Mike Harris did nothing wrong.

[Renegade]

I would certainly agree with you, Renegade, that we need the poor. After all, every civilization has been built on slavery and every prosperous Capitalist society has been built on an ample supply of the poor.

Would you think we might someday get away from "Man's inhumanity to man" and become civilized? Might we some day recognize the worth of a human life?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

eureka, my guess is no, we will always have a classed society, rich and poor, winners and losers, at least in societies on a large scale. Personally I think it is in human nature for each to act in its own self-interest. Successful societies have relied on this motivation.

[err]

eureka, my guess is no, we will always have a classed society, rich and poor, winners and losers, at least in societies on a large scale. Personally I think it is in human nature for each to act in its own self-interest. Successful societies have relied on this motivation.

It is in society's interest to police itself. Not just from the perspective of protecting society's members from what we consider to be criminal behavior, but also from domination of one group over another. I am specifically referring to the ability of the wealthier classes to enslave lesser fortunate sectors of society, whether literally or fiscally.

If you accept and/or condone this fiscally based enslavement, then you are accepting the risk that it happen to you or others that you care about, even though you don't think that possible right now. It certainly is possible. If you strive to build a society that protects its weaker elements and supports them when they need a hand, then you will be somewhat protected should your fortunes take an unlucky turn.

[Renegade]

It is in society's interest to police itself.  Not just from the perspective of protecting society's members from what we consider to be criminal behavior, but also from domination of one group over another.  I am specifically referring to the ability of the wealthier classes to enslave lesser fortunate sectors of society, whether literally or fiscally.

It really depends upon what you mean by fiscal enslavement. I don't consider the free exchange of either goods or labour to be fiscal enslavement. Personally I would only use the term enslavement where an action is forced under threat of violence. In that sense our government practices enslavement by forcibly extorting taxes under threat of violence.

If you accept and/or condone this fiscally based enslavement, then you are accepting the risk that it happen to you or others that you care about, even though you don't think that possible right now.  It certainly is possible.  If you strive to build a society that protects its weaker elements and supports them when they need a hand, then you will be somewhat protected should your fortunes take an unlucky turn.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I freely accept the risk that under circumstances beyond my control I may end up poorer than I am now. That risk affects my behaviour today. For instance creating a "rainy-day" savings fund, or buying insurance to cover some of the risk. In addition the risk of losing wealth further motivates people to increase their skill, experience, and effort so that they do not end up poorer. Most people start with nothing and build wealth through life via the choices they make and the efforts they expend. The risk of losing wealth is simply the risk of starting over, and is an acceptable one in my view.

[cybercoma]

Mike Harris was a required change after Bob Rae abused this province.

[err]

I freely accept the risk that under circumstances beyond my control I may end up poorer than I am now. That risk affects my behaviour today. For instance creating a "rainy-day" savings fund, or buying insurance to cover some of the risk.  In addition the risk of losing wealth further motivates people to increase their skill, experience, and effort so that they do not end up poorer. Most people start with nothing and build wealth through life via the choices they make and the efforts they expend. The risk of losing wealth is simply the risk of starting over, and is an acceptable one in my view.

If you needed a pacemaker for your heart next week, would you be willing or able to shell out the $20K or so that this procedure would cost you... or would you just accept your inevitable fate....

When I spoke of fiscal enslavement, you should have conjured up visions of people working for pennies per day in Indonesia or similar country. These people work every day, but have no real opportunity for advancement.... (sort of like the Wal Mart employee, but at least the Wal Mart employee has a one in a million chance to advance to something that the average would deem acceptable).

[err]

Mike Harris was a required change after Bob Rae abused this province.

Mike Harris served as a good reminder to the people of Ontario not to vote for the Conservatives federally or anywhere else..... ever again...

[Renegade]

If you needed a pacemaker for your heart next week, would you be willing or able to shell out the $20K or so that this procedure would cost you... or would you just accept your inevitable fate....

It is my responsibility to make sure I have a contingency should I need a pacemaker. If that contingency was not provided by public health insurance, I would purchase private insurance.

When I spoke of fiscal enslavement, you should have conjured up visions of people working for pennies per day in Indonesia or similar country.  These people work every day, but have no real opportunity for advancement.... (sort of like the Wal Mart employee, but at least the Wal Mart employee has a one in a million chance to advance to something that the average would deem acceptable).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If any worker freely sells his services, regardless of the price of those services, it is not fiscal enslavement. Even in Indonesia it is Indonesians who run the factories which employ these workers. Even in Indonesia, there are lawyers, doctors, and business men who earn considerably more than pennies per day. The point is, only those workers who lack the skills to undertake other occupations will end up with the lowest paying jobs and unless they change that, that will be their fate.

[Renegade]

Mike Harris served as a good reminder to the people of Ontario not to vote for the Conservatives federally or anywhere else..... ever again...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interestingly, after Harris's first term in office, Ontarians decided they needed to be reminded again and re-elected him.

[Guest eureka]

What if you should suffer a calamity and later, when your begging bowl is empty, need the pacemaker.

Your insurance would have lapsed through your inability to meet the premiums. Ideas of personal responsibility tend to shift when need arises.

[err]

Mike Harris served as a good reminder to the people of Ontario not to vote for the Conservatives federally or anywhere else..... ever again...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interestingly, after Harris's first term in office, Ontarians decided they needed to be reminded again and re-elected him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But it probably won't happen again for some time..... Harris managed to fool the public at the end of his first term by selling off our assets cheap and quick in a fire sale.... so we wouldn't notice the massive deficits... Now, for the rest of your life, you can pay at least an extra 50% for your electricity, get robbed when you ride the 407, and pay higher property taxes (because of the shift of social services from his budget).

[err]

It is my responsibility to make sure I have a contingency should I need a pacemaker. If that contingency was not provided by public health insurance, I would purchase private insurance. 

And if by chance you became unemployed, and your payments lapsed, that would be OK, would it... There's 40 million people in the USA who can't make that contingency plan... and 100,000 of them die each year because they failed to be able to make that contingency.... Each year, hundreds of thousands of others make the contingency, but they didn't buy enough insurance, and therefore lose everything to pay their medical bills... and they were some of the smart ones like you.... So I'd rather the government take care of our health insurance, rather than smart people like you....

If any worker freely sells his services, regardless of the price of those services, it is not fiscal enslavement. Even in Indonesia it is Indonesians who run the factories which employ these workers. Even in Indonesia, there are lawyers, doctors, and business men who earn considerably more than pennies per day.  The point is, only those workers who lack the skills to undertake other occupations will end up with the lowest paying jobs and unless they change that, that will be their fate.

"Freely sells his services...".. really... And again, I suppose you think this guy has a choice... let's think about the options... do I need to eat today ??? or should I choose for me and my family to go hungry for another day... real choices...

[Renegade]

And if by chance you became unemployed, and your payments lapsed, that would be OK, would it...  There's 40 million people in the USA who can't make that contingency plan... and 100,000 of them die each year because they failed to be able to make that contingency.... Each year, hundreds of thousands of others make the contingency, but they didn't buy enough insurance, and therefore lose everything to pay their medical bills... and they were some of the smart ones like you....  So I'd rather the government take care of our health insurance, rather than smart people like you....

The price of freedom is personal responsibility. If we want the freedom to choose our own way, we should expect the personal responsibility for both the benefits and consequences that comes with that. So if someone loses everything because they did not purchase sufficient medical insurance they have no one else to look to for the cause but themselves. Why should the government be obligated to bear the consequences of their choices.

You are painting health care as an insurance scheme run by the government. In many ways it is, however to be truly treated as an insurance scheme, I as a consumer should have the choice of deciding if I think that the price of coverage is worth the risk and benefit. I as a consumer of health insurance should have the option to opt out if I am willing to take the risk of being uncovered or I percieve the benefit not to be worth the cost. Alternatively I should be free to purchase health insurance from a private insurer if I deem the benefit relative to the cost is better. The problem with looking as public healthcare as "insurance" is it offers no such choices.

"Freely sells his services...".. really...  And again, I suppose you think this guy has a choice... let's think about the options... do I need to eat today ??? or should I choose for me and my family to go hungry for another day... real choices...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So the factory which employs him has put him in the position of having to choose between unskilled labour and going hungry?

Why don't we force the factory to pay him much more, say $7/hour, so that they can decide it makes more sense to close down and relocate elsewhere, or better still, replace human labour with machines. Of course now that labourer is umemployed, he now truly has no choice because his only source of employment has been taken away. Great strategy!!!

[Renegade]

What if you should suffer a calamity and later, when your begging bowl is empty, need the pacemaker.

Your insurance would have lapsed through your inability to meet the premiums. Ideas of personal responsibility tend to shift when need arises.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you need a pacemaker, no longer have medical coverage, and cannot afford one, I exect that you need to appeal to charity or perish.

[Renegade]

But it probably won't happen again for some time.....  Harris managed to fool the public at the end of his first term by selling off our assets cheap and quick in a fire sale.... so we wouldn't notice the massive deficits...  Now, for the rest of your life, you can pay at least an extra 50% for your electricity, get robbed when you ride the 407, and pay higher property taxes (because of the shift of social services from his budget).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't be so sure. I'd vote for him again if he ran provincially or federally. Lots of people I know would vote for him again. (Some of the same people who voted agains Eves).

[cybercoma]

A small example of the power of charity, since mirror and others obviously think it's worthless:

A huge portion of the money going to New Orleans is from charity.

When charity money is needed it's there.

[err]

A small example of the power of charity, since mirror and others obviously think it's worthless:

A huge portion of the money going to New Orleans is from charity.

When charity money is needed it's there.

Government money was needed there before the crisis... and maybe it would have been a handful of dead.... The US government should be held accountable for all the deaths and loss that could have been prevented, had their policies focused on the needs of Americans and national security instead of spending the country's resources on acquiring acces to Iraqi oil for the companies that the Bush administration will be working for in a few years....

[cybercoma]

A small example of the power of charity, since mirror and others obviously think it's worthless:

A huge portion of the money going to New Orleans is from charity.

When charity money is needed it's there.

Government money was needed there before the crisis... and maybe it would have been a handful of dead.... The US government should be held accountable for all the deaths and loss that could have been prevented, had their policies focused on the needs of Americans and national security instead of spending the country's resources on acquiring acces to Iraqi oil for the companies that the Bush administration will be working for in a few years....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why are you so quick to point your finger at the federal government and not the local government or state government? If the local and state governments knew the problem was that bad, why weren't they a little more adamant and demanding of changes being made, or why didn't they make the changes themselves?

It obviously wasn't a big enough problem for them to address. I hardly see how any of this should be placed on the federal government.

[err]

Why are you so quick to point your finger at the federal government and not the local government or state government?  If the local and state governments knew the problem was that bad, why weren't they a little more adamant and demanding of changes being made, or why didn't they make the changes themselves?

It obviously wasn't a big enough problem for them to address.  I hardly see how any of this should be placed on the federal government.

It wasn't a very big problem ??? really ...

I guess them Democrat votin' black folk aren't worth the money, are they....

[mockingbird]

But it probably won't happen again for some time..... Harris managed to fool the public at the end of his first term by selling off our assets cheap and quick in a fire sale.... so we wouldn't notice the massive deficits... Now, for the rest of your life, you can pay at least an extra 50% for your electricity, get robbed when you ride the 407, and pay higher property taxes (because of the shift of social services from his budget).

Let's argue a little for a moment and say that ontarians did knowingly vote for harris AGAIN after deliberately ignoring or just not being aware of the kind of damage he did to the poor and the homeless.

I quote from this site:

http://www.geocities.com/shortottawa/sheltersystem.html

When an adult without dependents goes on social assistance, they are eligible for a monthly amount of $520.  This consists of a "shelter allowance" (more properly called the housing allowance) of $325 and remaining $195 to cover all non-housing costs.

If that adult stays in a homeless shelter, the picture changes radically, both for the individual and for the government, which pays the bill.  Currently these costs are split; the province pays 80% and the municipality pays 20%.

$520 divided by 30, for an average month, works out to about $17.34 per day.  This is what an individual gets to live on, for rent, meals, transportation, etc.  This amount didn't change from 1995's 21% cut in the welfare rates until the end of 2004.

The "service provider" (the faith-based charity running the homeless shelter on behalf of the city) currently receives over $41 per day per client - the "per diem". This means it costs over twice as much money to keep someone eligible for Ontario Works in a homeless shelter as it costs to keep them in their own room or housing - over $1200 per month instead of $520 per month.

If you've never seen the inside of a homelss shelter, imagine an eleven by twelve foot room, with three bunk beds and six half-height lockers - housing six men.  That room is currently costing the social services system over seven thousand dollars per month.

Each of these service providers has to provide the services to take care of the maximum number of residents they can house.  Since the amount of money each service provider receives is directly related to how many filled beds they have, there is no incentive for the service providers to find "real" housing for their clients.

I think this is a war the narcissists have staged against the poor. Perhaps a really wicked way of ridding themselves of the competition. Maybe a lot of the poor and homeless are people who would have otherwise eventually ended up competing with the people who govern the jungle of a beauracracy known as the canadian government?

I know it's a bit far fetched but it's a plausible theory. I think ultimately, Ontario and Toronto has a wicked ring to it. It's governed by children in the body of adults who do not have the ability to empathize with the downtrodden.

Essentially, not what you would call an evolved society.

Ontario is primitive, and there's not much you can do to change it as long as it's run by monkeys.

[Renegade]

The way the current shelter system is funded,  shelters are encouraged and rewarded to keep themselves as full as possible - even to the point of providing "emergency overflow" beds - a camp mat on the floor- to receive as many of the $41 per diems as possible.

In fact, at the time of this writing (Dec 2004) one of the largest shelters in Ottawa also runs a rooming house complex - with over 40 empty rooms.  One room in the rooming house is worth $325 per month to the shelter.  If the resident of that room is moved to the shelter - as they have been - the shelter then receives over $1200 per month. This represents an egregious mis-use of public funds, and shows a woeful lack of oversight and accountability in the current system.

The above is from the same site you quoted. If your argument is that the shelter system is inefficient. I agree. The governments (provincial and city) should stop funding the $41 per diems and remove the shelter system as an expensive duplication.

[mockingbird]

The above is from the same site you quoted. If your argument is that the shelter system is inefficient. I agree. The governments (provincial and city) should stop funding the $41 per diems and remove the shelter system as an expensive duplication.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The shelter system is not inefficient, the government is inefficient. Both you liberals and "conservatives" are stupid. The liberals continue with these programs instead of upping the welfare rates, and the conservatives want to cut these programs altogether. The difference is that the conservatives are stupid and cruel.

At least the liberal's stupidity benefits some people.

[Renegade]

It is only cruel if you presume that it is a governmental obligation to provide a guranteed standard of living for its people. From where do you draw this conclusion?

You make a subjective judgment that cutting welfare rates is stupid. Why is is stupid? How can it be stupid when you don't even agree on the reason for having welfare?

[mockingbird]

It is only cruel if you presume that it is a governmental obligation to provide a guranteed standard of living for its people. From where do you draw this conclusion?

You make a subjective judgment that cutting welfare rates is stupid. Why is is stupid? How can it be stupid when you don't even agree on the reason for having welfare?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

[PocketRocket]

A small example of the power of charity, since mirror and others obviously think it's worthless:

A huge portion of the money going to New Orleans is from charity.

When charity money is needed it's there.

Government money was needed there before the crisis... and maybe it would have been a handful of dead.... The US government should be held accountable for all the deaths and loss that could have been prevented, had their policies focused on the needs of Americans and national security instead of spending the country's resources on acquiring acces to Iraqi oil for the companies that the Bush administration will be working for in a few years....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As much as I agree that the government could have, and should have, done MUCH more, we can hardly blame this solely on the current administration.

The issue of the levees should have been addressed years ago. Decades.

New Orleans has been a living, breathing crap-shoot since its founding.

When you live below sea-level, in a hurricane-prone area, it only makes sense to build your levees as high and strong as possible.

This should not have even been an issue.

It only became one because of the short-sightedness of ALL administrations, past and present.

[Renegade]

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.