cybercoma Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 Funny how the conservatives think it's always cool to attack unions, whom defend workers rights and help evenly distribute wealth among working Canadians. But when someone attacks the greed of corporate extraction of wealth from working Canadians that has led to Canada having the #16 world economy(and falling) , it's an attack on the well being of Canada! WWWTT I don't think any union's mission is to evenly distribute wealth, so much as to fairly distribute wealth. Unions have lost power and membership since the 70s, yet every time something happens to the economy they shout "UNIONS!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 I don't think any union's mission is to evenly distribute wealth, so much as to fairly distribute wealth. What's the difference? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) ...But when someone attacks the greed of corporate extraction of wealth from working Canadians that has led to Canada having the #16 world economy(and falling) , it's an attack on the well being of Canada! Foreign corporations were begged by Canada to invest their capital....don't owe their wealth to anybody. Don't like it...kick them out and spend your own money. Edited June 28, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 Foreign corporations were begged by Canada to invest their capital....don't owe their wealth to anybody. Don't like it...kick them out and spend your own money. Or they bribed the Canadian government(conservatives,pc,liberals). See Air Bus scandal. All hard to tell though when everyone covers their paper trails. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 Or they bribed the Canadian government(conservatives,pc,liberals). See Air Bus scandal. All hard to tell though when everyone covers their paper trails. Doesn't matter...it is still foreign capital. Want to keep more wealth in Canada ? Invest your own money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) No cuts - you've already shown you don't know the meaning of the word. They have to be dishonest if they have any chance of winning anything. It's American style politics at its worst. Edited June 28, 2015 by Shady Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 I dont know what the boss would say but I expect he would at least appreciate that I understand basic math. He'd say "You're Fired!". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) Since they're partisan, tell me which party they're supporting. Definition of Partisan: a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance. You don't have to support a specific party to be partisan. Clearly, the financial impetus behind Engage Canada is the Unions. Their mission? To make the Conservative Party unelectable. That's where the partisanship lies. Clear enough for you? A group of high-level Liberal and New Democratic backroom veterans has collected millions of dollars from unions and other centre-left interests to run a pre-election advertising campaign attacking Stephen Harper’s Conservatives. ............. The effort appears to confirm Conservatives’ fears of a federal equivalent of Working Families Coalition – the union umbrella group that has spent massively on attack ads in the past several Ontario elections, contributing to a run of losses for that province’s Progressive Conservatives. Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/unions-centre-left-interests-to-begin-ad-campaign-attacking-harpers-tories/article24924913/ Edited June 28, 2015 by Keepitsimple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 I dont know what the boss would say but I expect he would at least appreciate that I understand basic math. And yet, clearly you don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 And yet, clearly you don't. I seem to be able to figure out 3 is less than 6. I dont see how that is so difficult for some to comprehend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 He'd say "You're Fired!". For bitching perhaps, but not for a lack of math skills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 I seem to be able to figure out 3 is less than 6. I dont see how that is so difficult for some to comprehend. You don't seem to be able to figure out that 103 is more than 100 though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 You don't seem to be able to figure out that 103 is more than 100 though. You are correct mathematically, where do those numbers come from Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 For bitching perhaps, but not for a lack of math skills. No - for being incompetent by telling your Boss that a three percent raise (or higher) is a pay cut.....especially when he promises it for the rest of your life! Incompetent because you've been told over and over that your math needs a lot of work - and yet you still don't get it. Fired, fired, fired! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 You are correct mathematically, where do those numbers come from If your math was any good, you'd figure it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 No - for being incompetent by telling your Boss that a three percent raise (or higher) is a pay cut.....especially when he promises it for the rest of your life! Incompetent because you've been told over and over that your math needs a lot of work - and yet you still don't get it. Fired, fired, fired! except the 3 % I may now get is less than the 6% I used to get. Not so difficult is it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) except the 3 % I may now get is less than the 6% I used to get. Not so difficult is it. A smaller increase is not a cut. In this case, any increase is all Harper, as beyond fiscal 2014-2015, there was never a budgeted or promised program of any kind. 103 is more than 100 and your twisting won't change that. Edited June 28, 2015 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 A smaller increase is not a cut. In this case, any increase is all Harper, as beyond fiscal 2014-2015, there was never a budgeted or promised program of any kind. 103 is more than 100 and your twisting won't change that. Youre wasting a lot of time on semantics. Taking a 6% annual increase and lowering it to possibly 3% is a reduction. Perhaps you will find that word easier to accept than...cut. But what I think is more worrisome is tying the transfer payments to GDP and inflation. It seems to say if your economy goes south, such as in Alta. just now, you better not get sick or hurt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canada_First Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 Everyone making big deal about this when union groups and left wing groups are running ads stating that they're trying to smear Harper....our PM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 But what I think is more worrisome is tying the transfer payments to GDP and inflation. It seems to say if your economy goes south, such as in Alta. just now, you better not get sick or hurt. Ah - I see your problem. You don't seem to understand that if the economy "goes south", Provinces are still guaranteed a minimum of 3%. So it's math and comprehension that you have trouble with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 Ah - I see your problem. You don't seem to understand that if the economy "goes south", Provinces are still guaranteed a minimum of 3%. So it's math and comprehension that you have trouble with. As opposed to the 6% they are currently guaranteed. Once again, 3 is less than 6. What I seem to be having trouble with is getting you to understand basic math. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 You can argue that a min. of 3% is not enough but you can't argue that transfers are being cut or gutted when every year the amount is increased. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 I seem to be able to figure out 3 is less than 6. I dont see how that is so difficult for some to comprehend. If you're increase is smaller than you want, well, it's still an increase. If you want a decrease, then you need to be getting less than you got. If you got 100 before, now you get 95. That's a cut. Do you have issues with the English language, maybe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 If you're increase is smaller than you want, well, it's still an increase. If you want a decrease, then you need to be getting less than you got. If you got 100 before, now you get 95. That's a cut. Do you have issues with the English language, maybe? Once again a waste of time over semantics. The system is being changed to reduce the transfer payments to provinces for healthcare under the current system. You might wish to argue perhaps that the current system is unsustainable if you like, but that's for another day. My english is pretty good, hows your math though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Macadoo Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 If you're increase is smaller than you want, well, it's still an increase. If you want a decrease, then you need to be getting less than you got. If you got 100 before, now you get 95. That's a cut. Do you have issues with the English language, maybe? So your opinion is we have too much funding into healthcare and new equipment, latest procedure development, and specialist attraction is unneeded. You thought 6% was too caviar a system......gotcha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.