Mike Harris did nothing wrong.

[mockingbird]

Who's obligation is it to make an effort to provide a reasonable standard of living for the citizens?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In my view it falls to these in priority order:

1. Citizens themselves

2. Their friends and families

3. Charities

I also only view the obligation as a moral one and only to be enforced by the consciences of the groups above.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1) Obviously people on welfare can't take care of themselves, that's why they turn to the government for help.

2) They've already tried this possibility, that's why they end up in this situation. You dream of a perfect world man. Some "families" are abusers and molesters/

3) Homeless shelters which you view as government charity no doubt have a lot of problems. For one, they discriminate based on age. Someone under the age of 24 cannot stay long term in a homeless shelter. They have to go to what is called a "youth shelter". Youth shelters are not for all people. And I suggest you take a stroll down George street Toronto's sick idea of wellsley street except for homeless people, if you have the balls, and see how many niggaz approach you for drugs and toothless druggies ask you for handouts. It's a mess.

Speaking of the far north where you proudly enjoy living, do you know how many homeless shelters there are from Vaughan to Newmarket? 1.

[err]

Who's obligation is it to make an effort to provide a reasonable standard of living for the citizens?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In my view it falls to these in priority order:

1. Citizens themselves

2. Their friends and families

3. Charities

I also only view the obligation as a moral one and only to be enforced by the consciences of the groups above.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mockingbird:

It would appear that Renegade's opinion is that it's the governments responsibility to ensure that corporate Canada has a reasonable standard of living.... The government should provide for business... who said the government should serve the people ???

[BHS]

Who's obligation is it to make an effort to provide a reasonable standard of living for the citizens?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In my view it falls to these in priority order:

1. Citizens themselves

2. Their friends and families

3. Charities

I also only view the obligation as a moral one and only to be enforced by the consciences of the groups above.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1) Obviously people on welfare can't take care of themselves, that's why they turn to the government for help.

2) They've already tried this possibility, that's why they end up in this situation. You dream of a perfect world man. Some "families" are abusers and molesters/

3) Homeless shelters which you view as government charity no doubt have a lot of problems. For one, they discriminate based on age. Someone under the age of 24 cannot stay long term in a homeless shelter. They have to go to what is called a "youth shelter". Youth shelters are not for all people. And I suggest you take a stroll down George street Toronto's sick idea of wellsley street except for homeless people, if you have the balls, and see how many niggaz approach you for drugs and toothless druggies ask you for handouts. It's a mess.

Speaking of the far north where you proudly enjoy living, do you know how many homeless shelters there are from Vaughan to Newmarket? 1.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This appears to be a rebuttal for a point that hasn't been made. You asked who had the obligation for providing the citizenry with a reasonable standard of living, to which Renegade gave a good reply. Your rebuttal implies a number of preconditions and inferences that weren't included in the original question.

Besides which, your rebuttal still doesn't explain why the government (and by implication the taxpayers) should be responsible for an individual's failure to make a reasonable life for himself. Rather, you approach governmental responsibility to pick up the slack as a foregone conclusion, which it is not.

FYI, when I lived in Toronto Jane/Finch in the early 1990's, the dealers who approached me were universally white except for one black guy in a car. The black dealers stay away from white people (whom they regard as trouble) unless you go specifically asking around for dope. Unless racial tensions have cooled off in the interim...

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Renegade,

In my view it falls to these in priority order:

1. Citizens themselves

2. Their friends and families

3. Charities

I am in complete agreement. The only addition I would make is 'the church' (whatever religion one may belong to), but that would probably be a subsection of 'charity'. If there is to be any sort of 'welfare system', there should be a caveat that one has to work for it. Even the 'disabled' look for jobs, if they can. If they can't, there are services, beyond those above, for them also.

[Renegade]

1)  Obviously people on welfare can't take care of themselves, that's why they turn to the government for help.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The obligation and responsibility of people is to provide for themselves. They also have an obligation to provide a contingency for when they incur a financial setback. They fact that they can turn to the government for assistance is incentive for them not to provide any contingency funds of their own.

2)  They've already tried this possibility, that's why they end up in this situation.  You dream of a perfect world man.  Some "families" are abusers and molesters/

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is no indication one way or another that people have turned to their family for help and your supposition that they have "already tried this possibility" is nothing but conjecture. It's true that some families are abusers and molesters, but then your outrage should be directed at them for shirking their obligation. But that is not where your outrage is directed, is it?

3)  Homeless shelters which you view as government charity no doubt have a lot of problems.  For one, they discriminate based on age.  Someone under the age of 24 cannot stay long term in a homeless shelter.  They have to go to what is called a "youth shelter".  Youth shelters are not for all people.  And I suggest you take a stroll down George street Toronto's sick idea of wellsley street except for homeless people, if you have the balls, and see how many niggaz approach you for drugs and toothless druggies ask you for handouts.  It's a mess.

Speaking of the far north where you proudly enjoy living, do you know how many homeless shelters there are from Vaughan to Newmarket?  1.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You fail to address the point. In many societies it has been the role of charities and churches to care for those who needed the help. You fail to provide any reason why charities and churches shouldn't fill that same role today.

Now that I have answered your question, perhaps you would have the courtesy to answer mine:

Why do you presume it is a governmental responsibility to provide a guaranteed standard of living?

[Renegade]

Mockingbird:

It would appear that Renegade's opinion is that it's the governments responsibility to ensure that corporate Canada has a reasonable standard of living.... The government should provide for business... who said the government should serve the people ???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

err, please don't make up statements I didn't state. If I have said that it is " it's the governments responsibility to ensure that corporate Canada has a reasonable standard of living.... The government should provide for business... ", then show me where I have said it.

Otherwise there is no reason to presuppose what my opinion is, and stop sticking words in my mouth, I can speak for myself.

In any case the topic we are discussing is not corporate Canada but rather, governmental responsibilty to provide welfare. I you have something relevant to contribute to the topic please do, but I have not seen any such contribution from you yet.

[Renegade]

Dear Renegade,

In my view it falls to these in priority order:

1. Citizens themselves

2. Their friends and families

3. Charities

I am in complete agreement. The only addition I would make is 'the church' (whatever religion one may belong to), but that would probably be a subsection of 'charity'. If there is to be any sort of 'welfare system', there should be a caveat that one has to work for it. Even the 'disabled' look for jobs, if they can. If they can't, there are services, beyond those above, for them also.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

theloniusfleabag, thank-you. Yes I would agree, I pretty much lump churches and religious organizations with charity. I also like the work for welfare principle. It implys a exchange of one value for another instead of a simple handout because of entitlement.

[err]

1)  Obviously people on welfare can't take care of themselves, that's why they turn to the government for help.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The obligation and responsibility of people is to provide for themselves. They also have an obligation to provide a contingency for when they incur a financial setback. They fact that they can turn to the government for assistance is incentive for them not to provide any contingency funds of their own.

Why do you presume it is a governmental responsibility to provide a guaranteed standard of living?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Renegade: Do you have enough money to pay for a pacemaker we previously talked about in this forum, and the life-saving operation required to insert it (assuming you lived in the United States, and we did not have the safety net we do in Canada).

If not, according to your logic, then you should deserve to die, should you require one of these devices and have not the means to pay for the said products and services.

While it may be a good way to silence your incessant griping about the downtrodden stealing our money (as did Mike Harris), I am happy that my taxes are able to save peoples' lives.... whether that be by paying for heart operations, or by helping to keep the downtrodden fed and off the streets. I am happy to be part of the solution for many of these people, rather than do as you recommend, and delegate that responsibility to "other people" like the church, or their relatives....

You obviously don't have any room for empathy in your heart, or the capability to be charitable.... I pity you....

[Renegade]

Mockingbird:

It would appear that Renegade's opinion is that it's the governments responsibility to ensure that corporate Canada has a reasonable standard of living.... The government should provide for business... who said the government should serve the people ???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

err, please don't make up statements I didn't state. If I have said that it is " it's the governments responsibility to ensure that corporate Canada has a reasonable standard of living.... The government should provide for business... ", then show me where I have said it.

Otherwise there is no reason to presuppose what my opinion is, and stop sticking words in my mouth, I can speak for myself.

In any case the topic we are discussing is not corporate Canada but rather, governmental responsibilty to provide welfare. I you have something relevant to contribute to the topic please do, but I have not seen any such contribution from you yet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

so yet again err, you have chosen not to respond to this and change the topic? pretty characteristic.

[Renegade]

Renegade:  Do you have enough money to pay for a pacemaker we previously talked about in this forum, and the life-saving operation required to insert it (assuming you lived in the United States, and we did not have the safety net we do in Canada).

If not, according to your logic, then you should deserve to die, should you require one of these devices and have not the means to pay for the said products and services.

I have already answered this before. I'm not going to waste my time and answer it again.

While it may be a good way to silence your incessant griping about the downtrodden stealing our money (as did Mike Harris), I am happy that my taxes are able to save peoples' lives.... whether that be by paying for heart operations, or by helping to keep the downtrodden fed and off the streets.  I am happy to be part of the solution for many of these people, rather than do as you recommend, and delegate that responsibility to "other people" like the church, or their relatives....

You obviously don't have any room for empathy in your heart, or the capability to be charitable....  I pity you....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I understand that you are happy paying taxes to save people's lives, just don't presume what others want to do with THEIR taxes. It does seem that it not sufficient for you where your taxes are spent. If the government didn't tax you, you can easily choose to donate it to charities which would also save lives.

The issue at hand is you want the government to, by force. also spend other peoples taxes on the same causes you value.

I'm not presuming to delegate to "other people". We are the "other people". I have a family, and feel an obligation toward the welfare of my relatives. If the only reason for welfare is for "the capability to be charitable", then I would argue that that is best left to charities, whose mandate is, by definition, "the capability to be charitable"

BTW save your pity and focus on addressing the question I asked as neither of you have as yet.

[err]

Renegade:  Do you have enough money to pay for a pacemaker we previously talked about in this forum, .....

I have already answered this before. I'm not going to waste my time and answer it again.

because he doesn't want to admit that there's a great big hole in his argument...

While it may be a good way to silence your incessant griping about the downtrodden stealing our money (as did Mike Harris), I am happy that my taxes are able to save peoples' lives.... whether that be by paying for heart operations, or by helping to keep the downtrodden fed and off the streets.  I am happy to be part of the solution for many of these people, rather than do as you recommend, and delegate that responsibility to "other people" like the church, or their relatives....

You obviously don't have any room for empathy in your heart, or the capability to be charitable....  I pity you....

I understand that you are happy paying taxes to save people's lives, just don't presume what others want to do with THEIR taxes.

Maybe I should rephrase the above quotation. I am happy to live in a society that cares for its own kind, and as a group, help the less fortunate in their society.

It is obvious that there will always be uncaring cheap bastards like yourself who would never help anyone.... and when they needed help would yelp louder than anyone... That is why, as a group, the rules are laid out.... as a member of the group, and a potential recipient of its benefits, you have to contribute.

Otherwise, you might find it easier to move to a country full of uncaring, cheap, miserable people like yourself rather than trying to make everyone in our country turn into what you appear to be....

BTW save your pity and focus on addressing the question I asked as neither of you have as yet.

I think the question has been answered, even if you didn't want to listen. Our society wants to help the unfortunate..... It appears that you are a mis-fit if you do not share this feeling.

[Renegade]

Renegade:  Do you have enough money to pay for a pacemaker we previously talked about in this forum, .....

I have already answered this before. I'm not going to waste my time and answer it again.

because he doesn't want to admit that there's a great big hole in his argument...

No hole. I apply same consistant standard to myself as I do to others. If there is a flaw in my logic, care to point it out?

Maybe I should rephrase the above quotation.  I am happy to live in a society that cares for its own kind, and as a group, help the less fortunate in their society.

It is obvious that there will always be uncaring cheap bastards like yourself who would never help anyone.... and when they needed help would yelp louder than anyone...  That is why, as a group, the rules are laid out.... as a member of the group, and a potential recipient of its benefits, you have to contribute. 

Otherwise, you might find it easier to move to a country full of uncaring, cheap, miserable people like yourself rather than trying to make everyone in our country turn into what you appear to be....

Again, this is consistent with what I have stated, you want to force group benefits on everyone, regardless of whether they want it or not, or value it or not. Furthermore, you advocate forcing everyone in the group to pay for these benefits regardless of if they want it or not. I would say your mentalitiy would fit communisim quite well.

Maybe you can answer how you can presume to know how I would "yelp louder than anyone" if I needed help? Or is this again one of your conjectures?

I think the question has been answered, even if you didn't want to listen.  Our society wants to help the unfortunate..... It appears that you are a mis-fit if you do not share this feeling.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Question answered? Really? where? The only thing which has been stated is that if I am against taxpayer-funded welfare, then I must be one of the "uncaring cheap bastards". Resorting to name calling is not an answer and is not an argument based either upon logic or fact.

It is certainly presumptious of you to assume you speak for what "our society" wants. Certainly it was "our society" who chose Mike Harris for two terms, and Harris never hid what he intended to do.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear err,

Our society wants to help the unfortunate..... It appears that you are a mis-fit if you do not share this feeling.

It seems that you have a problem discerning between 'the unfortunate' and freeloaders, addicts and 'lazy bums who know how to work the system'. I am definitely of a 'leftist persuasion', and even I do not think that welfare should be 'free' across the board. Even Karl Marx had his 'caveat', "From each according to his ability", yet you seem to think that even this is too much to ask.

[err]

Maybe I should rephrase the above quotation.  I am happy to live in a society that cares for its own kind, and as a group, help the less fortunate in their society.

It is obvious that there will always be uncaring cheap bastards like yourself who would never help anyone.... and when they needed help would yelp louder than anyone...  That is why, as a group, the rules are laid out.... as a member of the group, and a potential recipient of its benefits, you have to contribute. 

Otherwise, you might find it easier to move to a country full of uncaring, cheap, miserable people like yourself rather than trying to make everyone in our country turn into what you appear to be....

Again, this is consistent with what I have stated, you want to force group benefits on everyone, regardless of whether they want it or not, or value it or not. Furthermore, you advocate forcing everyone in the group to pay for these benefits regardless of if they want it or not. I would say your mentalitiy would fit communisim quite well.

It is our SOCIETY that imposes the benefits and associated costs (not just me). If you don't want to be a member of our society, then piss off... we won't miss you or your type....

Maybe you can answer how you can presume to know how I would "yelp louder than anyone" if I needed help? Or is this again one of your conjectures?

Based on how much you yelp and complain about the "pain" that you suffer from having to contribute to our society, I could just imagine if someone stepped on your big toe.....

I think the question has been answered, even if you didn't want to listen.  Our society wants to help the unfortunate..... It appears that you are a mis-fit if you do not share this feeling.

Question answered? Really? where? The only thing which has been stated is that if I am against taxpayer-funded welfare, then I must be one of the "uncaring cheap bastards". Resorting to name calling is not an answer and is not an argument based either upon logic or fact.

Just calling a spade a spade. It would appear to be fact... You are against the fundamentals of our society... (the fundamentals that determine that our society looks after its downtrodden).... yet I bet you'd be to scared to move outside of our secure country (for example, to the USA) where you don't have the safety net... sort of like one of those chihuahuas that bark up a storm, but are really gutless when it comes to acting on their bark.....

[Renegade]

It is our SOCIETY that imposes the benefits and associated costs (not just me).  If you don't want to be a member of our society, then piss off... we won't miss you or your type....

gee. It was SOCIETY that chose Mike Harris's government. That same government you hate so much. I guess it was SOCIETY'S way of telling guys like you to piss off!! Frankly its YOU we won't miss.

Maybe you can answer how you can presume to know how I would "yelp louder than anyone" if I needed help? Or is this again one of your conjectures?

Based on how much you yelp and complain about the "pain" that you suffer from having to contribute to our society, I could just imagine if someone stepped on your big toe.....

so by your logic, if a rape victim complained about being raped, you could conclude that they were a complainer and would complain regardless of whether it was justified or not?

Just calling a spade a spade.  It would appear to be fact... You are against the fundamentals of our society... (the fundamentals that determine that our society looks after its downtrodden).... yet I bet you'd be to scared to move outside of our secure country (for example, to the USA) where you don't have the safety net... sort of like one of those chihuahuas that bark up a storm, but are really gutless when it comes to acting on their bark.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Call all the spades you like, you still don't address the question asked. Yes I question why, and don't take it as an assumption. You have failed to answer why it should be a governmental responsibility instead of any of the other groups I mentioned, because I suspect it is a question you can't answer.

You can bet all you want. You have no idea where I have lived or where I would choose to live in future. You do nothing but assume and presuppose without providing any fact or evidence or logical argument. It would appear that you are either stupid or resort to the same tired rethorical whining, or more likely some of each.

[err]

Dear err,

Our society wants to help the unfortunate..... It appears that you are a mis-fit if you do not share this feeling.

It seems that you have a problem discerning between 'the unfortunate' and freeloaders, addicts and 'lazy bums who know how to work the system'. I am definitely of a 'leftist persuasion', and even I do not think that welfare should be 'free' across the board. Even Karl Marx had his 'caveat', "From each according to his ability", yet you seem to think that even this is too much to ask.

Actually, I do differentiate between the two, and I, like I'm sure you do, would like to see the "lazy bums" removed from the system. Therein lies the problem.... the method of separating those who need due to impairments, and those who are too lazy.

I'm all ears for the ideal sorting machine. However, going on the assumption that such a flawless and impartial mechanism does not exist, I suggest that it would be ridiculous to cut the system for everybody to get rid of the few... which is what Mike Harris did.... I would suggest that the government could save more money and deliver better support to those who are truly needy by investing more money into operating and monitoring the system....

But unlike Renegade, I support the system for those who truly need it. And until the ideal sorting mechanism exists, I have little choice but to support a few percentage points worth of freeloaders.

[err]

It is our SOCIETY that imposes the benefits and associated costs (not just me).  If you don't want to be a member of our society, then piss off... we won't miss you or your type....

gee. It was SOCIETY that chose Mike Harris's government. That same government you hate so much. I guess it was SOCIETY'S way of telling guys like you to piss off!! Frankly its YOU we won't miss.

I'm still here... but Mike Harris and his lot are long gone... lets hope it stays that way....

Call all the spades you like, you still don't address the question asked. Yes I question why, and don't take it as an assumption. You have failed to answer why  it should be a governmental responsibility instead of any of the other groups I mentioned, because I suspect it is a question you can't answer.

I have answered you a few times, but you don't seem to be listening. Maybe I'll type a little s-l-o-w-e-r so you catch on. Your original question was:

Why do you presume it is a governmental responsibility to provide a guaranteed standard of living?

As I have said several times, SOCIETY chooses to support our social safety network. It is the GOVERNMENT that is charged with carrying out the will of SOCIETY. The government really doesn't have a choice in the matter.

When the pubic saw that Mike Harris was not conducting the provinces affairs the way our society deems acceptable (robbing the poor (and middle class) to give to the rich), they gave him the boot.

[Renegade]

I'm still here... but Mike Harris and his lot are long gone... lets hope it stays that way....

Yes, you are still here, but so is everyone who voted Mike Harris in for two terms. You can delude yourself if you wish into thinking that their mindset has changed, however given the right leader, the same choices will be made again.

As I have said several times, SOCIETY chooses to support our social safety network.  It is the GOVERNMENT that is charged with carrying out the will of SOCIETY.  The government really doesn't have a choice in the matter.

So assuming that this is the best answer you can give, the key word is "chooses". That means the amount society gives to welfare is up to the choice and whim of society. If it so chooses, it can decide that welfare is less of a priority than another program. There is no entitlement for welfare or other reason we as must fund welfare other than it is our choice as a society. It is then equally valid a choice to decide to fund another social program or cut taxes.

What I'm saying is that paying $535/month for welfare is neither right nor wrong. It is simply a choice of what level society chooses to fund it. Socieity is equally right if it decided to fund it to $200/month or $0/month.

Society expresses its choices by electing a government which has a policy most aligned with its wishes. Mike Harris government never hid what they intended to do, yet they were elected to successive governments. He was a proxy for society's wishes that welfare elegibility had gotten too lax and had to be tightned.

There are some who advocate for the taxpayer funding higher welfare benefits. Their argument is frequently that someone can't live on $535/month. In my view, I don't see why the taxpayer should be the sole finanical supporter of the welfare recepient. Welfare reciepients themselves should be able to supplement any taxpayer funded payment by either working (even if it is less than minimimium wage), relying on friends & family for handouts, and charities.

When the pubic saw that Mike Harris was not conducting the provinces affairs the way our society deems acceptable (robbing the poor (and middle class) to give to the rich), they gave him the boot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mike Harris' government was focused in his mission in his first term, and was rewarded for it by a second term. The public knew full well what they were re-electing. Unfortunately his government lost some of the same zeal in implementing the original Common Sense Revolution policies in the second term. Under Ernie Eves' tenure, the government further lost its focus and started diluting its original policies.

The reasons the Conservatives lost the election was because of they lost their original vision and thus their execution suffered. It was not because people decided that their policies were incorrect. Many of the people who despised Harris, never voted for him, and were never going to.

[Guest eureka]

Society does not have a choice in funding welfare. Without such funding, there is no society. Check the meaning and the significance. No welfare and the contest becomes who has the longest spears.

The only choice is the level of fundung. And, if that is not at an adequate level, then the contest starts over with appropriate levels of violence. Mike Harris brought us perilously close to the violence he so richly deserved on a personal level.

[err]

Yes, you are still here, but so is everyone who voted Mike Harris in for two terms. You can delude yourself if you wish into thinking that their mindset has changed, however given the right leader, the same choices will be made again.

Germany once thought Hitler was a great leader. It is unlikely that they will fall into the same trap that they once did... but you never know... Similarly, there is a chance that Ontarians will vote in a Conservative government, but they will be much more cautious about believing Conservative lies again... (which, incedentally, are even bigger than the Liberal lies).

As I have said several times, SOCIETY chooses to support our social safety network.  It is the GOVERNMENT that is charged with carrying out the will of SOCIETY.  The government really doesn't have a choice in the matter.

That means the amount society gives to welfare is up to the choice and whim of society. If it so chooses, it can decide that welfare is less of a priority than another program. There is no entitlement for welfare or other reason we as must fund welfare other than it is our choice as a society.

I'm glad that Canadian values are such that the social safety net is held higher than the wants of the wealthiest citizens. Mike Harris seemed to think that he could cut support to sub-subsistance levels to give those funds to the wealthiest Ontarians. But that is contrary to the value systems of most Canadians and Ontarians, thankfully.

What I'm saying is that paying $535/month for welfare is neither right nor wrong. It is simply a choice of what level society chooses to fund it. Socieity is equally right if it decided to fund it to $200/month or $0/month.

It is not. You don't seem to get it. The right level is one where those in need can receive enough to feed themselves and their families, clothe themselves, and live with some amount of dignity. In some cases it may be $535, and in others it may be $1235. It is obvious that you don't share the same values as the majority of Canadians/Ontarians, and a buying flat-screen TV is more important than helping those in need.

Mike Harris government never hid what they intended to do, yet they were elected to successive governments.

Male-bovine-excrement. Mike Harris wagged his finger at the cameras when he said "Not one penny from classroom education".... he lied... he needed more money for his "tax return" and had to invent the "province wide testing" as a means to show that our teachers were "lazy", and "no good", necessitating "reform"... and what was included in the first year of "reform".... taking $500 million from the education system's budget..... to give to the wealthiest Ontarians...

He sold off huge amounts of public property far below its real value, just to hide the fact that his "tax return" created such a deficit... Had he not squandered the 407 and our hydro-electric generation systems, the public may have found out about the malicious intents of his policies... and how they were destroying our economy... which would have thwarted his chances at re-election.

When the pubic saw that Mike Harris was not conducting the provinces affairs the way our society deems acceptable (robbing the poor (and middle class) to give to the rich), they gave him the boot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mike Harris' government was focused in his mission in his first term, and was rewarded for it by a second term. The public knew full well what they were re-electing.

The mission had to do with destroying the social safety nets we had in place... And see above, because he got a second term by treachery and lies... selling off our future to get another term...

The reasons the Conservatives lost the election was because of they lost their original vision .... 

It had more to do with the public's vision improving... when they saw how much damage Mike Harris had done to our province....

[Renegade]

Germany once thought Hitler was a great leader.  It is unlikely that they will fall into the same trap that they once did... but you never know...  Similarly, there is a chance that Ontarians will vote in a Conservative government, but they will be much more cautious about believing Conservative lies again...  (which, incedentally, are even bigger than the Liberal lies).

People's mindsets are not static. They chose Mike Harris as a reaction to the disasterous policies of Bob Rae. The best best thing about Rae's government was that it reminded the population what government would be like under the NDP. It certainly ensured that there won't be another NDP government in Ontario for a while. It is hard to predict what Ontario voters would do for the future. Given a choice of a decisive leader like Harris (who wasn't afraid to piss some people off) and a leader who straddles the soft middle ground, I would choose Harris any day. I expect, so would most Ontario voters.

I'm glad that Canadian values are such that the social safety net is held higher than the wants of the wealthiest citizens.  Mike Harris seemed to think that he could cut support to sub-subsistance levels to give those funds to the wealthiest Ontarians.  But that is contrary to the value systems of most Canadians and Ontarians, thankfully.

Ontario elected Mike Harris to do the job which he did. You can fool yourself if you wish that Mike Harris came into power by some fluke and lies, but the truth is Ontario voters chose him TWICE.

Even eureka concedes that society chooses the level of funding.

You somehow think you speak for the values of most Canadians. Who made you our spokesman? In my view, Ontario voters are not looking to create a welfare state. They consider welfare at best a temporary measure.

Male-bovine-excrement.  Mike Harris wagged his finger at the cameras when he said "Not one penny from classroom education".... he lied... he needed more money for his "tax return" and had to invent the "province wide testing" as a means to show that our teachers were "lazy", and "no good", necessitating "reform"... and what was included in the first year of "reform".... taking $500 million from the education system's budget.....  to give to the wealthiest Ontarians...

He sold off huge amounts of public property far below its real value, just to hide the fact that his "tax return" created such a deficit... Had he not squandered the 407 and our hydro-electric generation systems, the public may have found out about the malicious intents of his policies... and how they were destroying our economy... which would have thwarted his chances at re-election.

Mike Harris' actions in his first term are what defined his positions. You would think that after one term the voting population would have a good idea on what he and his party stood for, and indeed they did. So knowing this they re-elected him. You paint the Ontario voters as a gullible and naive and easily fooled. You only do so because you are unable to face the fact that Ontario voters who voted for Mike Harris deliberately chose him and supported his policies.

The mission had to do with destroying the social safety nets we had in place... And see above, because he got a second term by treachery and lies... selling off our future to get another term...

It had more to do with the public's vision improving... when they saw how much damage Mike Harris had done to our province....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fool yourself all you want. Most people who voted for Mike Harris before, would do so again.

[Renegade]

Society does not have a choice in funding welfare. Without such funding, there is no society. Check the meaning and the significance. No welfare and the contest becomes who has the longest spears.

For centuries it was not govenrment who funded welfare, it was the church. Did that make them any less a society?

The only choice is the level of fundung. And, if that is not at an adequate level, then the contest starts over with appropriate levels of violence. Mike Harris brought us perilously close to the violence he so richly deserved on a personal level.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So as you point out, what we are doing when we choose the level of funding for welfare, is making a trade-off between spending it on welfare payments as an alternative to increased policing cost to quell violence.

From an economic perspective, the right level is one at which the welfare cost is less than the increased policing costs. Again from an economic perspective, if the level of welfare funding is too high, it makes more sense to spend those funds on policing costs rather than welfare.

I would then argue that Mike Harris was following an economically efficient policy, in that he was able to reduce the welfare costs with minimal increase in violence and thus policing costs.

[Guest eureka]

Of course it was less of a society. It was inadequate and it led to the violence that brought government into the realization of its responsibility.

Policing is not a consideratio. That is the solution of those who would not want a fair society. Policing is a violent response to the reaction of a suppressed class in your scenario.

[Renegade]

Of course it was less of a society. It was inadequate and it led to the violence that brought government into the realization of its responsibility.

Government doesn't come to "realizations" of its responsibility on its own. We define the purpose and responsibilites of government. It is up to us via our votes to choose where we want government to focus. There is no entitlement to welfare. We implemnet welfare because it serves our purposes to do so.

Policing is not a consideratio. That is the solution of those who would not want a fair society. Policing is a violent response to the reaction of a suppressed class in your scenario.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is no universal definition of fairness and what is "fair" is subject to interpretation. Why should we consider it fair to subsidize a segment of the population who doesn't contribute to it?

Policing is necessary to curtail violent responses. Despite the fact that people will agree that they live in a democracy, there are some who will resort to violence if the will of the majority doesn't suit their interests.

[err]

Why should we consider it fair to subsidize a segment of the population who doesn't contribute to it?

Our SOCIETY wants to be fair to those who haven't had the good fortune and opportunities that most of us have been heir to... Our government is (albeit, sometimes begrudgingly) upholding the public's wishes to dispense this assistance to those less fortunate.

There will always be a few bad apples, a few who are so mean that they do not wish to give even a scrap to help those less fortunate. Thankfully, that is not the feeling of the majority of Canadians.