jacee Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) Not at all. Check on the constitutional responsibility of each level of government and get back to me.See edit above.You are picking a petty argument here. Remember Paul Martin? Federal transfer payments to the provinces for health and education were slashed by $7 billion. Though he was criticized for cutting social programs... http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/m/article/paul-edgar-philippe-martin/ Edited February 22, 2015 by jacee Quote
Smallc Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 See edit above. You are picking a petty argument here. They can choose to fund them. They have, generally, no responsibility to do so. Quote
jacee Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) They can choose to fund them. They have, generally, no responsibility to do so.See above.And it's ridiculous to imply that the Feds can't influence social programs. Find something more important and real to quibble about. . Edited February 22, 2015 by jacee Quote
Smallc Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 See above. I'm not sure you're understanding. Quote
jacee Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 I'm not sure you're understanding.See above. Quote
Smallc Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) See above. You're responses show a definite lack of understanding. Edited February 22, 2015 by Smallc Quote
jacee Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 You're responses show a definite lack of understanding. And yours. . Quote
Smallc Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 I completely understand that you believe the federal government can and should influence social programs. I'm saying that they don't have to, and it's arguable that they shouldn't. Quote
jacee Posted February 23, 2015 Report Posted February 23, 2015 I completely understand that you believe the federal government can and should influence social programs. I'm saying that they don't have to, and it's arguable that they shouldn't. Reduction of funding influences social programs. . Quote
Smallc Posted February 23, 2015 Report Posted February 23, 2015 Reduction of funding influences social programs. . Thank you for again demonstrating that you don't understand my point. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 23, 2015 Report Posted February 23, 2015 Reduction of funding influences social programs. . Especially healthcare. Quote
LemonPureLeaf Posted February 23, 2015 Report Posted February 23, 2015 Long time Lurker, First time poster... I think that Pm Harper does indeed have a chance to retain his seat in the Commons as well as his job as PM. It seems to me that the more that Justin Trudeau opens his mouth publicly the less like a PM he sounds. It seems like his poll numbers take a dip every time he flups up something. Also it seems like the NDP and Liberals are still trying to make it seem like PM Harper has some hidden agenda and the public just isn't listening to that message anymore because they haven't seen any evidence that Mr. Harper is trying to do anything sneaky at all. In fact the poll numbers would show that quite a lot of Canadians are in favor of his actions. In the last quarter of 2014, Harper averaged an approval rating of 39 per cent, his best showing since the first quarter of 2013. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-harper-s-approval-ratings-are-up-but-is-it-enough-1.2891203 So it would certainly appear that the PM is on the rise from earlier and is retaining most of the type of numbers that elected him to a majority a few years ago. It my opinion that if an election were held today that the PM would indeed hold onto his seat and job but his governing power would be reduced to a minority instead of the coveted majority. I think many people are forgetting that the Conservatives are very good at running a campaign during election time and that could really be the gamechanger. Have a great time in the forums as I know I've always had a great time ready your replies and arguments. Quote
Smallc Posted February 23, 2015 Report Posted February 23, 2015 Especially healthcare. Which hasn't happened...as you've been shown time and again. It also ignores the reality that with the CHA, the federal government has no place in the delivery of healthcare. They choose to be involved. They don't have to be. Quote
jacee Posted February 23, 2015 Report Posted February 23, 2015 Thank you for again demonstrating that you don't understand my point. You're welcome. . Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 23, 2015 Report Posted February 23, 2015 Which hasn't happened...as you've been shown time and again. It also ignores the reality that with the CHA, the federal government has no place in the delivery of healthcare. They choose to be involved. They don't have to be. No it starts happening this year when Martins formula ceases to exist. And sweatervest wont even sit and talk about it. Mind you, he failed to show up for debate on C 51. Such an arrogant asshole. Quote
Smallc Posted February 23, 2015 Report Posted February 23, 2015 How do you repeat the same false information over and over again? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 23, 2015 Report Posted February 23, 2015 How do you repeat the same false information over and over again? If it was false I wouldnt state it in the first place, never mind repeating it. Quote
Smallc Posted February 23, 2015 Report Posted February 23, 2015 If it was false I wouldnt state it in the first place, never mind repeating it. A smaller increase is not a decrease. You've been shown the proper information, yet you repeat this falsehood. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 23, 2015 Report Posted February 23, 2015 A smaller increase is not a decrease. You've been shown the proper information, yet you repeat this falsehood. A decrease in the increase is a decrease. If I was increasing your allowance by a dollar a year and then said I was going to change that to 50 cents a year, would you not call that a decrease, or is math difficult for you. Quote
jacee Posted February 23, 2015 Report Posted February 23, 2015 A smaller increase is not a decrease. You've been shown the proper information, yet you repeat this falsehood. A smaller increase is a decrease if it doesn't kept up with cost increases. Harper had his feet held to the fire by cpc seniors last time. They threatened to vote for Jack Layton. They'll be on him again. . Quote
jbg Posted February 23, 2015 Report Posted February 23, 2015 This discussion is hard to follow. I'm not even going to try until someone says something of substance that isn't an attack. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Smallc Posted February 23, 2015 Report Posted February 23, 2015 A smaller increase is a decrease if it doesn't kept up with cost increases. It will increase by no less than the rate of inflation. Quote
Smallc Posted February 23, 2015 Report Posted February 23, 2015 A decrease in the increase is a decrease. If I was increasing your allowance by a dollar a year and then said I was going to change that to 50 cents a year, would you not call that a decrease, No. I'd call that a smaller increase, because I know words have meanings. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 23, 2015 Report Posted February 23, 2015 No. I'd call that a smaller increase, because I know words have meanings. OK. I dont want to waste time on semantics. Under Harpers rule xfer payments to provinces will be decreased vis a vis the existing formula. Quote
jacee Posted February 23, 2015 Report Posted February 23, 2015 It will increase by no less than the rate of inflation. For each person? There will be more elders for the foreseeable future. . Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.