Ford era begins in Toronto

[nicky10013]

The Ford giveth and the Ford taketh away

No new taxes, eh?

[Shady]

So the council’s budget committee is now Rob Ford?

[Oleg Bach]

Battle to scrap car tax heats up

As a relative newcomer to T.O. and a non-driver, can someone tell me what the problem with this tax is, aside from the obvious fact that nobody like to pay taxes?

They tax to the point where the population can not get ahead and are in a constant state of stress,strain and slavery. For instance I know of a large family buisness - a nice corner store operation - They pay 30 thousand a year in taxes..This is based on a new system around "market value". It really does not make sense that there is no market - thus no real market value - when those that own property are taxed to the point that they could not afford to buy their own property. Where is the market - if you have taxed people to the point that they can not buy or sell?

[nicky10013]

So the council’s budget committee is now Rob Ford?

Ah, I get what the next 4 years will boil down to. Everything "good" that happens is attributed to Rob Ford. Everything "bad" that happens is the fault of council.

[Shady]

Ah, I get what the next 4 years will boil down to. Everything "good" that happens is attributed to Rob Ford. Everything "bad" that happens is the fault of council.

Ah, I get what the next 4 years will boil down to. Everything "bad" that happens is attributed to Rob Ford. Even when it's not him, *cough* council budget committee *cough*.

[Black Dog]

Ah, I get what the next 4 years will boil down to. Everything "bad" that happens is attributed to Rob Ford. Even when it's not him, *cough* council budget committee *cough*.

What does it say, then, that Ford was running his mouth off about not increasing taxes before this? Does he not talk to his budget commitee (whose chair was appointed by Ford)?

[August1991]

Well, if the online comments in the local newspapers are anything to go by, you're correct. it seems a good number of people out there are credulous dolts who believe that the city can find that $64M in lost revenue by looking under the seat cushions at city hall.

...

Since Ford appears to be committed to choking off these sources of revenue based on the perception that the difference can be made up in "efficiencies" (clearly an idea derived from inhaling too much adhesive at his dad's sticker factory), it's only a matter of time before he's a regular fixture outside the doors of Queen's Park, empty Tim Horton's cup in front of him, begging for change.

BD, have you ever heard of the four ways to spend money? Let me quote my good friend Milton Friedman.

BD, government bureaucrats spend other people's money on other people.

Of course Ford can make up for a minor loss of $64 million.

----

I have started to follow willy-nilly Toronto politics. My question is whether Ford fires transit workers after an illegal strike, or fires them after refusing an arbitrator's agreement.

I reckon that Ford will cave but Black Dog, welcome to the future. Social liberals (protect individual liberty) are on the right side of history, but socialists (make everyone equal) are on the wrong side.

Edited December 23, 2010 by August1991

[Black Dog]

BD, have you ever heard of the four ways to spend money? Let me quote my good friend Milton Friedman.

BD, government bureaucrats spend other people's money on other people.

I see you haven't lost your touch for completely reasonable sounding, but utterly empty and facile thoughts.

Of corse government spends other people's money on other people: what's your point?

Of course Ford can make up for a minor loss of $64 million.

And you know this how?

Anyway, if you were genuinely following T.O. politics, you'd know that it's not just about the $64M hole Ford shot in the budget.

I have started to follow willy-nilly Toronto politics. My question is whether Ford fires transit workers after an illegal strike, or fires them after refusing an arbitrator's agreement.

Given that arbitrated settlements are usually more generous than those reached through regular collective bargaining, I'm sure the union won't mind the essential service tag much, especially when they stil have the work to rule opton.

I reckon that Ford will cave but Black Dog, welcome to the future. Social liberals (protect individual liberty) are on the right side of history, but socialists (make everyone equal) are on the wrong side.

Again: what's this even mean?

Edited December 23, 2010 by Black Dog

[August1991]

Again: what's this even mean?

Let me take that last question, BD.

I said: "Social liberals (protect individual liberty) are on the right side of history, but socialists (make everyone equal) are on the wrong side."

From all that I can gather, Ford is not against vegetarians, gays, lesbians, single mothers/fathers, atheists, bicycle-riders or any other personal choice/orientation. By all appearances, Ford is a "social liberal" and I think in this, he is on the right side of history. Individual freedom is the hallmark of Western history for the past millenia or so and excepting a social cataclysm, this Western standard will spread elsewhere.

OTOH, Ford is obviously against the "gravy train". Ford does not want to tax the rich and supposedly give to the poor when such schemes invariably just lead to "gravy train" waste. History is filled with examples where this socialist nonsense of making everyone equal doesn't work.

Given that arbitrated settlements are usually more generous than those reached through regular collective bargaining, I'm sure the union won't mind the essential service tag much, especially when they stil have the work to rule opton.

That's like saying the mafia is less expensive if you just pay the protection money.

----

From link above, the Four Ways to Spend Money:

1.You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money.

2.You can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost.

3.I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch!

4.I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get.

Edited December 25, 2010 by August1991

[Bonam]

Yes, but it's not like it's an interference, against industry wishes. Big business and government are a nexus, a collusion.

Not against industry wishes? Who says? Maybe some private capitalist would very much liked to have built his/her own private power grid the use of which he could charge for and make a profit on?

[bloodyminded]

Not against industry wishes? Who says? Maybe some private capitalist would very much liked to have built his/her own private power grid the use of which he could charge for and make a profit on?

I'm talking macro; I'm talking institutional anlysis.

My point was that, the strange rantings of the more hardcore "free market" fundamentalists aside--rantings based entirely on theory, and not at all on observable reality--government and business are not enemies. They are close partners; in fact, there's no real distinction. so far as we are "ruled" in systems such as ours, we are "ruled" by big business, who are the government.

So when people whine about "the government not being friendly to Business"--this doesn't even reach the level of a dark joke. It's literally impossible. They're practically the same entity.

Edited December 25, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Black Dog]

Let me take that last question, BD.

I said: "Social liberals (protect individual liberty) are on the right side of history, but socialists (make everyone equal) are on the wrong side."

From all that I can gather, Ford is not against vegetarians, gays, lesbians, single mothers/fathers, atheists, bicycle-riders or any other personal choice/orientation. By all appearances, Ford is a "social liberal" and I think in this, he is on the right side of history. Individual freedom is the hallmark of Western history for the past millenia or so and excepting a social cataclysm, this Western standard will spread elsewhere.

OTOH, Ford is obviously against the "gravy train". Ford does not want to tax the rich and supposedly give to the poor when such schemes invariably just lead to "gravy train" waste. History is filled with examples where this socialist nonsense of making everyone equal doesn't work.

That's like saying the mafia is less expensive if you just pay the protection money.

----

From link above, the Four Ways to Spend Money:

Not very interesting and not the slightest bit relevant. What is your game here, aside from setting up your usual tired strawman about "liberals" and "socialists"?

Another thing: if you think Ford is a social liberal, you really don't know much about Rob Ford.

Edited December 29, 2010 by Black Dog

[Bonam]

I'm talking macro; I'm talking institutional anlysis.

My point was that, the strange rantings of the more hardcore "free market" fundamentalists aside--rantings based entirely on theory, and not at all on observable reality--government and business are not enemies. They are close partners; in fact, there's no real distinction. so far as we are "ruled" in systems such as ours, we are "ruled" by big business, who are the government.

So when people whine about "the government not being friendly to Business"--this doesn't even reach the level of a dark joke. It's literally impossible. They're practically the same entity.

The government is friendly to some businesses, not so friendly to others. In any case, they are certainly very different and separate entities. Certainly, both have some influence on each other, but that does not make them the same entity. I don't see how you could say they are one and the same.

[bloodyminded]

The government is friendly to some businesses, not so friendly to others. In any case, they are certainly very different and separate entities. Certainly, both have some influence on each other, but that does not make them the same entity. I don't see how you could say they are one and the same.

Yes, by definition a governemnt is going to be more friendly to some businesses than to others. But this is in fact a cocnession to what i was saying: the notion that governments are "enemies of business," a mad hypothesis propounded by those who wish for rule by privatized aristocracies of wealth, is a misunderstanding of the relaitonship, which is not even separable; they're not even really two different things.

[Black Dog]

Another one bites the dust.

Mayor Rob Ford is backing off a campaign promise to hire 50 more police officers this year because Police Chief Bill Blair isn’t asking for any.

It’s one of Mr. Ford’s major pledges butting up against reality as the city tries to balance a challenging budget on a breakneck schedule that even City Manager Joe Pennachetti says is “rushed.” And while the mayor has promised no “major” service cuts, Mr. Pennachetti warned in an interview Tuesday that Torontonians should expect cuts in next week’s budget.

[Black Dog]

Remember when Rob Ford said Transit City was "dead". Looks like it's body part are being used to create a hideous transit hybrid.

Talks between the TTC and the province’s Metrolinx agency are proving fruitful enough that a compromise transit plan for Toronto should be ready by the end of January, both sides say.

And, despite fears that Mayor Rob Ford’s focus on getting more subway into Scarborough will kill light-rail-based Transit City, signs point to a hybrid plan with at least the Eglinton Crosstown LRT surviving, and Toronto paying a premium on the provincially funded expansion to get more of it underground and otherwise away from road traffic.

Of course the fundamental issue remains the Scarsie subway extension doesn't make a lick of sense and the new plan will probably be even more expensive for taxpayers while serving fewer riders.

[nicky10013]

Note from today's budget meeting.

One interesting point in this budget. Of the 706 million used to balance this budget, only 57 million was raised through a "line by line" review of departments for efficiences. The rest is from various surpluses, increased revenue windfalls and uploaded Ontario Works funds. In context: Mayor Ford made fewer efficiency cuts (57M) than what the city lost by killing the Personal Vehicle Tax (64 million).

http://thestar.blogs.com/thegoods/2011/01/live-debate-over-2011-toronto-city-budget.html

[treehugger]

It's easy to see why you'd have voted for Ford (if you actually lived here). Like him, you lack even a basic understanding of complex issues like city planning.

Is that what your job is, city planning?

[Black Dog]

This week in Ford's follies...

Budget buffoonary

To placate the mayor and avoid a transit-fare increase, the city had to come up with $24-million in savings. City officials will find $16-million of that and deliver it to the TTC in the form of a larger operating subsidy. The TTC itself will find the remaining $8-million.

How? Well, nobody really knows. The TTC says its share will come from an “unspecified budget reduction.” That was the phrase someone scribbled on the budget document presented to the transit commission on Wednesday. “Ten-cent fare increase” was crossed out in pen, “unspecified budget reduction” written in. That is how rushed and haphazard this sped-up budget blitz has been. Officials are almost literally rearranging the city’s finances on the back of a napkin.

...

The same could be said of the police service. After his meeting with Mr. Ford, Chief Blair came back with a revised budget request: for a 2-per-cent increase instead of 3. To accomplish this he will put off replacing the officers who quit or retire this year, perhaps 200 to 220 of them based on the usual rate of attrition. That will probably mean fewer cops on the street, a strange result for a mayor who made an election promise to put 100 more out there.

Has it been four years yet?

Edited January 13, 2011 by Black Dog

[guyser]

Has it been four years yet?

Nope, just seems like it.

[Oleg Bach]

Ford is a millionare. Millionares are all personally cheap. He will now launch his campaign to be publically cheap. What do you expect from a former jock type who's whole life was business? Ford is typical of some that went from one institution to the other.. Not that Ford is actually one of the types I am about to mention...They type I am talking about start of with a nanny...seeing dad was out plundering some where and mum sat on the board of some charity. After that it was off to the next institution...some high private form of kindergarten...Then off to the next institution...probably...some British boy type boarding school...........

.................Then a graduation to a place like Upper Canada College...where the idea was instilled that you are privledged and entitled and the dirty unwashed masses are there to be used - enslaved and held in quiet contempt...and if you decide to was a war...sacraficing them just makes you more manly...

........................... Then it was off to another institution...some law firm - or investment house.....of course the real movers and shakers knew that secrecy was power and they never bothered with politics....so they sent their surrogate dupes to do the dirty work...people like Ford - not smart enough or evil enough to run and empire - but egotisitical and emotionally insecure enough to gladly play the role of figure head.

So in my over view - the rich and privledged are just as institutionalized as the guy who has done hard time at Kingston pen..who now is tatooed to the hilt that begs for cash infront of the beer store...that is supposedly a government store but like LCBO is a well hidden private enterprise and monopoly. Do I sound bitter about this described structure....? NOPE...because I realize one thing - they might have all the money and I have all the class...that you just can't buy...wonder if Ford farts in public and thinks it's high British humor?

[treehugger]

Another one bites the dust.

Why would Mayor Ford force more officers on Chief Blair if the force doesn't need them. Do you actually read what you put in print?

At any rate, 42 new officers graduated yesterday, as they have completed their courses. So what's the problem?

[treehugger]

The TTC didn't go up, the taxes didn't go up, and it just shows when council really HAS to work they can come up with money to cover everything. Amazing isn't it.

Mayor Ford is doing extremely well since he has been elected by the MAJORITY of people, especially as the city was left in debt.

Oh yes miller found some money didn't he.

[nicky10013]

The TTC didn't go up, the taxes didn't go up, and it just shows when council really HAS to work they can come up with money to cover everything. Amazing isn't it.

Mayor Ford is doing extremely well since he has been elected by the MAJORITY of people, especially as the city was left in debt.

Oh yes miller found some money didn't he.

You do realize the money he used to cover the TTC has been found "in theory." Ie the TTC said they hope they can find it within their budget. The rest is coming from the province not the city. The only reason why the entire budget was balanced is because rather than using it to pay down debt as is usual when there's a budgetary surplus, they used it to cover this year's budget deficits.

It may seem like he's worked miracles this year but next will be one of pain. If it hasn't already. I seem to recall a no new taxes pledge but everythign BUT property tax seems like it's going up.

[Black Dog]

Why would Mayor Ford force more officers on Chief Blair if the force doesn't need them. Do you actually read what you put in print?

The point is: Ford made his promise to hir ethe extra 100 officers without any consideration to whether or not they may be needed. Overpromising and underdelivering is already the theme of Ford's mayorship.