Sell the LCBO now.

[err]

You seem to treat the money in the public system as your trust account. It is not. The money each of us contribute is ours not the publics. We earn it, we should be allowed to spend it in ways which beneift each of us.

The money that is in the public's purse is the public's .. not yours, and not mine... Take a look at your pay stub next week... There's a part that's for you, and a part that goes to the public purse (taxes)... That part is not yours...

There are many other necessary services in life which we allow people to purchase according to the ability to pay. Arent the wealthy able to purchase better food than the poor? blah, blah, blah...

Yes, the wealthy are able to afford more than the poor. However, there is a certain minimum standard that we, as a society, should afford our weakest.

In any case you should know that there is already mullti-tier health care in Canada. The truly wealthy can go to the US should they need to. Polititians and elite athletes seem to go to the front of the line anyway. The middle-class are gettting screwed in this deal by not having the same choices others do in a system which they provide the bulk of the funding for.

The middle-class are getting screwed ???? Now I find it truly humorous that you called me "jealous of the rich" when it appears this is truly your position...

If the truly wealthy can afford to go outside our system, and they can pay to do so with their own money... let them... why not... However, we shouldn't let them talk you into abandoning our system just because you can't do the same as they can... If they go elsewhere, they are not promoting our system... and wouldn't we be foolish to elect politicians who don't believe in our system... and don't finance it.....

[Renegade]

The money that is in the public's purse is the public's .. not yours, and not mine...  Take a look at your pay stub next week... There's a part that's for you, and a part that goes to the public purse (taxes)... That part is not yours...

To justify that the money is not mine because it is forcebly taken at source is ludricous. So if your employer decided that he should withhold an additional 50%, does that action justify that it is now the employers money? Of course not. The fact is I earn it, not the public. The fact that it is deducted at source is nothing short of robbery. Even that robbery would be tolerable if the amount was minor, however it is not. Ever since the government introduced income tax and realized that it was an enforcable and lucrative mechanism to raise funds, the employed have had THEIR funds hijacked.

Yes, the wealthy are able to afford more than the poor.  However, there is a certain minimum standard that we, as a society, should afford our weakest.

The funding for that minimium standard should fall to charities, churches and other organizations which are funded via voluntary donations. If there isn't enough funding which can be provided by these organizations, then that would demonstrate that the public doesn't feel strongly enough that the poor should be supported beyond the level they have already contributed. I don't agree that the poor have a "right" to a minimium standard.

The middle-class are getting screwed ????  Now I find it truly humorous that you called me "jealous of the rich" when it appears this is truly your position...

If the truly wealthy can afford to go outside our system, and they can pay to do so with their own money... let them... why not...  However, we shouldn't let them talk you into abandoning our system just because you can't do the same as they can... If they go elsewhere, they are not promoting our system... and wouldn't we be foolish to elect politicians who don't believe in our system... and don't finance it.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps it's time for YOU to take a reading comprehension course. I have not called you are jelaous of the rich. I have stated that in reality, despite what rules are enacted, restrictions are not applicable to everyone. Let's remove the restrictions for everyone.

I think it is foolish to elect politicians who are myoptic enough to think that there is only one solution to health care and that is increased funding. We can certainly better use the current system by implementing deductables, and givng people a better idea of how much their tax dollars go toward health care.

[err]

The money that is in the public's purse is the public's .. not yours, and not mine...  Take a look at your pay stub next week... There's a part that's for you, and a part that goes to the public purse (taxes)... That part is not yours...

To justify that the money is not mine because it is forcebly taken at source is ludricous. So if your employer decided that he should withhold an additional 50%, does that action justify that it is now the employers money? Of course not. The fact is I earn it, not the public. The fact that it is deducted at source is nothing short of robbery.

And the roads, the schools, the hospital, and the infrastructure aren't to be paid for... or you want the "choice" to pay for them.... Maybe you should live in the jungle, where your sort of system might work... as long as you don't live near another tribe...

Yes, the wealthy are able to afford more than the poor.  However, there is a certain minimum standard that we, as a society, should afford our weakest.

The funding for that minimium standard should fall to charities, churches and other organizations which are funded via voluntary donations. If there isn't enough funding which can be provided by these organizations, then that would demonstrate that the public doesn't feel strongly enough that the poor should be supported beyond the level they have already contributed. I don't agree that the poor have a "right" to a minimium standard.

Most of our society does believe in the system we have....

Perhaps it's time for YOU to take a reading comprehension course. I have not called you are jelaous of the rich. I have stated that in reality, despite what rules are enacted, restrictions are not applicable to everyone. Let's remove the restrictions for everyone. 

Does that include the restrictions imposed due to economic circumstance ???

I think it is foolish to elect politicians who are myoptic enough to think that there is only one solution to health care and that is increased funding. We can certainly better use the current system by implementing deductables, and givng people a better idea of how much their tax dollars go toward health care.

Even your conservative party says they want ONE PUBLIC SYSTEM !!!

[Renegade]

And the roads, the schools, the hospital, and the infrastructure aren't to be paid for... or you want the "choice" to pay for them.... Maybe you should live in the jungle, where your sort of system might work... as long as you don't live near another tribe...

I've said before a "pay-by-use" system would be a more appropriate way to capture use of each of our use of public infrastructure.

You would think that in Canada where there is high investment in "infrastructure" you would see a higher payback in income, however you seem to disregard the fact that the US, Hong Kong and other places provide less "infrastructure" yet many of the high-earning population earn more than the would in Canada.

Most of our society does believe in the system we have....

What people believe is very adaptable. People's expectations acclimatize to what they are used to. Prior to the 20th century when few social programs were in place, few people believed in them. Its not that people believe in them, it's that people are used to them.

Does that include the restrictions imposed due to economic circumstance ???

Absolutely, but since that is a self-imposed restriction, the people who are restricted by economic circumstance are free to change that circumstance and earn more.

Even your conservative party says they want ONE PUBLIC SYSTEM !!!

My party??? It is getting somewhat irritating that you are making statements on behalf of me which I have never said. I don't consider the conservative party my party and there are many of their policies I disagree with.

[cybercoma]

Tax money is not MINE it's the public's!?

Holy crap, if that's not the single most ridiculous thing I have read on this forum, I don't know what is.

I get paid X dollars per hour or X salary per year as part of my contract with my employer, which includes the money the government takes from me. When taxes are raised, my income doesn't rise...it comes out of my pocket.

I PAY THE GOVERNMENT FOR SERVICE. Just like I pay my dry clearner to clean my suits, or the phone company to allow me to communicate, or the internet company for web access.

When you pay someone for a service, you expect to get a certain value for your money. Taking as much money as they do, one would reasonably expect top notch services from our government.

You may think they provide that, however, I would argue that they don't. Considering we can't defend our own land ourselves, we don't have the best healthcare in the world (based on statistics such as infant mortality rates and average lifespan, etc), police services are vastly underfunded in cities, education has been flushed down the toilet, etc. etc.

The list is endless. The government since the beginning of timet has completely mismanaged our money and as Renegade is saying it is better left in the hands of the users. Pay for what you use and we wouldn't have this problem anymore.

The government should take a small portion of money for things like streetlights and roads, etc. But when the cash hungry at city hall take my money so they can build a concession stand in a park, or fund an art gallery, or build a skating rink, or build a parking garage (all things that I will never use), then I get ticked.

The same can be said on a national and provincial level. When my tax dollars go to pay for extravagant vacations for an appointed figurehead, or worse yet millions of dollars get laundered through an advertising program in order to fund future campaigns by the leading party, it makes me angry.

I work hard to earn every single dollar my employer pays me and when the government takes that money with the same snotty attitude people like you have by saying "it's NOT your money," it really pisses me off.

[err]

Tax money is not MINE it's the public's!?

... once it's out of your possession, it's not...

Holy crap, if that's not the single most ridiculous thing I have read on this forum, I don't know what is.

Have you tried reading your own posts ???

I get paid X dollars per hour or X salary per year as part of my contract with my employer, which includes the money the government takes from me.  When taxes are raised, my income doesn't rise...it comes out of my pocket.

However, with the principle of equilibrium, when your taxes go up significantly, wages seem to follow... Many companies resist this, but because there are so many unionized employees out there, it ends up happening.... (the wages following)

I PAY THE GOVERNMENT FOR SERVICE.  Just like I pay my dry clearner to clean my suits, or the phone company to allow me to communicate, or the internet company for web access.

And if you don't pay the internet company, do you still have access to the services ??? The government is large enough to enforce collection, and so are some internet companies... Rogers for instance. You, yourself are not the government's "boss" or "employer". You are a tiny part of a collective "boss"... but they're much bigger than any component of their "collective bosses"

When you pay someone for a service, you expect to get a certain value for your money.  Taking as much money as they do, one would reasonably expect top notch services from our government.

And do you not have nice clean roads to drive on, when you are going to power-trip over the guy at the dry-cleaners ?? Do you not live in a reasonably safe, policed community, with safe drinking water.... Is that not value for your money... (I bet if you were drop-shipped into the jungle, you might sing a different tune).

You may think they provide that, however, I would argue that they don't.  Considering we can't defend our own land ourselves, we don't have the best healthcare in the world (based on statistics such as infant mortality rates and average lifespan, etc), police services are vastly underfunded in cities, education has been flushed down the toilet, etc. etc.

The list is endless.  The government since the beginning of timet has completely mismanaged our money and as Renegade is saying it is better left in the hands of the users.  Pay for what you use and we wouldn't have this problem anymore.

You say that our police services, education, etc.. are being underfunded... and your solution is not to pay as much tax for those services, because they are underfunded.... This does appear to be consistant with the rest of your argument....

The government should take a small portion of money for things like streetlights and roads, etc.  But when the cash hungry at city hall take my money so they can build a concession stand in a park, or fund an art gallery, or build a skating rink, or build a parking garage (all things that I will never use), then I get ticked.

Maybe when you get a raise, you will get a car, and then that parking garage will come in handy. Or maybe you'll meet a girl who would marry you, and she likes to take the kids skating... Or have you resigned to the fact that this will never happen, and you're too mean to support anyone else in society benefitting from these things....

The same can be said on a national and provincial level.  When my tax dollars go to pay for extravagant vacations for an appointed figurehead, or worse yet millions of dollars get laundered through an advertising program in order to fund future campaigns by the leading party, it makes me angry.

... then don't vote Liberal or Conservative if they bother you that much...

I can see that you have a bitter attitude, and have a hard time wanting to help and feel a "community spirit". I recommend trying to lighten up, be a little more generous, then you'll be way more likely to meet that girl, and have a great time at the skating rink... have hot-dogs with the kids you might have at that nice concession stand in the park.... These things are all fun, and make life better...

[err]

I've said before a "pay-by-use" system would be a more appropriate way to capture use of each of our use of public infrastructure.

You would think that in Canada where there is high investment in "infrastructure" you would see a higher payback in income, however you seem to disregard the fact that the US, Hong Kong and other places provide less "infrastructure" yet many of the high-earning population earn more than the would in Canada.

And there are more people living in abject poverty in the USA than there are people in Canada... Similarly there are more Americans without any health care than there are Canadians. You seem to have a fixation with money.... and would forsake heath care, help for people around you, etc.. just to have more money... Maybe you should move to the USA... or are you afraid to, because they don't support people in need....

Does that include the restrictions imposed due to economic circumstance ???

Absolutely, but since that is a self-imposed restriction, the people who are restricted by economic circumstance are free to change that circumstance and earn more.

Poor economic circumstance is a self-imposed restriction... I see... So you "restrict" yourself sufficiently that you have to complain about our taxes, because you don't have enough left... Let that be a lesson to you... Stop restricing yourself so much, and then you'll be wealthier, and so it would follow, happier.

Even your conservative party says they want ONE PUBLIC SYSTEM !!!

My party??? It is getting somewhat irritating that you are making statements on behalf of me which I have never said. I don't consider the conservative party my party and there are many of their policies I disagree with.

It is my sense that there are a lot of people that you would disagree with... I apologize if I falsely though you to be a Conservative, and attributed this to your lack of care for your fellow man... I'm puzzled to think of what other party espouses your kind of ideas.... Would you care to share it with us.????

[cybercoma]

Don't you ever bring up my family or personal life again. You know nothing about me, so you can shove your misguided comments up your ass.

[Renegade]

And there are more people living in abject poverty in the USA than there are people in Canada...  Similarly there are more Americans without any health care than there are Canadians.  You seem to have a fixation with money.... and would forsake heath care, help for people around you, etc.. just to have more money... Maybe you should move to the USA... or are you afraid to, because they don't support people in need....

So what? There are also many more people in extreme wealth in the USA than Canada. You claim I have a fixation with money. I care not one whit about what you or anyone else does with the money you earn. I want the right to do as I please with the money I earn, this is a right that the govenrment denies me by forcibly extorting money from me. The govenment can have all the social programs it wants to the help others as long as they don't come looking to me to fund it.

Perhaps they should be taxing lefties like you at a higher rate because you're so willing to fund these programs so that they can reduce the overtaxation on me.

Poor economic circumstance is a self-imposed restriction... I see... So you "restrict" yourself sufficiently that you have to complain about our taxes, because you don't have enough left... Let that be a lesson to you... Stop restricing yourself so much, and then you'll be wealthier, and so it would follow, happier.

Yes the restriction is I'd like to earn more than I do, and I'm restricted in that I'd like to keep more of what I earn. To that end I'm working hard earn more personal income, maximize my use of tax shelters, and vote out governments which unfairly penalize me. Everyone else should do likewise. And your right, I would be wealthier and happier should I succeed.

It is my sense that there are a lot of people that you would disagree with...  I apologize if I falsely though you to be a Conservative, and attributed this to your lack of care for your fellow man... I'm puzzled to think of what other party espouses your kind of ideas.... Would you care to share it with us.????

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't have a party affiliation. Parties are very adaptable to the whims and policies of its leader. I vote based upon the best fit of policies at the time when I'm asked to make the choice.

Am I correct in assuming you espouse the policies of the Communist Party of Canada?

[Renegade]

Tax money is not MINE it's the public's!?

... once it's out of your possession, it's not...

So then, if I rob you in a dark alley, once the money I take from you is out of your possession, it is no longer yours, correct?

[August1991]

You seem to have a fixation with money.... and would forsake heath care, help for people around you, etc.. just to have more money... Maybe you should move to the USA... or are you afraid to, because they don't support people in need....

err, and you seem to have a fixation on other people's money. You certainly are fixated on all the money governments should give to health care.

I can see that you have a bitter attitude, and have a hard time wanting to help and feel a "community spirit". I recommend trying to lighten up, be a little more generous...

Money, that evil, dirty thing. What people need is a "community spirit". Huh? According to you, money seems very important for our health system.

It is my sense that there are a lot of people that you would disagree with... I apologize if I falsely though you to be a Conservative, and attributed this to your lack of care for your fellow man... I'm puzzled to think of what other party espouses your kind of ideas.... Would you care to share it with us.????

So, the only way a person can show compassion, care for their fellow man, is to spend money the way you think they should. Huh?

However, with the principle of equilibrium, when your taxes go up significantly, wages seem to follow... Many companies resist this, but because there are so many unionized employees out there, it ends up happening.... (the wages following)

err, check on the Internet for your closest college or university and go take at least one economics course. While taking the course, be an intelligent sceptic.

Don't you ever bring up my family or personal life again. You know nothing about me, so you can shove your misguided comments up your ass.

Knock it off.

[Renegade]

I apologize if I falsely though ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

err, numerous times you have either made assumptions, or completely misstated what I have said. This is the first time, at least in our deliberations you have had the grace to apologize. thank-you for that.

If I can offer you some advice which you are free to disregard if you so choose:

1. Your arguments and reasoning frequently devolve into personal condemnations, disparaging remarks on motivations, and personal insults. These not only detract from any points you wish to make, it frequently results in the targeted person (myself included) retaliating in kind.

2. You frequently make blatant assumptions about the poster, or completely misstate what the poster has said. When called to justify why, you rarely respond. The above is the first time I've seen that you've actually acknowledged it. Use what people have said as the basis of your argument, not what you read into it.

[Renegade]

Drip by drip, study by study, arguments mount that Canadian governments should dismantle their liquor monopolies. But, except for Alberta, which eased its monopoly a decade ago, the provinces can't bring themselves to privatize cash cows they have milked since the days of Prohibition.

The case for ending the liquor monopolies

If there was ever any doubt that selling off the LCBO was the right thing to do, this should help dispel them. It's too bad none of our provincial leaders (save Alberta) had the backbone to actually do this.

[Montgomery Burns]

Hot off the press (from yesterday).

Alberta earns more from privatized liquor sales: Outdoes Ontario and Quebec

The government of Alberta, which privatized its retail outlets a decage [sic] ago, profits more from provincial liquor sales than Ontario or Quebec, a new study has found.  The Montreal Economic Institute compared the three provinces’ liquor industries and concluded Alberta’s private retail system not only racks up greater profits for the government, but has also spawned more outlets and a greater number of products for consumers to choose from.  Valentin Petkantchin, the research director, found Alberta, which still controls the importing and wholesaling of liquor, collected a dividend of $24.27 for every litre of pure alcohol sold, compared to $23.42 per litre in Ontario and $23.43 in Quebec.  This translated into millions of dollars in profits for the province, he said.

“I think there is no reason not to privatize,” Mr. Petkantchin said.

[...] The study found Alberta has more liquor stores and more products available to consumers than the other two provinces. In 2004, 1,087 stores sold liquor products in Alberta, while Quebec had 801 stores and Ontario had 779.  Alberta also had a larger number of alcoholic products available to consumers, as private retailers attempted to appeal to customers’ myriad whims and tastes.  Last year, Alberta sold 11,575 alcohol products excluding Canadian beers, compared to 3,449 in Ontario and 7,148 in Quebec.  The year before the province deregulated its liquor stores, only 1,957 products, including beer, were available in Alberta, a number that climbed to 12,414 this year.

[...] Mr. Petkantchin believes one of the greatest fears of a privatized liquor industry is the loss of jobs for unionized employees. His study notes “it’s hard to deny that full-time unionized employees in a government monopoly, who enjoy advantages in wages and working conditions, are directly affected by privatization.  This point should not hide the positive results that a privatization of the SAQ would produce for Quebec consumers as a whole, with more stores at their disposal and the probable creation of many jobs.”

The Montreal Economic Institute comparison found employment levels in the liquor industry rose considerably in Alberta between 1993 and 1996, going from about 950 full-time positions to 2,904.  These factors, combined with the potential government revenue of a deregulated industry, led Mr. Petkantchin and the institute to conclude the original rationale for government monopoly has been “lost in the mists of time."

And Sean Hamilton, a spokesman for Ontario Minister of Finance Greg Sorbara, reminds Canadians that they are stupid people who cannot be trusted to make their own decision. Only Canada's liberal elites in the govt can hold the public's hand and guide them correctly through life.

The LCBO will remain in public hands to safeguard principles of social responsibility, provide convenience and competitive prices, promote Ontario products and encourage responsible use and recycling, he [sean Hamilton] said.

[err]

Hot off the press (from yesterday).

Alberta earns more from privatized liquor sales:  Outdoes Ontario and Quebec

The government of Alberta, which privatized its retail outlets a decage [sic] ago, profits more from provincial liquor sales than Ontario or Quebec, a new study has found.  The Montreal Economic Institute compared the three provinces’ liquor industries and concluded ... blah blah blah...

“I think there is no reason not to privatize,” Mr. Petkantchin said.

There must be some reasons not to privatize, or they would have already, wouldn't they have... One could possibly give some credibility to this guy if he had appeared to weigh up two sides and conclude that one was better than the other... However, his dismissing the possibility of another argment tends to take from his credibility...

PS. If you look hard enough, you can find a study that says Montgomery Burns is smart, or that Al Queda was based in Iraq at the time of 9/11.

[...] Mr. Petkantchin believes one of the greatest fears of a privatized liquor industry is the loss of jobs for unionized employees. His study notes “it’s hard to deny that full-time unionized employees in a government monopoly, who enjoy advantages in wages and working conditions, are directly affected by privatization. 

The loss of good jobs ????

The Montreal Economic Institute comparison found employment levels in the liquor industry rose considerably in Alberta between 1993 and 1996, going from about 950 full-time positions to 2,904. 

... lets see... lost 950 good jobs, and gained 2900 shitty jobs... Is that better.... ??? Maybe if everybody had shitty jobs, they'd all be happier.... is that the way it goes...

And Sean Hamilton, a spokesman for Ontario Minister of Finance Greg Sorbara, reminds Canadians that they are stupid people who cannot be trusted to make their own decision.  Only Canada's liberal elites in the govt can hold the public's hand and guide them correctly through life.

Really Montgomery... why don't you give it a rest.... Just because the employees make $17/hour... your jealousy paints quite the picture of you...

[B. Max]

Alberta priviatized its retail and wholesale beer and liquor. Best thing that ever happened. Unfortunately like other provinces the government still taxes the hell out of it.

[cybercoma]

Alberta priviatized its retail and wholesale beer and liquor. Best thing that ever happened. Unfortunately like other provinces the government still taxes the hell out of it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

At least you're not being taxed on it when you buy it, then taxed on it again through income in order to run the damn place.

[Montgomery Burns]

err (deny deny deny):

There must be some reasons not to privatize, or they would have already, wouldn't they have...

A leftist admit that socialism does not work? Surely you jest. The left is still trying to implement their failed policies into society. The old Benjamin Franklin quote comes to mind: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and

over and expecting different results."

One could possibly give some credibility to this guy if he had appeared to weigh up two sides and conclude that one was better than the other... However, his dismissing the possibility of another argment tends to take from his credibility...

He compared the two largest provinces versus the 4th largest province. And he "concluded" with those pesky official data and figures--that privatization is better for consumers than a govt monopoly. How could you have possibly missed that?!

PS.  If you look hard enough, you can find a study that says Montgomery Burns is smart, or that Al Queda was based in Iraq at the time of 9/11.

Oh, that's rich. A cheapshot from the guy who denies that Al Qaeda wasn't in Saddam's Iraq.

The irony.

The loss of good jobs ????

They are good jobs..and that is the problem. If you owned a retail store, would you pay your employees $17.50 to $25 per hour to stock shelves and run the till? Would you additionally lavish them with benefits? That's a very good salary and benefits for someone who only has a highschool diploma - or GED - living in Saskatchewan (wages are low here). They are grossly overcompensated for the work they do--and I am forced to pay for this gross waste of taxpayer dollars.

...lets see... lost 950 good jobs, and gained 2900 shitty jobs... Is that better.... ???  Maybe if everybody had shitty jobs, they'd all be happier.... is that the way it goes...

2904 - 950 = 1954 workers added to the workforce. Over 3 times more jobs created. Over 3 times more people working and having less chance of getting into trouble. Over 3 times more people gaining dignity by paying their own way. Consumers get competition, more products to choose from and more stores to shop at. Those evil greedy capitalists and competition. :angry: Monopolies always provide the best service and value.

Good jobs versus "shitty" jobs. Since over 3 times more jobs were created, I assume you are suggesting that the salaries of these 2904 employees dropped by over a third.

Really Montgomery... why don't you give it a rest.... Just because the employees make $17/hour... your jealousy paints quite the picture of you...

First of all, $17.50 is the low end. Top seniority gets $25/hr. Plus they are lavisahed with benefits. I know--I have 2 friends/acquaintances that work in the LBS.

Second, it is not jealousy, but disgust at getting ripped off by the govt.

[Black Dog]

Alberta priviatized its retail and wholesale beer and liquor. Best thing that ever happened. Unfortunately like other provinces the government still taxes the hell out of it.

Not only does the Alberta government get money from taxes, they also set the wholesale prices for liquor and the supply of booze (that big warehouse in St. Albert doesn't just hold Klein's private hooch supply). There's no free market for booze in Alberta.

The Montreal Economic Institute comparison found employment levels in the liquor industry rose considerably in Alberta between 1993 and 1996, going from about 950 full-time positions to 2,904. 

Of course when you factor in the 1,866 jobs lost as a result of "pivatization" the net gain is considerably smaller.

[Yodeler]

Of course when you factor in the 1,866 jobs lost as a result of "pivatization" the net gain is considerably smaller.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are 10 times as many liquor stores in Calgary today as there were before privatization.

Didn't any of these 1,866 government slugs qualify to work in any of them?

Oh well .... somebody did.

[err]

Didn't any of these 1,866 government slugs qualify to work in any of them?

Government slugs ??? Your description tells us something about you. You'd call them "slugs" just because they had a good job....

[cybercoma]

Didn't any of these 1,866 government slugs qualify to work in any of them?

Government slugs ??? Your description tells us something about you. You'd call them "slugs" just because they had a good job....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good point, he should've called them leeches instead since they feed off their taxpaying hosts.

[err]

Didn't any of these 1,866 government slugs qualify to work in any of them?

Government slugs ??? Your description tells us something about you. You'd call them "slugs" just because they had a good job....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good point, he should've called them leeches instead since they feed off their taxpaying hosts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just like you leech of people who are trying to save a few bucks doing thier own renovations.....

(Cybercoma works in a build-all type place for those of you who did not understand my comment.)

[Durgan]

Boy! All that babble over a product that is totally useless.

Just think of the possibilities if we were talking about "Drug" Stores.

Pay in a capitalistic society is decided by the fact that one has a hook.

What is a hook? Suppose you are in a dental chair and the dentist has a syringe in his hand with a needle about the size of a wooden match. He says. "This won't hurt". You reach out and get a handful of his scrotum and say, " It had better not'. Now that is a hook.

The hooks.

Skills that are limited in demand and you are the man of the hour.

Unions that protect your ass.

Professional association that protect your ass.

Government jobs because nobody rocks the boat. Many have nothing to do including you so don't point the finger.

Anybody like to add to the list?

Durgan.

[tml12]

Of course when you factor in the 1,866 jobs lost as a result of "pivatization" the net gain is considerably smaller.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are 10 times as many liquor stores in Calgary today as there were before privatization.

Didn't any of these 1,866 government slugs qualify to work in any of them?

Oh well .... somebody did.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Before privatizing the LCBO Ontarians should privatize The Beer Store. I mean, you can't buy beer IN THE FOOD STORE???

And I thought Quebec was socialist...the other day a friend of mine saw Grand Marnier in the food store (I still can't believe that...but beer and wine yes!!!)