Liberals to import more impoverished, homeless people

[myata]

It shouldn't be about prejudice, but reason and accountability. Only two possibilities: either the government works for citizens, or the country exists for the government. In the first case, an important policy must be explained, substantiated and defended in critical questioning. And this is how we know which of the two scenarios we have in the country.

[Argus]

43 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I'm not talking about up north.

You just don't want "foreigners" coming to Canada and will support any argument that supports that stance.  Instead of giving argument X and Y just come out and say "I don't like people from other cultures/races and I don't want them here".

It's real nice that you have a gift for reading people's minds. And you're so confident of that ability that you simply state it as a fact. 

It doesn't mask that you don't have an answer to the point I made. Maybe you just don't  give a shit how big and crowded cities are, how awful the traffic, how expensive the housing is, and how much farmland is paved over. 

I'm not confident in my ability to read what passes for your mind to state any of these as a fact because I lack your amazing gift. Would you like to help me out?

Edited July 13, 2021 by Argus

[marcus]

On 7/11/2021 at 5:19 AM, myata said:

Data is not information.

?

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, Argus said:

It's real nice that you have a gift for reading people's minds. And you're so confident of that ability that you simply state it as a fact. 

 

You have done the very same thing with me.  So I call hypocrisy.

[myata]

None of policies and decisions with important consequences and impacts for the country are being discussed; explained; defended and validated. We just elect a majority government and it just makes them just watch it.

Too bad. In this century, with the complexity of the environment both natural and social and international, this method from the epochs long gone is simply not good enough. And at some point, apologies and compensations may not be enough either. Like who gave us guarantees? Who gave them to the dinosaurs?

[Argus]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You have done the very same thing with me.  So I call hypocrisy.

I don't believe I ever stated your motivations for any positions you've taken. I might have stated what you are doing but I don't believe I've said why for a certainty..

[Michael Hardner]

On 7/12/2021 at 5:30 AM, myata said:

Sure. A magician's trick doesn't prove that a bird can appear out of thin air. And sometimes it doesn't work too. Without meaningful criteria "GDP growth" per capita including, can be very misleading. So many examples of banana republics.

Sure, but you used the stat also.

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

I don't believe I ever stated your motivations for any positions you've taken. I might have stated what you are doing but I don't believe I've said why for a certainty..

Yes, I put you on ignore for making a non verified claim about my intentions, my motivations, or desire to purposefully mislead. It was so long ago I don't remember why now.

[Michael Hardner]

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, I put you on ignore for making a non verified claim about my intentions, my motivations, or desire to purposefully mislead. It was so long ago I don't remember why now.

Oh now I remember.  You said that I wanted to censor people that disagree with me. ?

Seems comical now, as you yourself have even turned my mind on a few topics already, since you posted that.

EDIT: Far from censoring opposing views, I seek them out.  For example... You are currently staking out a view of a conservative no-growth population plan, as also described by Dr. David Suzuki.

[Moonlight Graham]

21 hours ago, Argus said:

It's real nice that you have a gift for reading people's minds. And you're so confident of that ability that you simply state it as a fact. 

It doesn't mask that you don't have an answer to the point I made. Maybe you just don't  give a shit how big and crowded cities are, how awful the traffic, how expensive the housing is, and how much farmland is paved over. 

I'm not confident in my ability to read what passes for your mind to state any of these as a fact because I lack your amazing gift. Would you like to help me out?

I've already stated that I would cut immigration rates significantly down from the 400k the Liberals are looking at, specifically because of issues like housing, traffic etc.

You seem to bring up issue after issue of how immigrants are bad for the country, and even deny the fact that immigration helps the economy.  Increasing the population increases GDP and helps the TSX etc, a fact that is extremely basic economics.  Tim Hortons is going to sell more donuts and coffee if it has more customers and needs more locations in new subdivisions.  RBC is going to make more money if it has more customers, is giving out more mortgages etc.  Rogers is going to make more money if it has more customers subscribing to cable and internet.  A shrinking population is not good for any large business in this country.  Who is going to invest in Canadian businesses if they're losing customers due to population shrinkage instead of acquiring more?  Blame capitalism, not immigration.

There's lots of problems with our immigration policy but holy crap man, the only logical conclusion is that you just don't like them.  Tell me I'm wrong.

[dialamah]

8 hours ago, Argus said:

I don't believe I ever stated your motivations for any positions you've taken.  

You do it for everyone else, on and offline, so why not for MH.

[marcus]

The world is in a state of transition. Some systems and policies are stale, because it takes time for governments to go through these changes and adapt. Those in power don't like change, because they are gaining based on the system we have now. They are put into power, through financial incentives, by companies and organizations that hold a large piece of the pie, and who want to milk the system as much as they could.

There are many variables involved in how we function. There are negatives and positives. It's important to note that we are, in many ways, better off now than we were in the past, when you take into consideration education, poverty and life expectancy. This doesn't mean that we should not note the negatives and try to improve.

Immigration too has its positives and negatives. Canada's immigration system, for the most part, focuses on the highly educated and financially well off applicants. At the end, they will bring skills and $, that will be injected into the economy. Baby boomers are retiring and there are emerging markets, mostly in tech, that need to be responded to. We don't have the workforce to respond to that.

We could create insentives to try to have more children in Canada. But that's not going to work. Ask the Japanese. 

At the end, I think we will end up abandoning the old working system, and materialism. We will finally see that 9-5, 5 days a week of work is not normal anymore. That it's no longer needed. We have enough resources and wealth, and technology (like A.I. and blockchain) is finally at a stage where we can get out of the stale, inefficient system.

Edited July 14, 2021 by marcus

[myata]

4 hours ago, marcus said:

Immigration too has its positives and negatives. Canada's immigration system, for the most part, focuses on the highly educated and financially well off applicants. At the end, they will bring skills and $, that will be injected into the economy. Baby boomers are retiring and there are emerging markets, mostly in tech, that need to be responded to. We don't have the workforce to respond to that.

Again, what is it? The reality, wishful thinking or proving the inevitability of the status quo by definition? If it's the former, what are the real, practical indications that the policy is working that is, actually improving the condition of individuals and the society?

This is no rocket science. In two decades costs of most services have doubled or near. Either the wages for the same job and at the same level have doubled as well for most occupations; or they have not. So, which one? MP and minister know something, their wages almost doubled. CEO, senior PS director, sure. But who else? Construction worker, IT engineer, nurse, cafe server who else had their wage for the same job as in 2000 doubled since? And how long can it be hidden under the "rising prosperity" sticker?

Edited July 14, 2021 by myata

[myata]

Ontario license plate cost: 2011: $74 to $120, 2020. Over 60% in one not two decades. Why? And whose prosperity is rising here?

[Michael Hardner]

29 minutes ago, myata said:

Ontario license plate cost: 2011: $74 to $120, 2020. Over 60% in one not two decades. Why? And whose prosperity is rising here?

A lot of governments have been cutting taxes, and replacing the revenue with user fees.

[myata]

19 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

A lot of governments have been cutting taxes, and replacing the revenue with user fees.

Note that this is the same sort of default response as "travel from Wuhan, no problem!". Basically we have the problem and you please (not always) pay for it.

Is it becoming standard, or has become the de-facto standard in communications of governments with citizens? And how good is it if so?

Edited July 14, 2021 by myata

[Michael Hardner]

19 minutes ago, myata said:

1. Note that this is the same sort of default response as "travel from Wuhan, no problem!". Basically we have the problem and you please (not always) pay for it.

2. Is it becoming standard, or has become the de-facto standard in communications of governments with citizens? And how good is it if so?

1. Government spending?  I agree.

2. Is what? User fees?

[Zeitgeist]

8 hours ago, marcus said:

The world is in a state of transition. Some systems and policies are stale, because it takes time for governments to go through these changes and adapt. Those in power don't like change, because they are gaining based on the system we have now. They are put into power, through financial incentives, by companies and organizations that hold a large piece of the pie, and who want to milk the system as much as they could.

There are many variables involved in how we function. There are negatives and positives. It's important to note that we are, in many ways, better off now than we were in the past, when you take into consideration education, poverty and life expectancy. This doesn't mean that we should not note the negatives and try to improve.

Immigration too has its positives and negatives. Canada's immigration system, for the most part, focuses on the highly educated and financially well off applicants. At the end, they will bring skills and $, that will be injected into the economy. Baby boomers are retiring and there are emerging markets, mostly in tech, that need to be responded to. We don't have the workforce to respond to that.

We could create insentives to try to have more children in Canada. But that's not going to work. Ask the Japanese. 

At the end, I think we will end up abandoning the old working system, and materialism. We will finally see that 9-5, 5 days a week of work is not normal anymore. That it's no longer needed. We have enough resources and wealth, and technology (like A.I. and blockchain) is finally at a stage where we can get out of the stale, inefficient system.

You make a lot of good points and your last paragraph is a positive outlook on what could happen if we make the right social priorities: more leisure time and more control over work hours, more self-determination in general. Countries are experimenting with the four day work week and universal basic income.  We’re realizing that the amount of time humans produce can be reduced without reducing the tax base or economic growth.  Automation, A.I., and the digital economy bring more productivity for less human labour.

On the population front, however, I’m less rosy. Pandemics, climate change, housing affordability, mass extinctions, restrictions on movement, and many other crises today are the result of the impact of humans on the planet.  While the data shows that as people become more educated and urbanized they have smaller families, that doesn’t solve the problem of endlessly expanding urban areas, people living in close quarters in overly dense neighborhoods (vertical sprawl), or building continuously over farmland and countryside (urban sprawl).  Our transportation infrastructure and environment are stretched.  Cultural and other social tensions are heightened.  It seems that our ability to manage influxes of up to 400,000 people a year, most of whom choose the same few cities to inhabit, isn’t up to the task.  We’re often looking in the rearview mirror lamenting the lifestyle we’ve lost and worrying about the flood of problems to come.

I simply don’t trust that our government has a bigger plan than to pay today’s bills with tomorrow’s new labour. Where is it going and how does it end?  I think we either put more conditions on the immigration process, especially with regard to settlement (for example, incentives to live and work up north for a minimum period) or we need to scale down the number of immigrants.  Our land and population can’t absorb the environmental and social change if people keep flooding the same crowded southern city-regions, especially if governments won’t invest in or set better policies around infrastructure, housing, and more liveable urban design.

And yes, we have to make sure we’re not importing problem people who either oppose our rights and freedoms, bring criminal activity, or won’t contribute to the economy.  Accepting refugees who are clearly fleeing a crisis through no fault of their own is reasonable on humanitarian grounds, but only if our population knows and has accepted the costs in advance, because if we’re not equipped with the shelters and other necessary supports, and we can’t even help those who are already here, we’re not helping anyone.

Edited July 14, 2021 by Zeitgeist

[myata]

Consider this: in a private setting you make people happy, can keep all proceeds to yourself (costs and taxes paid). In a normal social setting, you make people happy can get a modest reward to yourself. But where, when and how has it come about that you produce results that underachieve, mediocre at best and then reward yourself with entitlements and rewards out of someone else's purse beyond any reasonable measure?

Take a regular family in 2000. Just to keep with general inflation it would have to make about 50% more by now. Then you pay higher taxes, and then the cost of virtually anything public nearly doubled. Services, municipal taxes, transit, you name it. Are you better off?

With someone who's just starting today, it's even more obvious. There's no occupation, no job and profession in which starting wage has doubled in two decades. With very few exceptions, like MP, minister, public CEO.

Again, how does it work? Why has MP salary doubled when everybody else is struggling to keep up with the costs? How can it work if one group can award itself anytime virtually unlimited benefits out of public funds without any relation to achieved result for everybody in the society?

[Zeitgeist]

14 minutes ago, myata said:

Consider this: in a private setting you make people happy, can keep all proceeds to yourself (costs and taxes paid). In a normal social setting, you make people happy can get a modest reward to yourself. But where, when and how has it come about that you produce results that underachieve, mediocre at best and then reward yourself with entitlements and rewards out of someone else's purse beyond any reasonable measure?

Take a regular family in 2000. Just to keep with general inflation it would have to make about 50% more by now. Then you pay higher taxes, and then the cost of virtually anything public nearly doubled. Services, municipal taxes, transit, you name it. Are you better off?

With someone who's just starting today, it's even more obvious. There's no occupation, no job and profession in which starting wage has doubled in two decades. With very few exceptions, like MP, minister, public CEO.

Again, how does it work? Why has MP salary doubled when everybody else is struggling to keep up with the costs? How can it work if one group can award itself anytime virtually unlimited benefits out of public funds without any relation to achieved result for everybody in the society?

I think all MP, MPP, and city councillor salaries should be cut by 30% below 1990 levels like greenhouse gases.  Additionally, I think we should move to semi-annual digital referenda on internet  for most policy.  If a party puts forward an idea for a bill or policy, people can vote on it with the click of a button inexpensively from their computer terminal.  Tired of the ribbon cutting, grandstanding, and virtue purity contests politicians play.  Get them out of the way.  

[myata]

42 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I think all MP, MPP, and city councillor salaries should be cut by 30% below 1990 levels like greenhouse gases.  Additionally, I think we should move to semi-annual digital referenda on internet  for most policy.  If a party puts forward an idea for a bill or policy, people can vote on it with the click of a button inexpensively from their computer terminal.  Tired of the ribbon cutting, grandstanding, and virtue purity contests politicians play.  Get them out of the way.  

Sure and good luck to us with that!

P.S. when someone appoints themselves salaries and privileges without and outside of all and every reasonable limits with no checks and controls, is it still called "a democracy"? I thought there was another word for that.

Edited July 14, 2021 by myata

[Army Guy]

4 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I think all MP, MPP, and city councillor salaries should be cut by 30% below 1990 levels like greenhouse gases.  Additionally, I think we should move to semi-annual digital referenda on internet  for most policy.  If a party puts forward an idea for a bill or policy, people can vote on it with the click of a button inexpensively from their computer terminal.  Tired of the ribbon cutting, grandstanding, and virtue purity contests politicians play.  Get them out of the way.  

Maybe it should be performance based, and subjected to public approval. I think right now at the wages we have  we are not attracting the quality of people we need to. i mean why would a say good leader, thats intelligent, charismatic, has strong leadership qualities, common sense, the ability to make tough decisions with a high degree of success why would they settle for a mere 185 grand a year, when they could be making millions for a private company. 

I think at 185 plus a year thats what you get ribbon cutting etc. etc... I agree with you on the fact photo ops should be struck off the calendar, and more time spent on actual problems.... and CPAC coverage of what happens in parliament, or the senate is another eye opener...another area of time wasting, it goes on and on , one party slamming the other, what really gets accomplished here. restrict it... unless a debate of a bill is required. what is sad we allow all of this and think it is normal.

Lets pay for some talent instead of dealing with the bush leagues...

Edited July 14, 2021 by Army Guy

[myata]

17 hours ago, Army Guy said:

I think at 185 plus a year thats what you get ribbon cutting etc. etc... I agree with you on the fact photo ops should be struck off the calendar, and more time spent on actual problems.... and CPAC coverage of what happens in parliament, or the senate is another eye opener...another area of time wasting, it goes on and on , one party slamming the other, what really gets accomplished here. restrict it... unless a debate of a bill is required. what is sad we allow all of this and think it is normal.

Setting public service in competition with private business as the bureaucracy likes to do is a dead end. First what talent we will attract? Multi-million CEO who tells to follow guidelines and takes plane to island vacation? Which of the country's CEOs can excel in highly competitive environment internationally without government handouts? Have you seen low-cost airlines as in Europe here? $10 mobile service with virtually unlimited bandwidth?

And it's a dead end squared as there's no market controls. In private industry underachieving CEO is let go instantly. In PS they are moved to another department, so the cost will rise irrelative to the result just can be seen almost daily. Public service, including representation should not be about the compensation, that way inevitably leads to conflict of interest and inefficiency. It should be about the effective, top notch and cost efficient job for the owners that is, taxpayers, innovation and ambition to be best with modest, reasonable compensation. Where in which profession is this reasonable see job boards.

And thirdly but hardly lastly, MPs are no CEOs or representatives making their own independent decisions. They only push buttons under the music of their unelected party offices. Have you seen a typewriter position at $185K annually, starting?

Edited July 15, 2021 by myata

[myata]

And an important point about representatives. The moment representative becomes an employee, they cannot be representatives in truth and fact because employees have the boss, the priorities and deadlines and citizen representatives have to keep the powers responsible in all cases and always (e.g. sponsorship schandal), regardless of bosses, priorities etc. Of course we can pretend that grossly overpaid puppetheads of party offices can also be somehow, "representatives" but that would be a play not really the reality, as can be seen readily. Same btw with democracy without real accountability.

The only reason why the story has been playing well so far is because there was a lot to dig, cut, kill and sell with few folks around so there was enough for most, though obviously, very far from "equitable" as we like to be seen not in the mirror though. But that play can only go for so long, that is till budgets last, and then could turn downhill very quickly simply because there's no mechanisms, none at all to keep it under control and fix when needed.

[Army Guy]

10 hours ago, myata said:

Setting public service in competition with private business as the bureaucracy likes to do is a dead end. First what talent we will attract? Multi-million CEO who tells to follow guidelines and takes plane to island vacation? Which of the country's CEOs can excel in highly competitive environment internationally without government handouts? Have you seen low-cost airlines as in Europe here? $10 mobile service with virtually unlimited bandwidth?

And it's a dead end squared as there's no market controls. In private industry underachieving CEO is let go instantly. In PS they are moved to another department, so the cost will rise irrelative to the result just can be seen almost daily. Public service, including representation should not be about the compensation, that way inevitably leads to conflict of interest and inefficiency. It should be about the effective, top notch and cost efficient job for the owners that is, taxpayers, innovation and ambition to be best with modest, reasonable compensation. Where in which profession is this reasonable see job boards.

And thirdly but hardly lastly, MPs are no CEOs or representatives making their own independent decisions. They only push buttons under the music of their unelected party offices. Have you seen a typewriter position at $185K annually, starting?

just so that I'm clear with your position, Currently you think MP's and PM are payed to much...and your unwilling to pay for the talent that is out there... OK then but lets take a look at the system currently in place, only the rich or famous or people that know people run for most offices in Canada, so a regular joe like me and you are not going to be in office...when we take a look at the talent we have now in all parties, well shit son there is not much out there is there. So the current system is a huge failure...And now we are limiting our selection by needing to find someone with all the traits of a good leader but is willing to work for peanuts...

But if you had talent, really good talent in the PM office and in the major departments, i think good changes can be made, good solid ones, not the ones that tax the shit out of something to make them hesitant to use it, and then give all that tax revenue back to the people...those are the ideas you get when you cheap out.. Yes the PM makes the final call but if he is being advised by other good quality people how could it not get things done...a under achieving MP can be relegated to seat in the back ,in charge of the supply closet.  Just because they are voted in does not mean you have to use them for anything...

Or we can continue to bang our heads up against the wall and hope for different results..

Edited July 16, 2021 by Army Guy