Liberals want Ottawa to cough up cash for Coptic churches

[Shwa]

It's still ALL THREE LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-politics-of-sports-funding-weigh-heavy-for-harper-government/article1812752/

http://www.leaderpost.com/sports/Federal+government+should+contribute+over+100M+towards+Regina+stadium+Liberal+Ralph+Goodale/3497233/story.html

http://www.pch.gc.ca/pc-ch/infoCntr/cdm-mc/index-eng.cfm?action=doc&DocIDCd=The%20Governme

Finally. Now, where does "amateur sports" fit into this? You have three specific examples of government investment in community initiatives, but where is "amateur sports" as a whole?

You could say, high school sports are all tax funded. So why not go after all the tax money poured into schools? It is your tax money after all.

Why not bring up infrastructure funding for local facilities? The recent payout of your tax dollars to renovate local arenas and parks totalled in the tens of millions. Why not cite that as well?

Fact is Saipan, is that "amateur sports" is mostly funded through user registration fees and sponsorships from private - and usually local - businesses. If you don't believe me, go down to the hockey rink in your "small town" and ask around.

By the way, practically every rink - hockey or curling - and practically every sport field is "built and maintained by users." They usually do it collectively, through a contribution to their community, usually in the form of taxes.

[Michael Hardner]

If someone had suggested firstly that an unnamed political party was interested in funding security cameras for an unnamed religion that was being persecuted, then I suspect everyone would have reserved judgment until hearing more details.

If it was the NDP suggesting it for mosques, the left might be for it. If it was the Liberals suggesting it for synagogues or the Bloc for Catholic churches, then ...

So what is this issue then ?

I think that this is one of those politically loaded non-issues, where the impact of the policy itself is far outweighed by the symbolism, political advantage, entertainment potential and general intellectual wanksterism of the discussion. All of the parties seem to do this to keep stirring the pot, but I see it as a parlor game that distracts us from more important things.

[Saipan]

Finally. Now, where does "amateur sports" fit into this? You have three specific examples of government investment in community initiatives, but where is "amateur sports" as a whole?

Back to the links.

You could say, high school sports are all tax funded.

I could, but I didn't.

I never even mentioned school taxes. But while on the subject. That too is crewed up. Houses don't need education - people do. Why are school taxes directly based on house taxes???? Each individual should pay school taxes EVENLY. There are cases where one person living on small pension pays six times more school taxes as six individuals crammed into one house.

Fact is Saipan, is that "amateur sports" is mostly funded through user registration fees and sponsorships from private - and usually local - businesses. If you don't believe me, go down to the hockey rink in your "small town" and ask around.

I have the town budget for each year AND I posted links already. Which you choose to ignore.

You should check the city budget yourself sometimes.

[bloodyminded]

And synagogues too.

But that should be paid by Moslems.

Sure, if you want to specifically charge any Muslims invlved in attacks on synagogues.

And those who aren't invovled are no more responsible for the attacks than you are.

[Saipan]

Sure, if you want to specifically charge any Muslims invlved in attacks on synagogues.

And those who aren't invovled are no more responsible for the attacks than you are.

Yes, why blame the Pope for some pedophile thousand miles away.

[bloodyminded]

Yes, why blame the Pope for some pedophile thousand miles away.

Completely different.

To the extent that the Pope is blamed, he is the head and figurehead of a specific organization.

Some Canadian Muslim is not, and that you despise him doesn't change that fact.

[msj]

They get my tax money on all three levels of government. 'Specially municipal. And I intend to get it one day back.

Hockey is the worst culprit when it comes to indirect government money.

The local skating rink is subsidized heavily by government despite the thousands of dollars of fees the minor hockey league pays, for example.

Even the football club that I was treasurer of for 6 years had indirect government subsidizes. Football fields, even at schools, cost a lot of many to build and maintain.

Granted, the CPC then came along and has allowed parents a tax credit worth up to $75 per year for their fees for certain sports. Stupid policy but for those of us who read the budgets each year it's well known that the CPC implement stupid tax policies.

However, these policies seem to be fairly popular.

As much as I despise hockey, I really like the idea of my tax dollars keeping a skating rink open.

After walking by the commercial centre of town yesterday on my way to yoga - I saw grocery carts thrown through windows and new graffiti everywhere. I highly doubt the stupid kids doing that (and costing both businesses and taxpayers money) have anything to do with the hockey program nor football.

If anything, these are likely kids who are "bored" and have "nothing to do."

IOW: as taxpayers (and as a businessman) we/I are going to be paying somehow. These organizations tend to get less subsidies compared to churches (since they are not charitable and do not issue tax receipts) and since they are run on a shoestring budget they would not produce an income that would be taxable - they truly are not-for-profit.

[Saipan]

Completely different.

To the extent that the Pope is blamed, he is the head and figurehead of a specific organization.

Who's the head of hockey coach pedophiles?

[Shwa]

Back to the links. I could, but I didn't.

I never even mentioned school taxes. But while on the subject. That too is crewed up. Houses don't need education - people do. Why are school taxes directly based on house taxes???? Each individual should pay school taxes EVENLY. There are cases where one person living on small pension pays six times more school taxes as six individuals crammed into one house.

But you could mention school taxes that go directly to pay for physical education and "amateur sports" teams, but you chose to ignore that. Why is that? Could it be that attacking physical education in our schools could be seen as a titch harsh?

I have the town budget for each year AND I posted links already. Which you choose to ignore.

I have already addressed your links. You are complaining about government funding for infrastructure and events that will be used and generate revenue back to the government and into the community. You are equating "amateur sports" with facilities and events. Kind of like equating drivers with roads and rest stops.

You should check the city budget yourself sometimes.

I have. I also mentioned that I am involved in community sporting organizations and while there might be small grants available to such organizations, by and large the users pay for the facilities, the events, etc., out of their own pocket through user registration fees, local private sponsorships and other fundraising. There is very little - if any - of your tax money received by such organizations.

[Saipan]

As much as I despise hockey, I really like the idea of my tax dollars keeping a skating rink open.

To simplify further. Why should I pay for my own sport AND someone elses [who doesn't pay for mine] as well?

[Shwa]

Hockey is the worst culprit when it comes to indirect government money.

The local skating rink is subsidized heavily by government despite the thousands of dollars of fees the minor hockey league pays, for example.

Even the football club that I was treasurer of for 6 years had indirect government subsidizes. Football fields, even at schools, cost a lot of many to build and maintain.

Who owns your local skating rink and football fields?

[Shwa]

To simplify further. Why should I pay for my own sport AND someone elses [who doesn't pay for mine] as well?

Because you are not an island unto yourself and belong in a community, which is the law of the land. We have had this discussion before and the answer is the same: if you choose to remove yourself from this setup you are free to choose to. Let us know how it works out for you.

[Saipan]

Who owns your local skating rink and football fields?

Most likely the government. Since they have the power to close it.

Liberals closed both of our shooting ranges despite the fact they didn't contribute a single penny to it.

[Shwa]

Most likely the government. Since they have the power to close it.

So then the government is subsidizing itself? (using msj's example above)

Liberals closed both of our shooting ranges despite the fact they didn't contribute a single penny to it.

"Liberals" or the government? And was that government municipal, provincial or federal?

Although that would piss me off too regardless who did it. But I wouldn't be taking it out on the kids or other people that want to get out and play sports for fun.

[Saipan]

Because you are not an island unto yourself and belong in a community

Yes, that doesn't mean I have to pay more.

which is the law of the land.

Post the law that says I have to pay for someone elses sport and hobbies?

[Saipan]

So then the government is subsidizing itself? (using msj's example above)

Government has no money. They use ours.

"Liberals" or the government? And was that government municipal, provincial or federal?

Liberal governments on all three levels.

Although that would piss me off too regardless who did it. But I wouldn't be taking it out on the kids or other people that want to get out and play sports for fun.

What that has to do with "kids" or anyone having fun. I'm having fun without asking for someone elses money.

[msj]

Who owns your local skating rink and football fields?

Do you think you're being Socratic here or are you just trying to waste my time?

Read the post again until you get it.....

[msj]

To simplify further. Why should I pay for my own sport AND someone elses [who doesn't pay for mine] as well?

Oh, I know what people or your ilk are all about - user fees for everyone so people like you and me (or at least me - who does pay taxes at high progressive tax rates and, therefore, redistributes my wealth to others) pay less.

The taxpayers, through voting, get to decide who pays.

Yes, this leads to some very poor tax and spending decisions but it's the way it is.

Religious people have gotten away with the use of my tax money for years and the sports crowd do to.

I can tolerate the sports crowd but not the religious crowd so, as a voter, I wouldn't mind churches paying property taxes, not providing charity receipts, and paying income tax on any net income (if any) at the end of their fiscal year.

It really is as simple as that - sports provide more benefit to a secular society than a church and, therefore, I can justify their subsidies.

[bloodyminded]

Who's the head of hockey coach pedophiles?

This doesn't sound like a serious question.

[Saipan]

Neither is connection to the Pope.

[William Ashley]

Your ignorance shines through again. You should know it's ILLEGAL in Canada.

What's illegal in Canada, guns arn't, is body armour.. odd wouldn't you say. You would think body armour would be legal first them guns. You just need to reserve armour peircing ammo to police and home owners.

The fact is there's no LEGAL obligation for police to protect anyone.

I'm still in belief we must prevent to the best of our abilities indictable offences we are aware of as a duty of citizenship.

How many victims were protected so far? Any?

People have the option of going in protective custody. The inaction of the police to investigate ongoing crime is to say the least - not very good when it involves public safety. But no I think there is absolutely no grounds to provide them ongoing protection in a way that provides them with private security in public activities. I think that what it should amount to, is if a few more cops need to be hired to do this for a while - then do it, but do it to solve the case, not provide lifetime security for free. Call up the reserve and have them stake out the places if it comes to that. What happened in Egypt was a type of terrorism.

Police carry guns to protect themself.

And people can too if they apply.

http://canadacarry.com/

Who May Possess Body Armour WITHOUT a Permit

Individuals exempt from requiring a permit to possess body armour while performing the job on which the exemption is granted are:

Those who have a valid B.C. security worker licence authorizing them to provide the services of an armoured car guard, a private investigator, a security consultant, a security guard and / or a body armour salesperson.

Peace officers, sheriffs, corrections officers and conservation officers.

Those employed by the government if wearing body armour is required or allowed in the course of the person's employment.

Security guards registered as a gaming worker under the Gaming Control Act.

Individuals who possess a valid firearms licence issued under the Firearms Act (Canada).

There is no reason why the government can't permit priests to wear it as part of their occupational needs.

Edited January 9, 2011 by William Ashley

[Shwa]

Do you think you're being Socratic here or are you just trying to waste my time?

Read the post again until you get it.....

Socratic?

Hockey is the worst culprit when it comes to indirect government money.

The local skating rink is subsidized heavily by government despite the thousands of dollars of fees the minor hockey league pays, for example.

Even the football club that I was treasurer of for 6 years had indirect government subsidizes. Football fields, even at schools, cost a lot of many to build and maintain.

It's a fair question, to see if the government, which owns the facilities, are indirectly subsidizing themselves by paying themselves some money to maintain the facilities to which they own. Kind of like GM using their profits to maintain their factories and pay their employees.

Socratic? Perhaps. But what discussion is entirely free of Socratic-ness?

[Shwa]

Post the law that says I have to pay for someone elses sport and hobbies?

Here is one: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/I-3.3/

However, once that money leaves your hands, it isn't yours anymore so you aren't actually paying for someone elses sports and hobbies, "we" are. Big difference.

[Jack Weber]

Here is one: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/I-3.3/

However, once that money leaves your hands, it isn't yours anymore so you aren't actually paying for someone elses sports and hobbies, "we" are. Big difference.

The last I checked WE had to pay for Dustpan's healthcare...

Let's have a show of hands...

Who,if given the opportunity,would prefer to NOT pay for Dustpan's healthcare?

Or who here feels it's simply a distasteful part of public healthcare?

Edited January 9, 2011 by Jack Weber

[Shwa]

Government has no money. They use ours.

Now we're talking. So I don't have a problem with tax money going towards infrastructure and facilities, etc.

Liberal governments on all three levels.

Sounds like they were all in collusion.

What that has to do with "kids" or anyone having fun. I'm having fun without asking for someone elses money.

Amateur sports - by far - is about kids and anyone else having fun. You know this of course. Ifyou are having fun without asking for someone elses money, well good for you.