here by anyone which completely blames your party for the deficit? I can find some by you which refuse ANY responsibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted March 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 Disagree....it's simply money not spent. What's missing in the report is why the money has never been fully spent since the beginning......but as the report implies at the end, it's likely due to the fact that there does not appear to be any umbrella oversight for FAS programs to effectively channel taxpayer money. I would imagine that there is currently an investigation underway. I guess if you want to say it is money not spent then by all means, feel free. My question still stands asking why money was not spent given the costs of FAS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 Money not spent is a cut in spending in that year or do you disagree? Don't be absurd. That would be like suggesting that time when my directorate was facing a budget surplus for not having spent the funds allotted to them that it would constitute a "cut" if they didn't figure out some way to get rid of the money. Happily, they found a pressing need for new computers, office furniture, and video conferencing systems. Thus there was no "cut" to their budget that year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted March 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 Has any such question been put to a member of the government? All I saw was that a small department didn't have a comment - at that time. Which simply suggests no one was around who cared to take responsibilty for making a statement. Unsurprising, as public service executives avoid responsibility like the plague. I look forward to hearing what the minister will say then on the subject. Can you find me a single statement here by anyone which completely blames your party for the deficit? I can find some by you which refuse ANY responsibility. We have quite a few people who have been saying this deficit is all the Liberals fault on these forums for pushing stimulus. This ignores the fact that Parliamentary Budget Officer says the country was headed to deficit in large part due to shortfalls resulting from the last tax cut. The Liberals can be blamed for not bringing down the government but the budget remains in the purview of the government to deliver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted March 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 Don't be absurd. That would be like suggesting that time when my directorate was facing a budget surplus for not having spent the funds allotted to them that it would constitute a "cut" if they didn't figure out some way to get rid of the money. The story pointed out that it wasn't surpluses that weren't being spent. It was programs that were held up to the point that money was never delivered. Happily, they found a pressing need for new computers, office furniture, and video conferencing systems. Thus there was no "cut" to their budget that year. I don't think we are seeing the same thing here. I have no problem with surpluses being turned back to government if program mandates are fulfilled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 The story pointed out that it wasn't surpluses that weren't being spent. It was programs that were held up to the point that money was never delivered.I don't think we are seeing the same thing here. Yes we are, I should have chosen my words more carefully. What I meant to say was we were going to lapse. That is, we were not going to spend all the money we had been given. In fact, we never spend all the money. But the target is to get within a few percentage points. If you fail in that, then you have lapsed, and that is a critical misstep for a manager. I have no problem with surpluses being turned back to government if program mandates are fulfilled. Yes, well, public service managers have a MAJOR problem with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted March 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 If you fail in that, then you have lapsed, and that is a critical misstep for a manager. So it would seem. I hope the minister does look into what is happening in the department. It has been falling short under both the Liberals and the Tories. The costs associated with FAS are devastating. The government needs to have programs that address the issue working as best they can. Yes, well, public service managers have a MAJOR problem with that. I think this is where a vigilant minister and his deputies have to be involved. First, they need to make sure the mandate is fulfilled and then prevent waste where money is burned up for the sake of not having to turn it back to Treasury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 I don't even know where to begin, but our adopted daughter was born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Her birth parents were both alcoholics, which might explain in part my fervent desire to see pot legalized, beginning with the hypocrisy.However, let's stroll down your lane. What if these babies had all been destroyed at birth? How would we have identified the danger of consuming alcohol while pregnant? There are fewer pregnant women now who would even dream of drinking while carrying a child. So rather than allowing the situation to run amuck we can now say with conviction that this can be prevented. Consider children born with FAS to perhaps be martyrs in this war against pre-natal alcohol consumption. The same can be said with many birth defects and childhood illnesses. Unless they reach the light of day we have no way of researching the inflictions and perhaps eventually preventing such birth defects, thereby creating your 'perfect' race. progressive conservative... how does a eugenics type program aimed at correcting a genetic deficiency somehow make awareness of the deficiency disappear? If we euthanize at birth children with treacher collis for instance... would we loose knowledge of the disease of course not! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 With the decision made by whom? the parents of the creature and the hospital arranging for the act. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 Yeah, because nobody in a tough situation, or a tough childhood ever amounts to . So, if one's unfortunately born into a less than ideal situation, your solution is death? So adult alcoholics receive government money for treatment, but babies deserve nothing but their life terminated? Wow. hAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAH!!!!! breathes breathes... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!! Barack Obama as proof of what potentials are possible? what? really? First off, BO as far as I know, was not born with any identified congenital brain damage or physical malformation (although if one looks at his policy plans we may have our doubts about his sanity)... so I fail to see the relevance... Obambo is also very well connected- which sort of refutes your "tough situation" statement... BO was HELPED by his situation. And of course "less then ideal" situation is a little easy isn't it... i'm talking about obviously hopeless cases.. such as this: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 So adult alcoholics receive government money for treatment, but babies deserve nothing but their life terminated? Wow. correction: physically degenerate babies ... yes. absolutely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanie_ Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 The problem with many leftists is their emotional immaturity makes it difficult to discuss issues with any degree of coherence. They tend to fly off the handle and start ranting and raving any time anyone makes a statement with which they disapprove. Well, I hardly think I was ranting and raving. The post I responded to didn’t actually present an issue to discuss, it was intended to be inflammatory, and I took the bait. I apologize for the comments on the poster himself, though – play the ball, not the player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 the parents of the creature and the hospital arranging for the act. Except for the mere fact that in all cases (likely) the mother is an alcoholic who couldnt make a wise choice if her life depended on it, you want her to decide to killl her baby or live on. Wow, thats smart. Got any other half brained ideas for us? As on who has been there since the day two beautiful little babies, one a crack baby, the other a crack/FAS baby, came home from the CAS , I will refrain from being a boor. To see them go from afraid of their image in a mirror, delayed development and numerous other problems, to fine young woman of which one is already a medalled member of The Cadets, who has already been in a jet with our forces and will one day be a pilot in the Canadian Armed Forces is very impressive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 Well, I hardly think I was ranting and raving. The post I responded to didn’t actually present an issue to discuss, it was intended to be inflammatory, and I took the bait. I apologize for the comments on the poster himself, though – play the ball, not the player. the use of eugenics as a means of preserving the health and economy of a country is not "an issue to discuss"? Really? According to who? Did I miss a meeting? Its all fine if you disagree with the proposal, but please retain sufficient decency to allow others who so wish, to discuss it. Inflammatory? Is that sufficient grounds for censorship? "Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want rain without thunder and lightning." -Frederick Douglass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 Except for the mere fact that in all cases (likely) the mother is an alcoholic who couldnt make a wise choice if her life depended on it, you want her to decide to killl her baby or live on. Wow, thats smart. Got any other half brained ideas for us?As on who has been there since the day two beautiful little babies, one a crack baby, the other a crack/FAS baby, came home from the CAS , I will refrain from being a boor. To see them go from afraid of their image in a mirror, delayed development and numerous other problems, to fine young woman of which one is already a medalled member of The Cadets, who has already been in a jet with our forces and will one day be a pilot in the Canadian Armed Forces is very impressive. Indeed if the parents themselves are lacking in the mental faculties and stability essential for child rearing... then I suppose the decision could "be made FOR THEM"... its almost certainly better in such a way... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 its almost certainly better in such a way... So 'eugenics is good' is your position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 the parents of the creature and the hospital arranging for the act. There is a logical argument to be made for eugenics - but you aren't making it by your absurd posturing over FAS. You seem to be taking the position that all FAS babies are going to turn into salivating cretins determined to cause harm to society, and no doubt destined for lengthy criminal careers. You should certainly realize there are levels and degrees to any and all debilitating conditions, especially given available treatment, and you lessen your argument by broadly labeling everyone with FAS as a "creature". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 correction: physically degenerate babies ... yes. absolutely. What do you mean by physically degenerate? I think you need to be a lot more precise in your descriptions and terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 Well, I hardly think I was ranting and raving. The post I responded to didn’t actually present an issue to discuss, it was intended to be inflammatory, and I took the bait. I apologize for the comments on the poster himself, though – play the ball, not the player. I don't think it was deliberately intended to be inflammatory, though I agree it was. I took it as someone expressing a belief in a crude and blunt fashion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 So 'eugenics is good' is your position. yes yes, that's right, me likey Eugenic good... to simplify it further. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.