General Politics Discussion

[jeffster]

I'll add it to my depressing list.

Someones upset.

I understand the local issues. Even the provincial and federal issues.

Thing is, at the end of the day, a money talks issue. For any living paycheque to paycheque, or even trying to save a little, this cap&trade and green energy was a bad idea. "Greenifying" the province wasn't going to solve the issues at hand. It primarily helped the wealthy, the ones that could afford to spend $20,000 putting new windows in their house, when it really wasn't needed, and getting $5,000 in return. Meanwhile, someone who needed new windows still couldn't afford it, especially NOW that their paying more for hydro, more for gas, more for water, more for gas for their car, and more for everything else. It was good for the wealthy that OWNED their homes and could afford the heat pump and get a large rebate. For the ones with a good job, good income, and were willing to take a very small risk and put solar panels on their roofs with a very good return. Screw the renters, the ones living in small homes, townhomes, and ones with no south facing roofs, they have to pay for it anyway with their hydro bill. The eco-return refund for electric cars, again, only helping ones with more cash. The ones, at least the ones I personally know, drive around in their 'green' cars to work, looking all proud, the ones with the Tesla and their $14,000 rebate, meanwhile keeping their SUV/Land Rover/Hummer or whatever else they have, for their weekend vehicle. Really, at the end of the day, you have some 6 or 7 figure income earner, driving his Tesla, not paying any road taxes, and has solar panels on his mansion, so basically not paying for electricity. No saving the environment there, when one comes to think of the carbon footprint at building these e-cars with their huge batteries. And really, anything we do that is positive is more symbolic right now, as long as Canada continues to have harsh winters (after all, we need to heat our homes), continues to be huge geographically (green energy options not sensible with a country this size), and sits next door to a country like the USA. The only thing that really happened with these green initiatives was it helped push businesses out of Ontario. In another thread, we were discussing London Hydro's idea of perhaps pursuing smaller utilities. Looking at Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro, the amount of "large" customers they have can be counted with your pinky fingers. That's sad. You need an economy as long as we're an economy based world, as we haven't yet reached "Star Trek" style economy (where money doesn't exist).

Trump is a tool. But he speaks to the fear of Americans, the ones that "think" have been left behind. Well, some have been. Some don't have the brains to get a decent education, nor the finances to do so. At one time, getting a high school education (for free) was enough to get yourself a good paying job, one that earn you a house, a car, 2 kids and a spouse and a family vacation every year. Those days are over, but Trump promises to bring those days back. And by judging it so far, it's happening. Will it explode in his face? I think it will. Unless I am mistaken, the US is a full employment right now, and two things (or as Trump would say "too things") are likely to happen; 1) productivity will drop as unemployable are employed and 2) as businesses start losing business due to productivity losses, job losses will start to mount and/or for certain businesses, to stay in business, they'll increase wages to employee the employable. Either way, for the USA, I see this as short term gain for long term pain. It won't make the USA any wealthier in the end, I truly believe, anymore than the Canadian budget "balancing itself". Even immigrants (legal immigrants that is) like him because he wants people to play by the rules They went through proper routes, worked hard, and want to see more value for their hard earned dollars.

As for their immigration 'crisis' that they have, children being separated from their parents have been happening for a long, long time. Only difference is that their is a huge crises in central America, and more Latino's are flowing through Mexico and into the USA, and so the numbers are up. And for the media, this is very good for their ratings. And it's Trump. If it had been happening with Clinton (as it had been happening with Obama), then nothing would be made of it. In no way to I defend what is going on there, it just isn't 'new' and therefore, shouldn't be 'news'. Canada, likewise, has done the same, but smaller numbers, and since Trudeau is PM, it's not big news.

As for Trudeau and his election reform, anyone with a pulse knew this was never going to happen. It sounded good, got him a few votes, but most people knew he had zero intention.

Unsure if I'd call Ford a blowhard. Awkward, yes. He's not winning awards for his body, his style, his eloquent use of words. But being that just about everyone outside of Toronto voted for him, I think is revealing. You look at the 905 (Brampton and Mississauga), full of new Canadians; working hard, working 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet, only to see their money vanish between higher taxes, higher energy bills, insurance rate that are of control, among other things. I think we'll see how it goes with him. Can he bring back businesses to Ontario? Can he deal with the epic homelessness that has ballooned over the past 10 years? The drug epidemic that is so bad that we know have to have safe injection sites? Somehow I doubt it, as many of those people will never have normal lives now, but those are also the ones that were left in the dirt with Ontario's "new" economy.

Of course, we'd all be naive to think that any politician can solve any of todays problems. They haven't in the past, and they still haven't. People need financial security, family security, job security. They need food, clothing, shelter. And this has gotten worse, not better, over the years.

I remember growing up, and going to Cameron Heights for 5 years (back when OAC was still an option). There was homelessness, as we were going to the arcades or one of the malls every day and saw them sometimes, and we knew them by name, that's how few they were. Who here remembers Mr. Kaufman with his buggy? I worked in DTK in the early 90's and it was a little worse, but you could still go DTK and quite often see no one (homeless) some days. I worked in UTW for about 20 years (damn), by the end of the 20th year, it went from seeing the one fellow with the dreads (can't remember his name, he's dead now though) to having some guy pull a knife on my son when we were there last year. I got to the point that I no longer felt safe if I was working after hours. I now work in DTK, and you can't go a block without seeing a homeless person or addict. Is it the fault of our strategies? I don't know. But obviously things aren't working.

I guess what I am getting at, is I didn't see any hope with what we were doing in Ontario, in Canada, and really, in the USA. I don't see hope now either. Both are mean spirited, just one has a nice way of doing it. Wynne: "Oh, you'll love paying more for everything, and having a hard time making ends meet, unless you're an elite, which you won't mind supporting the rich when they go buy a Tesla and geothermal heat pumps, in fact, you'll quite enjoy it helping the wealthiest." vs Ford "You're not getting a raise on your minimum wage salary for while, haha, but on the bright side, you won't pay more taxes on it either and your hydro and natural gas prices will stabilize." Of course, then you have Horwath, who from the start had a huge mistake with their budgeting which was easily caught by the PC's and lying about Ford privatizing healthcare (guess what, he can't, it's a federal issue). This was like when the National NDP were talking about getting rid of the senate (guess what, they can't, only the provinces can do that).

It's anyones guess how things will turn out. For Ontario, for the US, for Canada...for the world. What I do think though is that many have been forced to endorse things (rather than just tolerate or accept) that they might not necessarily want to endorse. This is why you have movement "to the right". Of course, things like this can end up mean spirited, and personally, I believe in all human rights, so in as long as it isn't forced onto others (be it thoughts religion, thoughts on sexuality, thoughts on immigration, etc - no more thought police), and mutual respect of every type of person, whether you like it or not.

Anyway...those are my opinions (and that's all they are, not too many facts).

[danbrotherston]

I'll add it to my depressing list.

Someones upset. 

I understand the local issues.  Even the provincial and federal issues.

Thing is, at the end of the day, a money talks issue. For any living paycheque to paycheque, or even trying to save a little, this cap&trade and green energy was a bad idea. "Greenifying" the province wasn't going to solve the issues at hand. It primarily helped the wealthy, the ones that could afford to spend $20,000 putting new windows in their house, when it really wasn't needed, and getting $5,000 in return.  Meanwhile, someone who needed new windows still couldn't afford it, especially NOW that their paying more for hydro, more for gas, more for water, more for gas for their car, and more for everything else. It was good for the wealthy that OWNED their homes and could afford the heat pump and get a large rebate. For the ones with a good job, good income, and were willing to take a very small risk and put solar panels on their roofs with a very good return. Screw the renters, the ones living in small homes, townhomes, and ones with no south facing roofs, they have to pay for it anyway with their hydro bill. The eco-return refund for electric cars, again, only helping ones with more cash. The ones, at least the ones I personally know, drive around in their 'green' cars to work, looking all proud, the ones with the Tesla and their $14,000 rebate, meanwhile keeping their SUV/Land Rover/Hummer or whatever else they have, for their weekend vehicle. Really, at the end of the day, you have some 6 or 7 figure income earner, driving his Tesla, not paying any road taxes, and has solar panels on his mansion, so basically not paying for electricity. No saving the environment there, when one comes to think of the carbon footprint at building these e-cars with their huge batteries. And really, anything we do that is positive is more symbolic right now, as long as Canada continues to have harsh winters (after all, we need to heat our homes), continues to be huge geographically (green energy options not sensible with a country this size), and sits next door to a country like the USA. The only thing that really happened with these green initiatives was it helped push businesses out of Ontario. In another thread, we were discussing London Hydro's idea of perhaps pursuing smaller utilities. Looking at Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro, the amount of "large" customers they have can be counted with your pinky fingers. That's sad. You need an economy as long as we're an economy based world, as we haven't yet reached "Star Trek" style economy (where money doesn't exist). 

....

You're right, I am hella upset. But frankly, I didn't want to make this into a debate.  I'll respond to ONE of your points, because your post was entirely too long to waste my time replying to all of it.

The facts are clear here, climate change is happening, and it will be expensive and destructive to our future.

We can all discuss the pros and cons of different policy, I certainly agree with aspects of what you say, and I'd be happy to see a progressive conservative government implementing their policies to help fix things.

But the fact is, Doug does not have a replacement policy.  He was asked straight up in a debate.  He has nothing.  He is here to pander and to sell off our future for immediate gains.  A big problem is the Liberal policy was largely a conservative fiscal policy, so it's hard to come up with something else, when the Liberals already took the policy that conservatives would support.

Regardless of whether you believe Wynne is mean spirited or not (she isn't) and whether Doug is, (frankly, I wonder), is irrelevant.  Doug is getting rid of this to appease short sighted people, and his choices are self serving and ultimate self defeating.

So yeah....I'm hella upset. I'm not terribly politically biased, I support good policy wherever it comes from. And frankly, your straw man argument doesn't help me be less upset.

[creative]

What is your definition of wealthy? I see this used all of the time and have asked the question before but nobody ever answers the question.

[panamaniac]

I think, danbrotherston, you need to steel yourself to being some upset over the coming number of months ....

[jeffster]

What is your definition of wealthy? I see this used all of the time and have asked the question before but nobody ever answers the question.

I think this was discussed previously. But I think you can think of it as someone that can afford certain luxuries without breaking the bank. Owning a $70,000 Tesla, for one, is reserved for someone wealthier than most. Though one could argue for a adult child living in his parents basement and has the cash to burn.

Perhaps one way to look at it, is, the Sunshine List, as it was, back in 1996. When $100,000 was a meaningful 'wealthy' wage, for a government worker. This translates into $150,000 today, or someone earning about $75/hour. And I think that's a good starting point for when one starts to become 'wealthy'. This is almost 3x the average hourly rate (or annual income) for full-time workers. And people making $50,000/year can't afford electric vehicles, yet subsidize for the most part those who can.

[tomh009]

What is your definition of wealthy? I see this used all of the time and have asked the question before but nobody ever answers the question.

I think this was discussed previously. But I think you can think of it as someone that can afford certain luxuries without breaking the bank. Owning a $70,000 Tesla, for one, is reserved for someone wealthier than most. Though one could argue for a adult child living in his parents basement and has the cash to burn.

Perhaps one way to look at it, is, the Sunshine List, as it was, back in 1996. When $100,000 was a meaningful 'wealthy' wage, for a government worker. This translates into $150,000 today, or someone earning about $75/hour.  And I think that's a good starting point for when one starts to become 'wealthy'. This is almost 3x the average hourly rate (or annual income) for full-time workers. And people making $50,000/year can't afford electric vehicles, yet subsidize for the most part those who can.

However, people earning half that ($75K) certainly do own houses, and do replace windows. They might even consider buying a Nissan LEAF, which costs just $22K after the rebate. Not every EV is a Tesla.

[ijmorlan]

I think, danbrotherston, you need to steel yourself to being some upset over the coming number of months ....

I’m not very hopeful. I will say that the first couple of days are actually off to a relatively good start: my understanding is that the cabinet is considered to be relatively sane, and the installation ceremony was normal from what I hear. No Don Cherry talking about “bicycle-riding pinkos”. I’m not expecting it to last, but I have to remain able to recognize anything that is done well or at least not badly.

[panamaniac]

I think, danbrotherston, you need to steel yourself to being some upset over the coming number of months ....

I’m not very hopeful. I will say that the first couple of days are actually off to a relatively good start: my understanding is that the cabinet is considered to be relatively sane, and the installation ceremony was normal from what I hear. No Don Cherry talking about “bicycle-riding pinkos”. I’m not expecting it to last, but I have to remain able to recognize anything that is done well or at least not badly.

I guess, if you consider the "Ontario's first ever Government for the People (sic)" billing to be normal, but that seems to me to be setting the bar for normal pretty low.

[ijmorlan]

I’m not very hopeful. I will say that the first couple of days are actually off to a relatively good start: my understanding is that the cabinet is considered to be relatively sane, and the installation ceremony was normal from what I hear. No Don Cherry talking about “bicycle-riding pinkos”. I’m not expecting it to last, but I have to remain able to recognize anything that is done well or at least not badly.

I guess, if you consider the "Ontario's first ever Government for the People (sic)" billing to be normal, but that seems to me to be setting the bar for normal pretty low.

I didn’t actually know they had done that. I was just comparing it to the flagrantly inappropriate inauguration ceremony when Rob Ford became Mayor. This time around, I understand Doug Ford actually said a few reconciliatory words to those who did not vote for him. I don’t really believe him, obviously, but so far he’s doing better than Rob did. Not very hopeful for the rest of his tenure, but we’ll see.

[Pheidippides]

I think, danbrotherston, you need to steel yourself to being some upset over the coming number of months ....

I’m not very hopeful. I will say that the first couple of days are actually off to a relatively good start: my understanding is that the cabinet is considered to be relatively sane, and the installation ceremony was normal from what I hear. No Don Cherry talking about “bicycle-riding pinkos”. I’m not expecting it to last, but I have to remain able to recognize anything that is done well or at least not badly.

I would have to agree that is a pretty low bar. This article has a nice summary on the swearing-in, and that was just start.

As with everything, the truth is likely somewhere between where catastroph-ising on the left and fact-making right say it is.

The whole “Ontario’s First Ever Government for the People” line was particularly bold given that Mike Harris and Bill Davis were literally in the audience - I guess they led illegitimate governments?

Also, as I expect will become commonplace, especially with Jenni Byrne as Chief of Staff to the Premier (Stephen Harper's former campaign director), facts won't get in the way of a perpetual campaign and a good (distracting) narrative. The lack of a traditional news conference and only speaking to “Ford Nation Live” is particularly disturbing as is the fact that all ministries have been order to cancel all media subscriptions as the start of a "centralized plan to disseminate media information" and control what information reaches in and out of government.

Further, the "for the people" part was was pretty hollow given that it was only for VIPs and just for show (he was actually sworn in earlier in an even more private ceremony inside - this second one was literally just for show) and the "break with convention” by holding a swearing-in ceremony isn't true; as the article states, David Peterson actually had the first outdoor ceremony back in 1985. 

I think the biggest, but definitely not last, crossing of lines was the playing of the PC campaign theme song, “For The People,” at a supposedly non-partisan, and taxpayer-funded event.

As with all governments, the consolidation and renaming ministries says a lot about priorities:

• Making the Ministry of Energy a part-time job when energy was theoretically one of your main campaign promises doesn't make sense unless you aren't planning to do anything.
  
• The elimination of the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration right when a refugee crisis is exploding?
  
• If the early ovations toward exiting the cap and trade program and cancelling weren't clear enough, removing the words climate change from the title of the Ministry of Environment should be.
  
• The regression from "Minister Responsible for the Status of Women" to "Minister Responsible for Women’s Issues" is trivializing and patronizing.
  
• A ministry dedicated to "Red Tape and Regulatory Burden Reduction" sounds like asking for another Walkerton.
  
• Hardly any cabinet members from the GTA or K-W areas - the ones that have been driving much of the Ontario economy seems like an oversight (although I can understand that there was very little experience available to choose from in the few seats they won in those areas).
  

There are 7 women and one visible minority in a cabinet of 21 - that is not a government "for the people" when it doesn't even look like the province you claim to represent.

[jeffster]

There are 7 women and one visible minority in a cabinet of 21 - that is not a government "for the people" when it doesn't even look like the province you claim to represent.

I haven't looked through his choices, and all his staff, to see which ones were qualified.

Guess do we need to believe in equal outcome for this to happen, rather than equal opportunity?

Excluding Ford, there are 7 woman out of 20 spots, and 1 visible minority out of 20 point, so 40% out of the 20 spots are women/visible minorities(sic).

I don't have the demographics, but looking over the list of MPP's, it looks like there were 25-26 women that won their seat. I can't speak for visible minorities in this case, but 7 out of 20 is 35%, for woman MPP's (33% if you include Ford). The PC's won 76 seats, and 26/76 is 34%.

I, however, prefer equal opportunity, give the job to the most qualified.

I mean, who, if starting a business, and needs 50 workers, and has 200 applicants, 175 from men and 25 from women, would higher 25 women and 25 men? No, they'd hire the most quailed, if their business is important to them. Same thing here, not enough female MPP's one.

As for the visible minorities, I have no idea what's going on there, but again, unsure how many visible minorities won for the PC's (some have weird name, but judging by pictures, they don't look like "Visible" minorities.

[danbrotherston]

There are 7 women and one visible minority in a cabinet of 21 - that is not a government "for the people" when it doesn't even look like the province you claim to represent.

I haven't looked through his choices, and all his staff, to see which ones were qualified.

Guess do we need to believe in equal outcome for this to happen, rather than equal opportunity?

Excluding Ford, there are 7 woman out of 20 spots, and 1 visible minority out of 20 point, so 40% out of the 20 spots are women/visible minorities(sic).

I don't have the demographics, but looking over the list of MPP's, it looks like there were 25-26 women that won their seat. I can't speak for visible minorities in this case, but 7 out of 20 is 35%, for woman MPP's (33% if you include Ford). The PC's won 76 seats, and 26/76 is 34%.

I, however, prefer equal opportunity, give the job to the most qualified.

I mean, who, if starting a business, and needs 50 workers, and has 200 applicants, 175 from men and 25 from women, would higher 25 women and 25 men? No, they'd hire the most quailed, if their business is important to them. Same thing here, not enough female MPP's one.

As for the visible minorities, I have no idea what's going on there, but again, unsure how many visible minorities won for the PC's (some have weird name, but judging by pictures, they don't look like "Visible" minorities.

First of all, parliament and the cabinet are not a business.  They are elected officials who are supposed to represent us.  I hate it when conservatives call the government a business, because it implies a whole lot of things that are generally not true of how government should operate (and often not true of business either for that matter).

And it's really rather funny to hear it suggested that cabinet positions are based on "who's qualified"...I'm pretty sure they're more to do with politics than qualifications for the actual role.  Which would make the idea of a balanced cabinet appropriate actually.

That being said, you're right, the ratio of men to women is pretty sad within the elected representatives of the PC party as well.  The cabinet does match that low standard.

[SammyOES]

As for their immigration 'crisis' that they have, children being separated from their parents have been happening for a long, long time. Only difference is that their is a huge crises in central America, and more Latino's are flowing through Mexico and into the USA, and so the numbers are up. And for the media, this is very good for their ratings. And it's Trump. If it had been happening with Clinton (as it had been happening with Obama), then nothing would be made of it. In no way to I defend what is going on there, it just isn't 'new' and therefore, shouldn't be 'news'.  Canada, likewise, has done the same, but smaller numbers, and since Trudeau is PM, it's not big news.

Could you give me a source for this?

My understanding is that under Obama children were "separated" only in very specific circumstances: unaccompanied minors or when there were additional reasons (drugs, weapons, etc.) to imprison the parents.

I'd also like to see a source for when/how Canada does something similar.

[danbrotherston]

As for their immigration 'crisis' that they have, children being separated from their parents have been happening for a long, long time. Only difference is that their is a huge crises in central America, and more Latino's are flowing through Mexico and into the USA, and so the numbers are up. And for the media, this is very good for their ratings. And it's Trump. If it had been happening with Clinton (as it had been happening with Obama), then nothing would be made of it. In no way to I defend what is going on there, it just isn't 'new' and therefore, shouldn't be 'news'.  Canada, likewise, has done the same, but smaller numbers, and since Trudeau is PM, it's not big news.

Could you give me a source for this?

My understanding is that under Obama children were "separated" only in very specific circumstances: unaccompanied minors or when there were additional reasons (drugs, weapons, etc.) to imprison the parents.

I'd also like to see a source for when/how Canada does something similar.

The idea that "nothing would be made of it" if it was Obama is absurd.

Arguing that separating families is a partisan issue is ridiculous.

If Obama was implementing this policy, I suspect fewer people would be supportive of it--it is already obscene that something like 30% of Americans support this policy.

[SammyOES]

Putting aside the hypotheticals and politics of it, his factual claims just seem to be incorrect. I'm mostly just interested in where/how people get their information (because maybe I'm wrong).