Fordtopia: Year Two

[Black Dog]

I have no idea why this is the fallback answer . Pretty silly response.

And yet it's not even the silliest response in that post.

Anyhoo, here's a pretty good article that bust s more than a few myths about the "runaway spending at city hall.

In reality, there are no tough choices on offer here. Filling a hole deliberately made larger—although nowhere near as large as you claim—by your own fiscal imprudence on the backs of those most dependent on the services the City provides can hardly be called tough or brave or novel. That’s what right-wing politicians do.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Black Dog

[Black Dog]

And here's court stenographer/horrible person Sue-Ann Levy essentially arguing that layoffs are necessary because unemployment should be spread around.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Black Dog

[Jack Weber]

And here's court stenographer/horrible person Sue-Ann Levy essentially arguing that layoffs are necessary because unemployment should be spread around.

So the political right individualists DO believe in collectivism as it relates to suffering?

[Shwa]

And here's court stenographer/horrible person Sue-Ann Levy essentially arguing that layoffs are necessary because unemployment should be spread around.

More right wing social engineering.

[mentalfloss]

And here's court stenographer/horrible person Sue-Ann Levy essentially arguing that layoffs are necessary because unemployment should be spread around.

If you think she's bad, wait until you see the Mayor's former media advisor penning Op-Eds and spreading propaganda on Talk radio.

[Boges]

If you think she's bad, wait until you see the Mayor's former media advisor penning Op-Eds and spreading propaganda on Talk radio.

So opinion pieces you agree with: Good Journalism.

Opinion pieces you disagree with: Propaganda.

[cybercoma]

Remember when Rob Ford said he wouldn't cut services. He kept his word, linguistically anyway.

How benign it sounds. Services will be adjusted. They won’t be slashed, reduced or cut back. They will be gently adjusted, the way one adjusts a seatbelt or uncomfortable clothing.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/warren-clements/adjustment-when-bafflegab-trumps-plain-truth/article2258390/

[Archanfel]

Define 'bloated". You can't bitch about "runaway spending" etc when you have no idea about what the proper level of spending should be. Despite all the claims of "waste" at city hall, the gravy train was empty the whole time, which is why we're at the point of cutting services.

A syphilitic chimpanzee would be more likely to have a clue than your man Fordo.

I'm not sure you understand the medium in which you are posting. Here's a hint: it's not a campaign website and no one is running for anything.

It's funny how no matter what veneer of intellectualism Fordites adopt, behind the facade it's nothing to do with good public policy, just ideology and their own selfishness.

Care to provide some evidence of this?

uh, Rob Ford being the mayor is not evidence enough for you? Let's be honest. Rob Ford? How desperate Toronto tax payers had become? The fact is Toronto elected Rob Ford to reduce taxes and that's what he is doing. Yes, people would be happier if no services were cut, but everybody knew there's a large risk of service cuts and were willing to take the risk. Politicians always lie, but don't tell me you thought there would be no service cut or lay off.

Of course, I might be wrong here. Maybe enough "knowledgeable" homeowners will donate their saved taxes to cover the services being cut. We will see shelters, pools, arenas being run by private donors like all the good folks here. Surely these home owners wouldn't have any problem coming up with $88 million dollars? Do you believe it will happen? Or do you believe nobody (including yourself) will do more than lip services and these services will be cut? Let's be honest here. Tell us what you believe.

What's the medium here? Is this a place where people make meaningful discussion and stand behind their ideas or just a place that people like you rant?

My definition of "bloated" is government spending that is rising above the rate of inflation consistently. Can you tell me our budgets hasn't been rising above the rate of inflation consistently? My definition of bloated is when we subsidize people year over year. Back to the kid analogy, if my kids needed a little help paying the down payment, I would be more than happy to help out. However, if they couldn't pay their mortgage month over month over month, then I would seriously question either their job performances or their life styles. Can you tell me that we haven't been subsidizing people year over year? My definition of bloated if when public employees enjoy perks that nobody in private sector would even dream off. Can you tell me our public employees are moving to defined contribution pensions?

What's your definition of a lean government?

And how can you call others selfish when you are trying to get others to pay for services only you care about? If you are not selfish, are you willing to cover the cost yourself? Is your definition of selfless based on spending other people's money? How many of you, donated a cent of the taxes you saved last year to the city?

Edited December 3, 2011 by Archanfel

[mentalfloss]

So opinion pieces you agree with: Good Journalism.

Opinion pieces you disagree with: Propaganda.

lol wut?

Edited December 4, 2011 by mentalfloss

[Black Dog]

uh, Rob Ford being the mayor is not evidence enough for you? Let's be honest. Rob Ford? How desperate Toronto tax payers had become? The fact is Toronto elected Rob Ford to reduce taxes and that's what he is doing. Yes, people would be happier if no services were cut, but everybody knew there's a large risk of service cuts and were willing to take the risk. Politicians always lie, but don't tell me you thought there would be no service cut or lay off.

Ford's campaign was based around the narrative that there was enough waste at city hall that could be cut without impacting services. So no, Ford's election is not evidence that people want lower taxes at the expense of services.

Of course, I might be wrong here. Maybe enough "knowledgeable" homeowners will donate their saved taxes to cover the services being cut. We will see shelters, pools, arenas being run by private donors like all the good folks here. Surely these home owners wouldn't have any problem coming up with $88 million dollars? Do you believe it will happen? Or do you believe nobody (including yourself) will do more than lip services and these services will be cut? Let's be honest here. Tell us what you believe.

Not sure why you continue to pursue this line of thinking. It's dumb. It's the city's responsibility to deliver these services, not that of individual citizens. That's why we have government in the first place: to do those things we as individuals or small collectives cannot.

What's the medium here? Is this a place where people make meaningful discussion and stand behind their ideas or just a place that people like you rant?

Oh, you're interested in meaningful discussion now? Since when?

My definition of "bloated" is government spending that is rising above the rate of inflation consistently.

Great, now maybe you can explain why and how you arrived at such an arbitrary definition.

My definition of bloated is when we subsidize people year over year. Back to the kid analogy, if my kids needed a little help paying the down payment, I would be more than happy to help out. However, if they couldn't pay their mortgage month over month over month, then I would seriously question either their job performances or their life styles. Can you tell me that we haven't been subsidizing people year over year?

What are you even talking about? Who are these "people" we are subsidizing?

What's your definition of a lean government?

I'm not particularly interested in the size of government, only it's efficacy and efficiency. I don't consider "small government" an end unto itself like so many ideologues.

And how can you call others selfish when you are trying to get others to pay for services only you care about? If you are not selfish, are you willing to cover the cost yourself? Is your definition of selfless based on spending other people's money?

I guess you don't understand the purpose of taxes.

Edited December 7, 2011 by Black Dog

[Black Dog]

Edward Keenan at the Grid is doing some great work covering the Ford Follies.

Here's a bit on Doug Ford's budget lies.

Doug Ford told Stephen LeDrew that the reason the city is suggesting $88 million in service cuts is to avoid a 30 per cent tax increase. ...But now that we’re actually looking at the budget, and we see that by Ford & Co.’s own numbers, the shortfall we need to make up through tax hikes or service cuts (or drawing on reserves) is $88 million, this goes from disingenuous spin to complete absurdity.

How hard is it to see through this claim? Well, let’s do some grade-school math: The current budget suggests raising property taxes by 2.5 per cent. According to Rob Ford and his budget chief and the city manager, this will raise $57 million. So in order to cover an additional $88 million shortfall, the city would neet to raise taxes by another… 4 per cent. So in order to avoid any program cuts—and this is assuming that there is no way to cover that balance besides either raising taxes or cutting programs—we would need a total 6.5 per cent property tax increase.

So Doug Ford, according to the numbers his brother is putting out, is overstating the tax-increase option’s impact by more than 450 per cent. Why is he doing that? Or, rather, how is he getting away with doing that? The question I’m asking—right now—is not whether we should raise taxes by 6.5 per cent or cut services, which is a fine debate to have. But what I’m asking is why Doug Ford can and does just put forward blatant falsehoods rather than engage in that discussion. This is not high-level math. The numbers are all right there in his brother’s budget.

Another: Rob Ford's budget sleight-of-hand

Despite the constant suggestion by Ford that David Miller and past mayors have spent beyond the city’s means, the city has never run an operating deficit (and is not legally allowed to do so). Last year, in his first budget, Ford spent the $350-million operating surplus Miller left for him from the year before. Then he eliminated the vehicle registration tax, at a cost of $60 million per year. He cancelled an expected three-per-cent property tax increase and a 10-cent TTC fare hike that together would have been worth about $100 million in 2011. Compound those numbers going into next year and these cuts have created a total loss to the city over two years of about $320 million.

If Rob Ford hadn’t cut or cancelled all those taxes, we’d have enough to cover the entire budget hole without eliminating a single bus route, library hour or arts grant, without laying off a single staff member, and without drawing on reserves.

Just to repeat so it’s perfectly straightforward: Dollar-for-dollar, every single cut in the 2012 operating budget was made necessary by Rob Ford’s 2011 tax cuts. Period.

Of course, I don't expect any of this to be taken into consideration by those for whom small government is merely an ideological imperative.

[cybercoma]

Attn: Ford Bros.

You need to raise money to run a city.

Best regards,

Common sense.

[Archanfel]

Ford's campaign was based around the narrative that there was enough waste at city hall that could be cut without impacting services. So no, Ford's election is not evidence that people want lower taxes at the expense of services.

Not sure why you continue to pursue this line of thinking. It's dumb. It's the city's responsibility to deliver these services, not that of individual citizens. That's why we have government in the first place: to do those things we as individuals or small collectives cannot.

Oh, you're interested in meaningful discussion now? Since when?

Great, now maybe you can explain why and how you arrived at such an arbitrary definition.

What are you even talking about? Who are these "people" we are subsidizing?

I'm not particularly interested in the size of government, only it's efficacy and efficiency. I don't consider "small government" an end unto itself like so many ideologues.

I guess you don't understand the purpose of taxes.

I understand it fine, I just disagree with you on the purpose of taxes or the role of the government. You seems to have trouble grasping the fact people can disagree with you. You are entitled to your opinions, I am entitled to mine. Thankfully, the people of Toronto don't choose mayors based on your opinion, we had a democratic election and we chose Rob Ford as our mayor. I don't agree with him completely, but I like that he is cutting taxes and reducing government work force. I know perfectly well without the tax cut we wouldn't have to cut services as much, but in my opinion he made a good call. The days of 3.8% tax hikes and vehicle taxes are behind us.

[Archanfel]

Attn: Ford Bros.

You need to raise money to run a city.

Best regards,

Common sense.

Attn: cybercoma

No, you don't and you are not the common sense.

Best regards,

Archanfel

Edited December 7, 2011 by Archanfel

[Black Dog]

I understand it fine, I just disagree with you on the purpose of taxes or the role of the government. You seems to have trouble grasping the fact people can disagree with you.

No, I just like people who disagree with me to have some kind of intellectual foundation to their beliefs versus blind adherence to a given dogma. Sadly that's not the case here.

You are entitled to your opinions, I am entitled to mine. Thankfully, the people of Toronto don't choose mayors based on your opinion, we had a democratic election and we chose Rob Ford as our mayor.

What's your point?

I don't agree with him completely, but I like that he is cutting taxes and reducing government work force.I know perfectly well without the tax cut we wouldn't have to cut services as much, but in my opinion he made a good call. The days of 3.8% tax hikes and vehicle taxes are behind us

As I said: dogma.

Edited December 7, 2011 by Black Dog

[Archanfel]

No, I just like people who disagree with me to have some kind of intellectual foundation to their beliefs versus blind adherence to a given dogma. Sadly that's not the case here.

What's your point?

As I said: dogma.

My point is the people of Toronto made our choices democratically and if you think 47% of voters are blind adherence to a given dogma, then I think you are the one who is blind.

[Black Dog]

My point is the people of Toronto made our choices democratically

Again: so fucking what?

and if you think 47% of voters are blind adherence to a given dogma, then I think you are the one who is blind.

I was talking specifically about you and your "I support Rob Ford's tax cuts just because." Ford voters are a bit more complex. There's some ideology at play, as well as a lot of selfishness, and good old fashioned ignorance and gullibility.

[CPCFTW]

I think you could narrow it down to ideology and leave out the "selfishness, gullibility, and ignorance".

There's nothing selfish, gullible, or ignorant about wanting to keep more of your money in exchange for less "services".

[Archanfel]

Again: so fucking what?

I was talking specifically about you and your "I support Rob Ford's tax cuts just because." Ford voters are a bit more complex. There's some ideology at play, as well as a lot of selfishness, and good old fashioned ignorance and gullibility.

So you are saying that 47% of the voters are ideological, selfish, ignorant or gullible. Are you listening to yourself? And you say I have a dogma? BTW, a lot of the same voters voted for Miller 5 years ago. Were they also ideological, selfish, ignorant or gullible then or did IQ suddenly dropped in Toronto under Miller's rule?

[Black Dog]

I think you could narrow it down to ideology and leave out the "selfishness, gullibility, and ignorance".

There's nothing selfish, gullible, or ignorant about wanting to keep more of your money in exchange for less "services".

Actually that's the very definition of selfishness. What's your beef anyway? I thought you people believe selfishness is a virtue?

As for gullible and ignorant, I'm betting there's plenty of Ford Nation voters who bought into the "gravy train" and "no service cuts, guaranteed" b.s. Best of all for this downtown-dwelling latte-sipper, it's the suburbs and not downtown, who stand to be the biggest losers in the new age of austerity as the pittances they've saved off of the VRT and property tax holiday are going to quickly get eaten up by new user fees, fare hikes (I'm sure there's more than a few Ford voters who rely on the TTC), cost overruns on unnecessary "subways" and so forth.

[Black Dog]

So you are saying that 47% of the voters are ideological, selfish, ignorant or gullible.

No, I'd say that number is a lot higher.

[Archanfel]

Actually that's the very definition of selfishness.

So by your definition, everybody "wanting to keep more of your money in exchange for less "services"" is selfish? Again, are you listening to yourself?

[Archanfel]

No, I'd say that number is a lot higher.

I'd say your life must be pretty sad living among a population that you believe is largely ideological, selfish, ignorant or gullible. You are not just trying to set up a defense before starting to shoot people, are you?

[CPCFTW]

Actually that's the very definition of selfishness. What's your beef anyway? I thought you people believe selfishness is a virtue?

There's nothing selfish about it.

People work hard for their money.

Their labour means that they will be demanding less services from the public purse.

Their labour (in the private sector) means that someone else is profiting off of them and paying taxes on that profit, and creating more jobs on the after-tax profit.

Their labour provides them with an income with which they can buy goods and services creating more jobs.

Their labour provides them with an income to invest in stocks and bonds which provide companies with capital to hire more people.

Their labour, in our service-oriented economy, is likely providing a service to a consumer who demanded that service.

No, what is selfish is stealing the fruits of people's labour for your own ideologies (green energy, universal health car, welfare, ei, etc.)

Edited December 7, 2011 by CPCFTW

[Black Dog]

So by your definition, everybody "wanting to keep more of your money in exchange for less "services"" is selfish? Again, are you listening to yourself?

How is it not selfish?

Selfish:

1. concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others

2. arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others

By god, that sounds a lot like your hypothetical Bridal Path dweller upthread.

I'd say your life must be pretty sad living among a population that you believe is largely ideological, selfish, ignorant or gullible.

It's tough, but I endure. I mean, have you ever even left the house?