Mike Harris did nothing wrong.

[Said1]

Good grief, Harris was a maniac. He's been implicated in a murder for Christ's sake!

He CUT disability pensions! His wife LEFT him (although temporarily) while he was still in office. All of the above may mean absolutely nothing and, he might really be a cool guy, but I doubt it.

/rant off.

[for_liberty]

Now err what do you mean "put people first". Do you mean someone who will come in and impose their ideals on you. The only time people are happy with politcians is when there ideal are being imposed. How i see it is no matter what party comes in they all impose their ideals by force. If they want to implement a program i don't agree with well it is to bad i must pay for it or risk going to jail. Government programs are force and I for one don't like any of them. I don't want to force any of my ideals on anyone, I am not sure you can say the same.

[err]

Now err what do you mean "put people first". Do you mean someone who will come in and impose their ideals on you.

....I don't want to force any of my ideals on anyone, I am not sure you can say the same.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's wrong with a government saying "health care for everyone"... "Nobody's left out"....

My statement that a government should "put people first" should be obvious.... The governement is elected by the people, and is supposed to represent the people who elected them... However, if those elected officials go down a path that harms large segements of the population in order to please business interests, I think we have a problem....

One simple example. Do you remember the Harris government's mean-spirited policy of reduction of aid to single mothers. When some of the "lefty" crowd pointed out that the goverment had cut their welfare benefits to below the levels that one could eat every day, the Harris goverment published a diet that these single mothers could eat and feed their kids with.... And they could meet the budget if two of their dinners were were "Pasta, cooked with no sauce"....

I have a hard time thinking of a more mean-spirited government than Mike Harris's government.... He would have single mothers starve so he could give a larger tax return to the millionaires of the province....

[for_liberty]

Now err what do you mean "put people first". Do you mean someone who will come in and impose their ideals on you.

....I don't want to force any of my ideals on anyone, I am not sure you can say the same.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's wrong with a government saying "health care for everyone"... "Nobody's left out"....

My statement that a government should "put people first" should be obvious.... The governement is elected by the people, and is supposed to represent the people who elected them... However, if those elected officials go down a path that harms large segements of the population in order to please business interests, I think we have a problem....

One simple example. Do you remember the Harris government's mean-spirited policy of reduction of aid to single mothers. When some of the "lefty" crowd pointed out that the goverment had cut their welfare benefits to below the levels that one could eat every day, the Harris goverment published a diet that these single mothers could eat and feed their kids with.... And they could meet the budget if two of their dinners were were "Pasta, cooked with no sauce"....

I have a hard time thinking of a more mean-spirited government than Mike Harris's government.... He would have single mothers starve so he could give a larger tax return to the millionaires of the province....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now you say Mike Harris harmed a large segment os society, but it wasn't the majority. So really it isn't that you want an elected official to represent the people that elected him. You want someone to dictact what ever you think is correct. Now if that forces other people to do things they feel isn't right it's ok because you feel it is right. Doesn't that sound alot like the current US president. You have different ideals but want to achieve them the same way.

[err]

Now you say Mike Harris harmed a large segment os society, but it wasn't the majority. So really it isn't that you want an elected official to represent the people that elected him. You want someone to dictact what ever you think is correct. Now if that forces other people to do things they feel isn't right it's ok because you feel it is right. Doesn't that sound alot like the current US president. You have different ideals but want to achieve them the same way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The fact that you could compare my views with George Bush's actions astounds me.

Hitler put forth policies that aimed to help the majority of the Germans who elected him. He created Volkswagon to manufacture a car that everyone could afford, and he "got rid of Jews that were wrecking their economy". The Jews were not in the majority that elected Hitler, so do you think that his actions were OK.??? I should hope you would think not.

Our government should look at all of its people, and not target segments as Mike Harris and Adolph Hitler did. Harris hurt targeted segments of Ontarians to provide a large tax return for the wealthiest group of Ontarians...... Without any care about how much he hurt Ontario's poorest....

The language in your comment (above) would suggest that you believe that once elected with a majority goverment, the government should be able to "do what they want".... I beg to differ in opinion with you.... Where your statments would back the actions of both Hitler and Harris, I think our goverments should be responsible to hold a higher moral position.

(Note: Cybercoma, thanks for the inspiration. Do you have any more Hitler quotes you can share with us...

[takeanumber]

The biggest effect that Harris has had on Ontario is that those in the burb's and the cities saw the effects of a right wing government on the economy and society...and they'll continue to reject such a damaging, ignorant experiment on the national level.

[BHS]

The biggest effect that Harris has had on Ontario is that those in the burb's and the cities saw the effects of a right wing government on the economy and society...and they'll continue to reject such a damaging, ignorant experiment on the national level.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you thinking of the Progressive Conservatives or the NDP? Because, I mean, the NDP's stellar performance in office didn't win them any fans either.

Both parties have held majorities in Ontario and neither have a shot at ever running the federal government. The difference is that the Progressive Conservatives don't exist as a federal party anymore.

[err]

Are you thinking of the Progressive Conservatives or the NDP? Because, I mean, the NDP's stellar performance in office didn't win them any fans either.

Both parties have held majorities in Ontario and neither have a shot at ever running the federal government. The difference is that the Progressive Conservatives don't exist as a federal party anymore.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The NDP got power in Ontario during a severe recession. At the same time, Darlington power plant came online, and the cost of building the plant was suddenly added to the province's books, hugely increasing our provincial deficit. (Previously it had been illegal to charge for the construction of a nuclear power plant until it generated power). Bob Rae had an uphill battle. At the time, they were not prepared to govern, as they didn't expect to win.

I take my hat off to Bob Rae with his implementation of the "Social Contract", wherein all public servants kept their jobs, but lost 2 weeks pay. He could have done like Mike Harris, and just laid off thousands of employees...

example:

Mike Harris laid off every single environmental inspection agent in the province (until just after Walkerton)

Mike Harris laid off thousands of nurses.

Mike Harris laid off thousands of "lazy" teachers.

Mike Harris cut off social assistance to the poorest single mothers... to a susistance level...

But Mike Harris did all this when the province was in good financial order.... so that the money from all of these wages could be paid as "tax returns", mostly going to the wealthiest people in the province.

The difference, Bob Ray's socialistic policies valued the livelihood of thousands of public employees, so all of them felt a little discomfort, but none had their lives crushed. Mike Harris, on the other hand didn't care about the thousands of lives that were crushed by his evil and mean-spirited policies.

[for_liberty]

Now you say Mike Harris harmed a large segment os society, but it wasn't the majority. So really it isn't that you want an elected official to represent the people that elected him. You want someone to dictact what ever you think is correct. Now if that forces other people to do things they feel isn't right it's ok because you feel it is right. Doesn't that sound alot like the current US president. You have different ideals but want to achieve them the same way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The fact that you could compare my views with George Bush's actions astounds me.

Hitler put forth policies that aimed to help the majority of the Germans who elected him. He created Volkswagon to manufacture a car that everyone could afford, and he "got rid of Jews that were wrecking their economy". The Jews were not in the majority that elected Hitler, so do you think that his actions were OK.??? I should hope you would think not.

Our government should look at all of its people, and not target segments as Mike Harris and Adolph Hitler did. Harris hurt targeted segments of Ontarians to provide a large tax return for the wealthiest group of Ontarians...... Without any care about how much he hurt Ontario's poorest....

The language in your comment (above) would suggest that you believe that once elected with a majority goverment, the government should be able to "do what they want".... I beg to differ in opinion with you.... Where your statments would back the actions of both Hitler and Harris, I think our goverments should be responsible to hold a higher moral position.

(Note: Cybercoma, thanks for the inspiration. Do you have any more Hitler quotes you can share with us...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No i don't think the majority should rule but that is always the explanation people

give when they want government to do what they feel is right. And i didn't compare your political views with George Bush, what I said that it is the same thing for you to want a guy like Jack Layton to enforce his ideals on society as Repubulicans to have George bush do the same. They both do it by force. It is the majority ruling the minority. I know you don't see it that way because you feel you are being compassionate, but it is still force. If i didn't want to participate in the services i would go to jail or have my assets siezed by government. So it might as well a gun to my head, i have to pay because the majority says so. And that is not right.

Please don't use the argument that if i don't like it i should leave. The same can be said to americans about George Bush and I don't think that is right either.

[err]

No i don't think the majority should rule but that is always the explanation people

give when they want government to do what they feel is right. And i didn't compare your political views with George Bush, what I said that it is the same thing for you to want a guy like Jack Layton to enforce his ideals on society as Repubulicans  to have George bush do the same. They both do it by force. It is the majority ruling the minority. I know you don't see it that way because you feel you are being compassionate, but it is still force. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack Layton didn't enforce his ideals on our society. He just helped keep Paul Martin honest. Paul Martin promised to do all of these things in his election campaign... he did not promise additional tax cuts for corporations. A lot of people presumably voted for Paul Martin due to his left-leaning platform. Jack Layton just kept Paul Martin honest.... Doing the things that he promised to do to make our society a little better....

[Argus]

example:

Mike Harris laid off every single environmental inspection agent in the province (until just after Walkerton)

Privatized their jobs, you mean.

Mike Harris laid off thousands of nurses.

Don't think so.

Mike Harris laid off thousands of "lazy" teachers.

Too bad he didn't get rid of more.

Mike Harris cut off social assistance to the poorest single mothers... to a susistance level...

Then he didn't cut them off, now did he?

But Mike Harris did all this when the province was in good financial order....

Really? He didn't inherit an enormous deficit? Coulda fooled me.

[Guest eureka]

Harris did lay off environmental workers and remove the requirements for supervision of the private labs.

Harris did lay off nurses: 12,000 of them. Most of them have had to be rehired at great cost to budgets that have not been restored.

Harris did lay off thousands of teachers. People who, according to studies on stress in the workplace, work harder and under greater stress than any forum participant from Ottawa

Harris cut welfare rates to below subsistence levels for many thousands. Rates that even today have not been restored and are about 40%, in real terms, below the bare minimumf received before Harris.

Harris inherited a budgetary deficit that was already in decline since the Rae government had begun to tackle it eighteen months before Harris. He also inherited the end of the recession and the beginnings of a boom that Ontario could not fully enjoy because of the devastation to the economy wrought by Harris.

[BHS]

The NDP got power in Ontario during a severe recession.  At the same time, Darlington power plant came online, and the cost of building the plant was suddenly added to the province's books, hugely increasing our provincial deficit. (Previously it had been illegal to charge for the construction of a nuclear power plant until it generated power).  Bob Rae had an uphill battle.  At the time, they were not prepared to govern, as they didn't expect to win. 

I take my hat off to Bob Rae with his implementation of the "Social Contract", wherein all public servants kept their jobs, but lost 2 weeks pay.  He could have done like Mike Harris, and just laid off thousands of employees...

example:

Mike Harris laid off every single environmental inspection agent in the province (until just after Walkerton)

Mike Harris laid off thousands of nurses.

Mike Harris laid off thousands of "lazy" teachers.

Mike Harris cut off social assistance to the poorest single mothers... to a susistance level...

But Mike Harris did all this when the province was in good financial order.... so that the money from all of these wages could be paid as "tax returns", mostly going to the wealthiest people in the province.

The difference, Bob Ray's socialistic policies valued the livelihood of thousands of public employees, so all of them felt a little discomfort, but none had their lives crushed.  Mike Harris, on the other hand didn't care about the thousands of lives that were crushed by his evil and mean-spirited policies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All of this is tru-ish, other than perhaps the caricature of Mike Harris as some sort of Snidely Whiplash. I don't know that the government exists to act as a source of unionized employment, and you know how I feel about our North Korean-esque health care system. But Bob did face an uphill battle in regard to revenue and spending, and he was as surprised as everyone else when the NDP actually came into power. Can't really blame him for not having a game plan ready.

I don't know that he left the Province's finances in good shape. I do recall that he raised taxes on everything, including dirt, and so it's just possible that he managed to take in almost as much as he spent. I don't recall any balanced budgets from his governments.

Perhaps, in light of the absolutely moonbat raving response they had to Harris, the unions will forget how betrayed they felt about the Social Contract. And maybe some day the NDP will again win enough seats to form an official party under the limiting rules they themselves upheld when they ran the province, the same limits that have been reduced (twice, I think) to accomodate their terrible election records. Stranger things have happened.

The biggest tax returns go the people who pay the most taxes. The fact that you think this isn't "fair" goes to show how corrupted the word "fair" has become in the modern vernacular. And no, I didn't get a big return out of all of this.

I voted against Eves in 2003, not because I'm a big fan of Deputy Dalton and his gang of pledge breakers (from whom I've expected little and have been rewarded accordingly), but because Eves betrayed the Harris vision and needed to be swept out of office. Unfortunately we now have John "Red" Tory running the show, so who knows how long it will be before the next incarnation of the Common Sense Revolution comes around.

Rest easy, err. The bad old days of Mike Harris are not likely to be repeated any time soon.

[BHS]

Despite all of the cuts that Harris made to implement his balanced budgets and tax returns, and despite the fact that the Liberals have their gigantic majority and their mandate to reverse all that Harris wrought, and have failed to do so, I haven't seen a huge increase in former welfare recipients (now homeless) dying prostrate in the streets, cursing Mike Harris with their last breath. I suppose we ship them out to the have-not provinces or something these days.

Ontario is still the wealthiest Province, even without vast plains of oil-soaked sand. When the ant-Harrisites can cite specific examples of Harris-inspired mayhem in the province, that are only happening in Ontario and only because they are causally connected to the Common Sense Revolution, I'll create a post in honour of the NDP that you can link back to whenever I bring up the provincial Conservatives.

[for_liberty]

No i don't think the majority should rule but that is always the explanation people

give when they want government to do what they feel is right. And i didn't compare your political views with George Bush, what I said that it is the same thing for you to want a guy like Jack Layton to enforce his ideals on society as Repubulicans  to have George bush do the same. They both do it by force. It is the majority ruling the minority. I know you don't see it that way because you feel you are being compassionate, but it is still force. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack Layton didn't enforce his ideals on our society. He just helped keep Paul Martin honest. Paul Martin promised to do all of these things in his election campaign... he did not promise additional tax cuts for corporations. A lot of people presumably voted for Paul Martin due to his left-leaning platform. Jack Layton just kept Paul Martin honest.... Doing the things that he promised to do to make our society a little better....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But Jack Layton did help keep Paul Martins ideals on all of us. If all of these social programs are so great why don't we make payment to them voluntary?

[takeanumber]

If you're comparing the NDP record to the PC record, well then, that's a pretty fair comparison.

The NDP record in Ontario was horrible, the PC record just as disasterous.

See: The NDP was too far Left. The PC way, way too far right.

Centrist Governments, for all the bitching from the left and right that they're 'unpricipled', are the best.

[err]

I think eureka's on the money....

[err]

And maybe some day the NDP will again win enough seats to form an official party under the limiting rules they themselves upheld when they ran the province,

They have official party status, both in Ontario, and Federally.

The biggest tax returns go the people who pay the most taxes. The fact that you think this isn't "fair" goes to show how corrupted the word "fair" has become in the modern vernacular. And no, I didn't get a big return out of all of this.

It should be obvious that the biggest tax returns go to those who pay the most taxes, and that is not where the problem lies. The Harris government cut from the poorest people in the province to give bigger tax returns... and who gets the lions share of these... Harris cut health care to give bigger tax returns... to whom... I could go on for some time, but I'm sure you already get the drift.

Harris's Social Services Slight of Hand

Harris also moved provincially paid-for social service costs to municipal juridictions to reduce provincial costs... why... you know why... The consequence of this move was to "pretend" that these cost disappeared, and the nice Mr. Harris cut our taxes... But it was a slight of hand.... We have to pay for them on the municipal level, so our property taxes went up... way up... And all the money that used to pay for social services.... who got it.... You know who... The wealthiest segment of our population.

So the majority of the population got a tiny decrease in their tax bill, a hefty increase in their property tax bill, and a loss of services... that we now have to pay cash for.... The net result is that the poorer segment of the population are paying more tax, and the richer segment is paying less.... Pretty funny, if you fall into the latter category...

[err]

Despite all of the cuts that Harris made to implement his balanced budgets and tax returns.....

Harris's goals had nothing to do with balanced budgets. He had to sell off pretty much all of our electricity generation capabilities, the 407 highway to hide the destruction he had done to the province's finances so that he could be elected for a second term to do more damage. It would appear that his intent was to destroy the tax-base that supported our social services....

[Guest eureka]

For Liberty:

I believe that you have made some motions about majority rule. Does it not occur to you then, that nobody is "forcing ideals" on anyone. What is happening is that government is providing what the majority of voters want. That is, a decent society. Even most Conservatives are clear that they want the same and only argue about the most efficacious and inexpensive way to deliver it.

That means that the overwhelming majority of Canadians, as in any civilized society, want these services you decry.

It is just a tiny few like you who think they are Libertarian and who want what you think you want. Most of you are Libertarians because they think it sounds clever: that it puts you in a class superior and removed from the rabble.

It doesn't do that, though. It is a sign of selfishness or inability to see the consequences of what you pray for. Of course, you will come back with the obsessed Ayn Rand,s idea of enlightened selfishness. You should read more of Hugo's posts if you want to understand Libertarianism far beyond your tentative explorations.

His views are equally naive but he makes interesting intellectual argument.

[cybercoma]

If you're comparing the NDP record to the PC record, well then, that's a pretty fair comparison.

The NDP record in Ontario was horrible, the PC record just as disasterous.

See:  The NDP was too far Left.  The PC way, way too far right.

Centrist Governments, for all the bitching from the left and right that they're 'unpricipled', are the best.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is why I say we need an even farther right party than the Conservatives, to level the playing field between them and the Liberals.

NDP ----- Liberals -------Conservatives ------ Party to be Named

It would make them seem more centrist. Too bad children are brainwashed in school from childhood to buy into the socialist wholesale of freedoms.

[SirSpanky]

Short of living in a right-ist country, there is not much you can do to avoid the left influence on the younger generation.

People have this crazy notion that whatever way they are brought up or do things, is the best way.

[err]

This is why I say we need an even farther right party than the Conservatives, to level the playing field between them and the Liberals.

NDP -----  Liberals -------Conservatives ------  Party to be Named

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Haven't you been paying any attention.... at least federally... They were called Reform, and people thought they were too "whacked out", so the formed "The Alliance" to sound like there was more than one idea in the party... People still recognized them for what they were... So the borrowed the name "Conservative", relying on patronage from people who don't think, people who say "my daddy voted Conservative, and my Grandaddy voted Conservative, and I damn well will too"... without even knowing what the "alien in wolve's clothing" is all about... But enought people still see through Harper and his right-wing ideals.

For you information.... the "Liberals" are Conservatives... at least Paul Martin is...

[SirSpanky]

For you information.... the "Liberals" are Conservatives... at least Paul Martin is...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What are you basing Martin's Conservative-ness on? Certainly not his social philosophy.

[cybercoma]

This is why I say we need an even farther right party than the Conservatives, to level the playing field between them and the Liberals.

NDP -----  Liberals -------Conservatives ------  Party to be Named

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Haven't you been paying any attention.... at least federally... They were called Reform, and people thought they were too "whacked out", so the formed "The Alliance" to sound like there was more than one idea in the party... People still recognized them for what they were... So the borrowed the name "Conservative", relying on patronage from people who don't think, people who say "my daddy voted Conservative, and my Grandaddy voted Conservative, and I damn well will too"... without even knowing what the "alien in wolve's clothing" is all about... But enought people still see through Harper and his right-wing ideals.

For you information.... the "Liberals" are Conservatives... at least Paul Martin is...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They merged and now there's only one party on the right, that throws the Liberals right smack in the middle. That's why there needs to be another rightwing party, one that makes Stephen Harper and the rest of the Conservatives look like liberal hippies, to balance out the spectrum.

Anyway, this is completely off-topic.