oh boy, another inconvenient truth....

it all boils down to philosophical differences.

fact: businesses (head offices) were leaving british columbia.

fact: the economy was the worst performing in all of canada.

fact: social programs were crumbling.

fact: there was no money to build highways, roads and bridges (infrastrucure)

fact: BC was the most heavily taxed province in Canada (and the USA)

fact: the NDP saw the provincial debt double from 17B to 34B in 10 years

The truth is, I can't remember the last time I made less than $16/hour. I have lived a responsible life. I really don't know what people making $10/hour have to go through.

That being said, the rich are rich for a reason. They invest. They invest their money back into their businesses, they invest in the stock market, the invest in housing - some may even buy new cars!

Every extra dollar they have is cycled back into the economy. They take their tax break, invest it in the stock market, and for the next 20 years - they are paying capital gains taxes, interest income or dividend tax....

The one thing you have to know about the rich is that they aren't leaving their money in a checking account - saving it for a rainy day.

Campbell and most economists knew that there would be a 3 year period of adjustment. This before the tax cuts worked their way through the economy. At the moment, tax revenues have never been higher (both personal, corporate and royalties from energy)....

I think there may be an arguement as to how the Campbell government is currently spending their money (though I agree with most things) - however, any fool can see that the tax cuts worked.

We tightened our belts, and we have become a much more productive province. Business has freedom and people are being rewarded for their risks....

This really is a foolish article..

Boy! Which fairy tale book you reading.....?

The rich get rich because government takes money from the poor and working classes and gives it to them. That is the purpose of government. Take Bombardier as a typical example, and apply it across the board, in lesser or greater amoounts, and that is how things REALLY work.

BTW, all those "facts" you listed IMPLY that it was the NDP's doing, when just about the entire world (except for some myopic righties) knows it was the NDP that pulled BC out of the fire set by the Socreds (morphed into "Libs"), and by the S&L scandal, Asian implosion, etc, etc. If it wasn't for the fifth columnist Clark setting up a "bone" for Campbell to chew on, it would have been the NDP reaping the windfall
http://www.answers.com/windfall
the Libs (old Socreds) are enjoying, and through no efforts on their part, except those required to syphon money off the province and into their friends of cronies pockets..........

"I think there may be an arguement as to how the Campbell government is currently spending their money"

yes - there is an argument. It's not their money. It's ours

An excellent analysis of the Liberal's consistently poor performance as social leaders. If you ask senior liberal supporters what drives these policies, they will invariably recite the "Social Darwinism" gobblydegook theory coming from the US right wing. I.e. that social beheviour should be governed such that those who own capital can get more capital! Thus, poor people have "chosen" to be poor, while white western males ensconced in privileged backgrounds have "earned" their moolah. It would be almost comical if it weren't so contemptuous of our own citizens. Great work Mr. Schreck.

"fact: BC was the most heavily taxed province in Canada (and the USA)"

Hey Capitalism, I did not know they had provinces in the United States!

But hey, the poor and working porr just have to work harder eh!?

Not pulling their weight right!?

All the more reason why provincial executive bureaucrats (non-union right?) need significant pay raises-have to make sure they do not become working poor!

When reality is often, you are fortunate to have a liveable income.

That is why they call the poor unfortunate, right?!

Dorthy:

freebear:

Let's not argue semantics here - you both know what I was saying...

RickW:

Okay Robin Hood.....Firstly, the poor doesn't contribute anything. They are the net beneficiaries of social programs.

The middle class pays the lions share of the taxes.

The Upper Class provides the framework for the economy, who provide the middle class with employement, who in turn pay taxes.....

Honestly RickW - you have to understand the free market economy a little better. Imagine our province without Jim Pattison....he alone employes over 15K people in this province.....

Congratulations, Canadians! You look more like Dubya's people every day, adopting the right-wing philosophy of the Divine Right of Millionaires.

Capitalism and Dorothy will have you all appropriately punished in no time.

Meanwhile, Dubya is a millionaire through his hard work and natural talent and genius.

Right?

Not pulling their weight right!?

In a nutshell, yes. They have to assume some responsibility for the decisions they have made. This government owes me attitude isn't good for anybody.

There is enough $$ in the system! We have to spend it more wisely.

RickW - you can't have your cake and eat it too. Stop hiding behind the poor. You support overpaying hospital cooks - people are willing and able to do that job for 10-12/hour - yet, you wish to pay them $20/hour...

that is fine - it is your opinion - you clearly believe in the redistribution of wealth - and that it will create a better society....

that being said, stop hiding behind the poor, the old and the single mothers. You could take that extra $10/hour and provide relief to those who need it most...

I am unwilling to engage in foolish, non-comparable analogies....

The neocons have done so much good work in the past few years, it's gratifying to see Canada start to go the same way. I mean, what's wrong with a tiny little $9,000,000,000,000.00 bad debt? That's how muych the neocons have cost us since Ronald Alzheimer Reagan started making up his own reality.

But don't worry. With good Republican tax "relief", millionaires and crooks won't have to pay any of it back, anyway.

In no time, they'll have you guys in the same fix as us. Maybe you can even invade some poor impoverished country, just like the Big Guys.

Okay, . . how aqbout just discussing what a great world we have since the rabid and greedy capitalists ruined the US. You can start by showing me that the $35,000 Birth Tax imposed by conservatives on EVERY BABY born in the US is really good for us.

The massive bad debts from the mismanagement of Reagan-Bush-Bush is exactly that.

The problem is, as it is with my moneyed friends, is that they speak just like you. One redeeeming feature, however is that they realize is just how fleeting humility becomes when one sequesters more money than they need...

[QUOTEThe Upper Class provides the framework for the economy, who provide the middle class with employement, who in turn pay taxes.....

So, since the workers for the upper class provide everything else for the framework, why do they not deserve the respect and just compensation for the wealth realized from their efforts.

One important item the poor doesn't contribute to is over-consumption and an over abundance of pollution and greenhouse gasses. Since they are devoid of the means to consume what they don't need, they can only afford, and barely in most cases their basic needs: food, shelter, clothing.

So all their spending is local. Unlike the greedy, they do not "invest" in foreign neocon ventures, money markets etc.

Imagine if the upper class choose to only invest locally, rather than beyond where they live? What kind of society might that realize?

The greedy upper class are the most irresponsible class of our society.

When Dubya took over and re-started the Republican Looting of America, the US was the most substantial nation on Earth.
Now, we're Nixon's "Pitiful, helpless, giant", hobbled by divisiveness, crippled by the disgraceful squandering of our future.

I want Capitalism, IAMC, and Dorothy to tell me how they would to pay off the combined debts of Reagan, Bush, and Bush, accrued through the failures of conservative thought and the rampant plundering of Laissez-Faire economic policies.

I'll bet it includes give-aways for the rich.

The Fraser Inst, and its governmental followers have good advice and solutions for the working poor:

Get 2-3 minimum wage, part time jobs to show your solidarity to globally competitive, neocon wealth creation. Job security, unions and high wages are the archaic remnants of the past and must be done away with so people will compete more effectively.

Send your children to private schools, so they learn correct behavour, employment skills and respect for their betters.

Get into the upwardly mobile sector by changing for bigger and better houses and vehicles every few years to keep the wealth creating economy and the GDP moving and growing.

Invest your savings wisely, so the economy and your own wealth grows and set aside for your old age, so you won't be a burden on your betters and the productive sector by demanding old age pensions.

Shoot a few lefties and environmentalists parasites who are out to stop wealth creation and global prosperity.

Like the sainted Preston and his blessed Reformers mandated, OAPs should be abolished, so people can put their savings into RRSPs and live wealthy, productive lives and old age.

I'm sure our capitalism et al, will agree totally with this simple and effective wealth creating plan.

Ed Deak. Big Lake

It's amazing how a guy with a PHD who writes an article in the Tyee is attacked with great vigour by folks who say they never got paid less than 16 dollars and hour etc. They of course, in their minds are much smarter than the writer of the article. I look forward to them composing a sensible argument on their positions and getting it put in the Tyee. I won't hold my breath.

You forgot another important part of right-wing dogma, the Gerald Ford Energy Independence Scheme, summarized as: "We're running out of oil, . . we have to pump it out as fast as we can!"

The "working poor" pay little if any tax.

The "working poor" utilize a disproportionate level of gov't services.

The "working poor" benefit the most from a strong economy since they have the greatest ability to improve their work and income status.

The "greedy upper class" pay the lion's share of taxes and utilize the least in gov't services.

If anything, the "working poor" are getting a free ride.

The statistics of "working poor" are exagerated by the ilk of NDP and idealogues and counterculture bloggers, like this website, mainly for political gain.

Well, Neocon sure talks like one.
Yes, those poor, abused millionaires!
Hasn't everything gotten so much better for everyone lately? See, . . it's the neocon genius, as applied to economics, the UN, foreign relations, the well-being of the masses, and of course, The Looting of America.

Yes, and it's downhill all the way!

Well, . . . I'm still waiting for the cons and neocons to defend what they have done to us since 1981.

The US spends more money on its War Machine than all other countires in the world combined!

Now, that's real progress!

I like how liberal mouth piece "the province" ran the story about bc's poverty rate way in the back of their rag last week.
Wouldn't want to draw too much attention to bad news eh boys?
Infact almost every time gordo et al foul up you can pretty much depend on seeing it (if at all) on the upper left corner of page a18!! (behind the lost dog story but infront of e news with the latest cleavage enhancing bra.)

We were just getting started. Where did all the right-wingers go?

OK gkam...I'll take the bait - kinda slow here in the office.

We all heard Mr. Schreck's criticism. I didn't read any solutions. I didn't hear any proposals. I didn't read any comparative statistics to back up his argument.

This isn't journalism - this is political pap.

Prove me wrong either statistic wise or fact wise.

Elliot, relayer, Capitalism etal born into privilege & with your narrow tunnel vision, you and your "holier than thou" responses here and all blogs disgust me.
Look @ all the homeless (most used to have mental issues) but now the working poor under $15. an hour.
Rents out of control, Gordo knocking down all the welfare hotels (Owned by big money) to build Nice quaint 2010 apts, now that's your future, I want no part of your Greedy world....
I'd like to see any of you who are putting down the hard working people to live at a, say $13 an hour with no other income or help except what Gordo has left of our social net, any takers?

Been watching Fox lately?

Prove you wrong about what? How much better off everyone is due to deficit-spending, war-mongering, self-righteous moralizing conservative "management"?

I have errands to run, and will be back in a hour or so, hoping to find a cogent, rational defense of astronomical deficit-spending, and internatinal aggression by the cons and neocons.

Don't let me down.

can't do it, can you gkam?

Man, you lefties all whine about the same old same old - if it ain't the heat, it's the humidity

With regard to MSM, the demography is the message. I agree that market-driven news can sometimes be as slanted as state-sponsonered news. Ultimately it is the consumer who is resonsible for understanding the message, or lack thereof - knowing that market-driven news is often perverse entertainment and that government news is often politically motivated.

A good case in point in discerning the message is the above-mentioned article. A few inflamatory words but no substance - why was it even published? Answer - the demography of the readers of this website. At least MSM has a few more checks and balances and is accountable.

This website is not. Good mis-information.

I enjoyed the reasoned analysis in this article, except for the lame opening line:

Of course they care -- criticizing the effectiveness of their policies is a far more interesting (and much less partisan) way to frame this argument.

“The Upper Class provides the framework for the economy, who provide the middle class with employement, who in turn pay taxes.....”

“the poor doesn't contribute anything. They are the net beneficiaries of social programs.”

Ha, ha, ha.

What is that religion called?

It must be a religion, for it rides on dogma that no one has obviously reflected on since the 1800’s.

If you think for one minute that somebody, anybody, would be accepted and allowed as a freeloader in our cut-throat economy, you are not looking between the cracks.

The rich are allowed by everybody else to hold the reins of power, because they obviously get off on
power, while most people find other uses for their discretionary time, and as long as they are not too gross in hogging it all. They don’t ‘provide' anything either, other than a threat to their perceived underlings that they might get too psychopathic or not smart enough to not blow it all to Hel.

The middle class are not being taken care of by anyone. They are bartering their skills for relative peace and material welfare, but they know very well they are the pack animals, and they will balk if and when the whip is cracked too loudly or smarting too much.

The poor are helping balancing things out by their presence, or so the rich think, or they would not tolerate them. (Brazil). They are providing some flexibility in the labor situation, as most are willing to try to better their situation, if they see openings. They are perceived by the rich as a deterrent for the middle class to not demand too big a slice of the pie, for then it might just possibly be replaceable from the ranks of the poor, who are not necessarily stupider or of poorer quality, just supernumerary right at the moment.

Thus, the situation is far more complex and colored by interdependency than simplistic hobby-economists would present.

neocon, still using that very old outdated word "lefties" I'd instead use/say people who are hard working, law abiding contributors to all citizens of this once proud country!
But with the ignorant blogs here for this despicable little boy "Gordo" and his dismantling of OUR BC Taxpayer Publicly funded resources.
BC Rail Corruption but we saved Roberts Bank coal port no thanks to CN & BC's Fiberal Scandal.
http://bctrialofbasi-virk.blogspot.com/
Why is it taking so long to bring this to Justice?
Humm maybe intimidation?

Who built the seven gates of Thebes?
The books are filled with names of kings.
Was it the kings who hauled the craggy blocks of stone?
And Babylon, so many times destroyed.
Who built the city up each time? In which of Lima's houses,
That city glittering with gold, lived those who built it?
In the evening when the Chinese wall was finished
Where did the masons go? Imperial Rome
Is full of arcs of triumph. Who reared them up? Over whom
Did the Caesars triumph? Byzantium lives in song.
Were all her dwellings palaces? And even in Atlantis of the legend
The night the seas rushed in,
The drowning men still bellowed for their slaves.

Young Alexander conquered India.
He alone?
Caesar beat the Gauls.
Was there not even a cook in his army?
Phillip of Spain wept as his fleet
was sunk and destroyed. Were there no other tears?
Frederick the Great triumphed in the Seven Years War.
Who triumphed with him?

Each page a victory
At whose expense the victory ball?
Every ten years a great man,
Who paid the piper?

So many particulars.
So many questions.

-- Bertolt Brecht

"This isn't journalism - this is political pap."

You should change your moniker to "Pap"

You are pathetic. Would you describe the armed forces personnel you so often loudly support as middle class? Many are working poor, but I guess that is their fault for not educating themselves enough so that they would not have to serve as soldiers!

Frankly. I do not give a sh.t about the future if it means more 'solutions' from narrow-minded, ignorant people like yourself.

TY bob the cat
I'm on a Fed disability pension 28yrs now, I'm getting "now wait lol" $10,560.00 a year, thats about what 1 MLA spends on cab fare a month.
I worked on the first Mica Dam (70s) as a carpenter 7/12s great money and being paid by a group of yankee big biz who formed a company called Mica Dam Constructers.
They laughed all the way to the Bank pockets bulging with BC taxpayer money.
So nothing has changed just the pigs are fatter and greedier!

I am by no means saying I am smarter than this guy. He is a political strategist for the NDP and undoubtedly a very good one. He must be if he helped get Glen Clark elected.

That being said, the guy is a spin doctor. That is what political strategists do....

They sit there, and figure out ways their party can spin information to achieve a desired objective. This occurs on both sides of the aisle.

I am sure that he believes deeply in his convictions. However, I do not share the same sentiment. The problem is that while socialists often have good intentions at heart, they often lack an understanding of finanace.

Comparing this to a corporation - you can have wonderful ideas, great marketers and a great product. However, your company will collapse without accounting and a good CFO. The finance group manages the money so that the right programs are funded and there is enough money to do so....

Mr. David Schreck,

10 people went out to dinner every friday and they always had the 'rich' fella at the table pay for 50% of the meal and the other 9 shared the remaining 50% (about 5.5% for those without calculators) all the time.

One day the restaurant decides to 'lower the meal price to the group' since they were such loyal customers and always came in every friday.

So the 1 fella who always paid 50% of the meal got a 50% break on the cost of the meal right?

But then the other nine started doing the math...

If the total bill used to be $250, but is now only $200, then the rich guy got to pay $25 less than he used to. But all the others now pay $2.78 less than they used to, how come HE - the rich guy gets such a BIG break!

The argument then follows this line...since the group is always there and the other nine have always paid and because they are there then all should benefit from the advantage equally and now they should get to pay $5 less each!

Tell me David, what happens when the 'rich' guy decides that he is being taken for a ride on this meal deal and decides not to come any more?

Meanwhile the disabled continue to commit suicide due to the punishing inflicted poverty we are subjected. Not that anyone here cares.

BC Dude:

I agree - though I was hardly born with a silver spoon in my mouth, I was certainly not hard-off. I do agree that I see one side of the picture clearer than the other.....

I see the side of the provider, whereas you see the side of the recipient. I see the role of the father, you see the role of the child!

I see things from a business perspective. I see what businesses fail and what succeed. Life is like business.

You are the polar opposite.

PS - BC has always, and will always have the highest poverty rates. There are two reasons for this:

(1) Climate
(2) Drugs

We tolerate drugs in this society, which leads to poverty. Secondly, people want to move and live in BC. Historically, we have had amoung the highest rates of unemployment....

This is not new news. We have bigger poverty issues with First Nations than any other province and we have people that move here to be in "lotus land".

I saw a study that 75% (or something) - over half for sure of all residents in the DTES weren't even born and raised in BC. Most came from other provinces, some from other countries....

murdock:

i believe i have read that somewhere before, but thanks for posting it here. i am cutting and pasting your post for future reference.....very telling...

realist2:

that's a stupid comment. Prove it.

I agree that socialists have better intentions than those who follow the likes of Ayn Rand and her "Virtue of Selfishness". But just who is telling us that conservatives have a better "understanding of finance"?

Do you mean you knew all the time that the cons were spending us into incredible debt, polarizing us into super-rich and very poor, creating trade deficits and environmental catastrophes? These failures were intentional?

Is that what you mean by "understanding of finance"?

Example of a useful social program:
You are considered part of the "working poor". Since housing eats up a much larger percentage of your paycheque than that of a higher wage earner, you receive a housing subsidy that allows you a similar basic lifestyle as a higher wage earner.

You work a regular 8-hour day, and instead of going to job #2 afterwards you can either:

1) Upgrade your skills in order to get a higher paying job. You can do this because you now have the time and energy to do so.
2) Spend time with your family, get to know your kids if you have them, and generally strengthen the social fabric of the community you live in.

Not having the economic jackboot to the working poor's collective neck could do wonders for the economy, an idea that doesn't receive any acknowledgement in classical economic theory.

There are probably plenty of other ideas that could work. And it doesn't take a ton of imagination to come up with them.

Neocon, your comments disappoint me because it is obvious that you are not a businessman/entrepreneur - the type of person that actually does get the economic ball rolling. I don't mean this as a personal attack, it's just that if you were you would know that a stable underclass and productive middle class provides the greatest benefit and opportunity to business people that invest in the economy.

Exploiting low-wage workers to earn a quick buck in the name of "laissez faire competition", "free market economics", etc is a short-term solution with disasterous long-term consequences.

IMHO

"people are willing and able to do that job for 10-12/hour"

Yes, so they are. That proves nothing, though. Where is it we want to go? Imperialistic thinkers had this notion, that we should have a servant class, who worked their entire life in menial jobs and at a relatively low price, so those who had it good could have it even better. This might have been seen as just and fair by some, because the servant class people hadn't 'invested anything' in their education. Most people belonging to that class could not afford having a family or their own dwelling, in other words, they lived less than a free, full life, not through choice but as a consequence of socioeconomic parameters.
There are other philososphies to apply to this. We could wish to make it possible for people to better their circumstances, so that the cream there might be among the poor might have a chance to rise higer. Some countries have far better student loan/grant systems than Canada, or apprenticeship rpograms, and some have no tuition fees, thinking that education should be free in a civilized society.
In this country, some self-regulating mechanisms set in: we did not reproduce at replacement rate. Ooops, you just coundn't get good help any more. So we import some of these people "willing and able to do the jobs for 10-12/hour". This is screwed. They don't intend to stay at the bottom, and when they decide not to any longer, there will be civil unrest. We cannot expand endlessly, or cram untold numbers of people in, to keep it good for the few on top. We need a new model. When are we going shopping?

In the old days, when millionaires screwed up, polluted, or trashed an area for profit, they could always go live in a much better place than the one they wrecked. But it has caught up with them this time. All Dubya's money won't let him escape the Earth and its climate, now in uncontrollable destabilization.

I notice that none of the right-wingers have responded to my questions regarding the economy and the virtue of selfishness.

Speak up. Do you think we're better off now that we've had Reagan-Bush/Bush?

War is good business, . .for the rich. Have you invested your kids?

Gotta go again, so it'll be an hour or so before I can read all those intelligent posts explaining to me how we are so much better off with the economic polarization, foreign policy aggression, and pollution of the world by the cons and neocons.

Then, you can offer to pay off my share of the Reagan/Bush Bad Debt.

Good talkbacks, but I wanna point out that there is a huge split between fiscal conservatives and the Bush administration. Bush has behaved at almost no time like a conservative, except in his deference to Christianity and NASCAR. When it comes to spending and (closely related) foreign affairs, he is a wild radical.

dorothy:

you have many options in this world. most people do:

If you want to be rich, you got to university, become a dr., lawyer, accountant or do your MBA.

If you want to have a "rewarding" life - you go to graduate school, become a teacher, or an engineer.

If you lack don't like the classroom, you learn a trade or get a technical degree. There are very good trades schools in BC.

If you don't want to do anything, don't want to diversify yourself, if you don't want to work hard - you fall into that last category - unskilled labour - which is very competitive - especially when you have contributing immigrants that come to Canada and are willing to work very, very hard for that same dollar!

There are options - people can control their own lives..

gkam -

yammer is right - Raegan and Bush Sr. were from the same cloth - pro-business, fiscal conservatives.

GWB is a social conservative, who has been bouyed by the Christian fundamentalists who have hi-jacked the party.

Big, big difference

calling all idealogues:

Let's get this straight. Right-wingers like me argue that the capitalist system (free market economy) provides the highest standard of living for ALL. I would argue that my ideology is more compassionate than yours.

Left-wing thinking argues for more government intervention - which the facts prove doesn't work - in fact it tends to perpetuate the problem. Native issues today prove me right.

In other words, because leftist ideology perpetuates the problem rather than solve it, lefties are actually the cruel, selfish individuals.

So shut up with the compassion thing - Lefties and David Schreck are part of the problem.

gkam - stop watching Michael Moore.

Bush Sr. went into Iraq as they were trying to take over Kuwait....

I think Reagan (in particular) has done more than any other President to promote the free market.

I think we owe him..

Really? (I haven't left yet).

Are you telling me that FDR screrwed up the good thing we had from Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover? I guess some people like economic depression and hopelessness.

By the way, the countries with the highest standards of living and quality of life have been the socialist Scandinavians, for the most part.

I haven't been watching Michael Moore, but I suggest you do, . . and stop listening to Fox and AM Hate Radio.

No it wasn't and BC Stats agrees. Stop reading CTF pamphlets. If you want to talk economics use real data.

Wrong again, they were doing better than almost anywhere else in Canada because the NDP went into deficit rather than pass on the federal cuts.

There would have been as the federal and commodity dolalrs once again began to roll in.

Your source for this?

And the Libs set the single year record.

And this means what exactly? I'm sure if the poor had millions of dollars they would live off their investments too.

Every single dollar? Really? No foreign purchases or vacations or foreign investments? I really want to see your source for this statement.

And if the poor had millions of dollars they wouldn't either, so again, what's your point?

Bullshit. Campbell was bailed out of his bad decisions by federal money pouring in. Federal transfers more than make up for all "surpluses".

Fortunately only fools believe that. Tax cuts only worked if you think setting a single year deficit record is "working". Federal transfers seem to have worked though.

"Reagan ....has done more than any other President to promote the free market...""

Reagan was out of it for most of the time, for one thing, suffering from increasing alzheimers. At one of the G7 summits Mulroney even had to whisper to him the name of the town they were in.

As far the "free market" is concerned, there's no such thing, never has been and never will be. There's no free lunch, no free enterprise and no workers paradise. All the same lies to fool the public under the control of ruling classes.

Some suckers, as shown in this debate, may believe in Santa, and I hope he'll lay them nice Easter eggs.

The purpose of the fraudulent "free market" treaties and not agreements, is the destruction of the democratic decision making powers of societies and their colonization under multinational megabusinesses. This is why they call the system "rules based", which means no freedoms.

The loss of Canadian and other sovereignty, the loss of whole industrial sectors, over 10,000 businesses, the daily loss of farms, the growth of the income gap, the growth of foreign takeovers of domestic industries and services etc. are clear examples of the purpose of this criminal system, fraudulently called "free markets".

I've been the owner of 3 incorporated businesses in BC since 1957, so I do have bit of an idea of what the markets are about.

Ed Deak.

Mr. Lux:

I agree that all of these are effects. Though the growth in the income gap really bothers you lefties - I am not sure why?

Real wages and the standard of living for all classes (save the homeless) is increasing....so is your envy is I suppose.

cap

Father? What wingding idealist image are you looking in/through no wonder these monsters are in control, money the only way bribes intimidation.
Drugs you want to talk about drugs Let's start with the/your Libs in BC.
Dec 28 2003 Legislature Raids drug money being laundered through OUR Finance ministry, and we're still waiting for real justice?
I did finish skool gr 13 plus a 4yr apprenticeship
Seems to me Gordo slashed the apprenticeship programs, Why?
RAV = South Americans slaves 6-8 bucks an hour where are they being bunk housed
Come on Canwest where are you with real news?

Big Ed,

I expected you to weigh in here. I don't know who did you wrong in your previous life but I'm surprised you don't talk about the financial successes your businesses gave you.

I'm surprised that you don't enlighten us with tales of how you were able to build your businesses in this land of opportunity, being the immigrant you claim to be.

And what about the contribution you made to the lives of your employees, the contributions to the community, the contributions to our tax coffers.

Why do you refer to business people as fraudsters, or suckers? I know you hang out with finacial types like me.

What happened to you?

Real wages for all classes is increasing? Nope. Wrong again cappy.

The standard of living for all classes is increasing? Nope. Wrong again cappy.

The stadard of living is based on increases of GDP per capita. Even "free"-market capialists (and as I've said before, I think that you're in a class all your own) understand that the GDP is a faulty mechanism and must be used cautiously. For one, it totally fails to take into consideration the gap between high income and low income earners. I fails to take into consideration that the distribution of wealth is skewed to a very small percent of the population. Standard of living is based on averages cappy. You do understand how averages work no? When there are outliers (i.e. a few extreme values at the high end of the spectrum), it pulls the mean in that direction. Is a high standard of living a reflection of larger outlier values or is it that the distribution of all values are actually increaing? My guess is the former.

Are you really that callous cappy, or just challenged?

Let's get back to the issue - which is the "working poor" and tax breaks. The "working poor" don't pay (income) taxes anyway - so Mr. Schreck's point is moot.

Period.

neocon:
I have personally been to two funerals just this year where disabled people have commited suicide. One left a note citing how he had tried repeatedly to get a dietary allowance from a Ministry who seems more interested in killing the disabled than helping. Your neocon mass media i.e. CanWest does not discuss suicides and thus this is why you are ignorant of the truth. Campbell's restructure of the Minisrty of children and families failed children. The Ministry of Employment and income assistance is killing the disabled. This is the reality of your ideology of supporting neocon cruelty. At least you had the curtesy of asking (Although in an ignorant and malicious manner) and for this you are to be commended above all the others who turn a blind eye to the disabled plight. The United Nations has cited Canada three times for inflicting poverty on the disabled and others. The proof is out there you just need the desire to look.

realist2:

People from all walks of life sometimes take their own life - particularly native youth - where govenments spend the most (ie, are the most "compassionate").

If you are suggesting cause and effect from the correlation between social assistance and the incidence of suicide, the opposite is true. The more the government "helps", the more suicides there are. At least those would be the conclusions studying the native youth stats.

Obviously that is not the case. But directing blame at conservative policies is misleading and perversly unfair.

Furthermore, would you suggest that the media publicize suicide? - have you thought of the consequences of that? There is a reason they don't.

The United Nations carries no credibility - it is a failed, corrupt debating society.

Neocon.....my former employees recall their time with me as the best jobs of their lives. I gave them the greatest freedoms and conditions any empoyers possible can, because I knew from personal experience that happy workers are the best producers, and they were. All long timers,no slackers, no sicknesses, no accidents and no firings.
I made the final decisions, but even the apprentices had their say on major projects, on equipment to buy etc.

When I was leaving the business in 1979, my successor, who never paid me ultimately, by setting up a phoney company and buying the products from my business at bankruptcy prices and reselling them at profit, then claiming he can't pay me, called in a so called "expert", sent out by the Business Development Bank.

We were sitting in the office and could hear the radio blaring and the guys in the shop shouting, singing and joking. The idiot "expert" said to my partner: "Ed is too soft on those guys. You should go out here and fire a couple of them to keep the rest on their toes". I just about killed the SOB. Within 1 year after I left, all my old staff quit.

Now, here in Williams Lake, the long established Weldwood plywood mill was taken over by West Fraser a few months ago. Weldwood were stupid employers, who could have increased personal productivity if they had any brains, but at least they were tolerable. Now, what I hear from the empoyees is that West Fraser is the worst company to work for and if they could they'd quit tomorrow, but it would cost them their seniority and there are no other jobs around.

This list goes on. I could tell such stories I have seen, forever. I'm proud of the fact that I was a private enterpriser most of my life, but never a "free enterpriser". So don't even compare me with hyaenas like Pattison, or Emerson, or whoever are running West Fraser etc. etc. I have seen how they work, how they treat people and how they ruin living conditions all over the world so they cam load up their own insatiable pockets.

We remained poor, but in the meantime gave away fortunes to people who deserved them. Just in the past year we gave away our ranch to hard working decent people we believe will take good care of it, because our children didn't want it, so they and the loggers won't get it.

By the way, the income gap is widening, because, following Reagan's example, our governments gawe away money creation rights to a special interest sector, while assuming the responsibility for the liabilities of money creation.

With unlimited money creation, the crooks now can create any amount of capital against the properties of others, so the predators can take them over.

Try to bend your washed brains around this simple fact.

Ed Deak.

So you're telling my washed brain that you went bankrupt - a victim of the economy.
And you couldn't get paid but didn't seek legal action? And your children think differently than you so, by god you weren't going to leave them anything. In the meantime , you're telling my washed brain that your altruism is only surpassed by your higher understanding of bank reserve requirements and capital ratios - a finacial system praised by the world's greatest minds in financial study but disdained by you because, well, you know better.

ok then.

How 'bout those copper prices in Williams Lake - or do you think the world shouldn't have electricity?

I never went bankrupt and am well off and happy, but I won't waste any more time on your memorized, ideological cliches, where anything that isn't white, must be black.

I'm not surprised you call yourself a neocon and Messrs.Bush and Harper must be proud to have your set mind in their camps.

Cheers, Ed.

"I see the side of the provider, whereas you see the side of the recipient. I see the role of the father, you see the role of the child!

I see things from a business perspective. I see what businesses fail and what succeed. Life is like business. "

"dorothy:

you have many options in this world. most people do:"

yes, we also have the option of blowing ourselves up to guruship and talking down to other people, and you are so focused on that angle, that you didn't even grasp the tenet of my post:

I was not in the least decrying my lack of options. Be sure I know them and have exercised most of them. A couple will wait till I have time on my hands and/or have been diagnosed with something terminal.

I was trying to make clear that keeping importing people simply to keep the wages down and the competition sharp on the bottom rungs is not sustainable. Why not use the other option and quit designating some types of work as dirt jobs that no one will want to do, because they are poorly paid and those doing them get garbage in the face from people like you, who think that being a dishwasher is an option for people who 'don't want to work hard'. there are places in the world, where that colonial sahib thinking never snook in. You should try to exercise some of your options and go to those places and learn.

If I really was a child, I am sure glad I wouldn't have to look to you as a provider. Your perception of what the role entails gives me the creeps.

the ndp/bc fed poverty pimps in full scream mode.

Schreck is a waste of ink & space. We over tax succcessful people. The higher the welfare rates, the more welfare you buy.

Socialism is a dead end politcal pathology.

Consider Squamish, where I live, as a microcasm of the "new era" economy.
Good paying, resource related jobs ; saw-mill, pulp mill, dry-sort and BC Rail have all disapeared since the liberals took over.
One cannot underestimate the profound significance of these jobs as they represented much more than the once stable economic life-blood of the community. These jobs were also important because they represented sharing of the commonwealth, hence the name.
Now under the guise of "global competiveness" these jobs have been outsourced to the lowest international bidder to maximize corporate profit.
Why share the commenwealth with ordinary working people when what used to be their share can be vastly reduced by sending these resources directly oversea's. Corporate bean-counters can not-only also count on cheap labor but in most cases a deplorable absense of labor, safety and environmental standards. (in the case of cn rail they merely imported their own inadequate labor, health and safety and environmental standards as recent events clearly demonstrate)
Who benefits from all this? That's right, the corporate elite, their large shareholders( the wealthy) and their shameless political toadies like gordo and the murderer's bush and cheney.
Sure in Squamish there has been an upsurge in construction jobs, but this cannot last forever and when completed we will have transformed from a community of economic equals, more or less, to a divided community of millionaires and wal-mart workers.
Ironically the average or mean income may only marginally increase but the shape of the distribution curve will be a direct visual representation of gordo's fraser institute economic policies - one lump of "haves" and one lump of "have-not's".
Heres to our harmonious future.

Wow, this shows a lack of empathy that's not good for society. Why? because a system tilted toward the rich is unfair, with the strong picking on the weak. It's also destabilizing for societies and economic systems.

Well, thank you for ascribing the most callous interpretation of my support for a middle class. It would never occur to me, . . but I see you were thinking that way.

And, no, our middle class is being decimated by offshoring jobs, offshoring corporate offices to dodge taxes, and working wages that lose ground to inflation every year. It's worse, actually - decimation is a loss of only 10%.

Is anyone in the US better off in any way since the vote fraud gave us Dubya?

Oops, . I meant anyone but the Oligarchical class.

gkam:

okay, the average rage in BC increased around 4-5% last year. Inflation was roughly 2.5-3% last year. It may have increased 6-7% for the rich...

now, let's do some math using very round numbers...

Average Joe has after-tax income of $100K last year - this year, he has $104.5K....however, inflation was 2.5% - so Average Joe is better by about 2K...

Now, that is assuming Joe didn't get a promotion, or find other sources of income.

Now, Big Rich made $1M last year - his income increased by 6% or $60K. Inflation accounts for $25K of that, so his take home is $35K higher...

Gap last year (1M - 100K) = 900K.

Gap this year (1.035M - 102K) - 1.033M.

So, in short - both average joe and big rich are doing better. unless, average joe is more concerned about what others are getting as opposed to his position - kind of like you gkam....

in that case, average joe is pissed because the gap is increasing - he doesn't care that he can buy a big screen TV, because he just saw his boss drive in with a new Porsche....

resent and envy gkam...

Correction on math -

Gap this year - 933K...

JJ - works for me. Any suggestions about a nice lot in Squamish?

Well no surprise since right wing governments only like the wealthy and corperations and despise the poor. It is disgraceful.

Highest level of poverty in Canada and he says BC is "The greatest Place in the World" in those ridiculous commercials.I call Bullshit.

So many people making less than 10 an hour, how pathetic. I wonder how many make that 6 bucks an hour training wage? Campbell does not care for the average person and I hope all these poorer people vote next time and vote his ass out of office as that would be a real kick in the teeth for Campbell, getting the boot a year before the Olympics.

The wealthy love gov't. The day will never come when they decide to join the anarchist left and dismantle it because they know their lifestyles would be over in a nanosecond.

If the wealthy think they're getting a raw deal I would like to read where they call for gov't to be dismantled. Any links?

Frank - stop being foolish...

We love law and order in society. We love it when a government limits its role beyond protecting our borders, our cities, our towns and families.

I think everybody recognizes that government is necessary. However, their role should be limited beyond protecting our safety and civil rights.

Yeah, that must be it. At least you've convinced yourself of it.

The rest of us look at what's really happening, not some made-up example.

Are we better off now than in 2000? Emphatically NO!

Cap, with all due respect I'm not the one on here making one foolish statement after another. You and your friends have declared everyone is either happy or a loser. I think such statements demonstrate some of you have gone over the wall into nut-land.

Also, in the years I've come to the Tyee, none of you, and I admit the names have changed since the beginning, ever want to use actual numbers backed up by actual links. Its always just rhetoric gleaned from the Cdn Taxpayer's Fed or Van Sun editorials rewriting Fraser Institute press releases or simply off the top of your head because you wish it were true.

And no, everyone does not love gov't and law and order. Again, you wish it was true, but it isn't. Many would be much better off if the state apparatus disappeared and none of them I bet are wealthy. Because the wealthy know they are the biggest benefactor from gov't and taxes.

Again I challenge anyone here to provide the links of any group of "wealthy" who are calling for the dismantlement of gov't. Since all you right-wingers are so anti-gov't you should be able to find such links in just a few moments of googling right? I know I can provide links to various anarchist-type groups on the left but the closest on the right is libertarians and they believe in a strong state, low taxes and low benefits which is not at all the same thing.

My first job was working at a gas station for minimum wage. It never even occurred to me that had I stayed there and not bothered to move on to greener pastures and jobs that paid more I could today blame the government for my lack of doing anything about my own job score.

I have no idea who this Shrek guy is, however I have to wonder what kind of economist thinks that people who sit on their ass and blame government because they choose not to go out and find better paying jobs is beyond me. Is the government supposed to come along with some kind of handout because you cannot live within your means or choose to work for minimum wage? I don’t get this article.

Ridiculous! Who would choose to work for minimum wage?

I don't know of anybody who is poor by choice.

But that's the "welfare queen" syndrome, that ascribes bad judgement and evil intent to those being ravaged by life, and making it easier to rationilize selfishness in social policy.

I have never heard of the Welfare Queen syndrome, I thought we were talking about people who work in crappy jobs not people who do not work at all. I agree nobody chooses to be poor, but if you need to make more money than get a better paying job. Why is it the governments fault if you choose to work in a crappy job and don’t bother to get something that pays better? That is what I don’t get?

http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/lss/empern/eet21.pdf

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/famil05a.htm

These sites have some real facts and figures, which would seem to indicate it is unlikely that ‘joe average’ makes 100K.

Life is like a business, capitalism said. No, life is like life, so much more than a business, but your talk about your TV and the boss’s Jaguar would underline the material aspects of all things and if possible reduce them to those aspects. Don’t worry; you’re not the only one running scared of complexity. We can learn to live with it, but it takes patience, which can also be learned. It’s all out there, including the truth.

$16 an hour!

Only figgin' neoconazis should have to live on $16 an hour.

I won't even get out of bed for that pittance, you wingnut fuks.

The basic problem is the poor are too nice. They need to work on a big time kick ass mood.

These neoconazi doofuses are out of control. Smack 'em around and insult their mothers for bringing the twits into the world at all.

God said brains, and they thought He said trains, and figured they'd catch the next one.

I have to agree with you on that point. But the real point isn't the lazy or uninspired loafers.

If your government promulgates trade policies that damage the nation or threatens the livihoods of the citizens, then the government is the problem.

capitalism $100K, man what planet are you living on? Most good year round jobs are around 60-70k a year "shesh"
Like I've said, try living on $10. an hour that's only 24k a year w/no benifits.
Yeah I know that's dinner and a night out for capi, working man, IAMClueless, logjam, & last & least NoLeftNutter have a good night

Coyote:

Your mentality is showing.

gkam:

you're making a big statement about trade policies. FIRA threatened some peoples' livlihoods - thank Trudeau for that.

Statistics say our economy hasn't been better in 50 years. Are you saying the statistics are wrong?

Bravo CAPITALIST. It's a breath of the fresh air. Socialists are always bragging about helping poor, invalids and old, but in fact they are the people who lose most because Leftist leaders are always more equal, surrounded by supporters like public servants and their labour unions. That reversed the whole society. 300,000 beaureacrats, jailers and road builders, by their pension funds managers and some obscure banks in US, keeping their pensions as a collateral for fast ferries deficit, run the Province. Socialists own the banks when capitalists slave 16 hours a day to meet the payrol and pay taxes.
No wonder why many Canadian companies move to US, or manufacture in China.

neocon:
Once again I have been fooled into assuming that you are a human being with a heart. Sorry. Your compare disabled suicides to native suicides. Apples and Oranges but, this is the typical smoke and mirror arguements that we hear from the heartless over and over. Inflicted governmental poverty without a purpose except to cause suicides is exactly what we are seeing. I don't condone publishing suicide statistics but, I do fault the media and even the Tyee for not publisising the horrendous treatment of our disabled. As for your opinion on the United Nations I suggest you get back to your cubicle at the Fraser Institute as I think being out in the public has confused your ethics and morality.

realist2:

a suicide is a suicide - equally tragic. blaming gov't for suicides is tragic thinking.

Tell me how the UN has helped Rwanda, Bosnia, Sudan, D.R. Congo? Oil for food...like I said, a corrupt debating society. Feckless too. Wish it weren't so, but it is.

I still don’t really get this article and some of the people on here I find even more confusing. This whole crap about the economy being good and bad no matter how good the economy is, there are always crappy jobs. And even when the economy sucks, there are always jobs that will pay you more if you go out and get them.

I can guarantee you one thing, if you sit back and do nothing you will get nothing. I still do not understand why we should blame government for the choices we make on where we go to work. If I quit my job tomorrow and go work at a 7-11 and cannot feed my family as a result why is the government to blame for my own stupidity? Or, if I work at 7-11 but Rona down the street is paying almost twice as much and I choose not to go after that better paying job why is this the fault of anyone but me ? I just don’t get how this is the fault of the government.

When my two pack a day cigarette habit catches up with me and I develop lung cancer can I blame the government for that too? If the $300 a month I choose to spend on Export A means I cannot feed my family is that alos the fault of government. My life is far from perfect, but it never occurred to me I should just blame the government for it all. I feel so stupid having blamed myself all these years.

dorothy:

I believe that the late, lamented Dead Dog Cafe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dead_Dog_Cafe_Comedy_Hour
featured a reverend whose congregation was exclusively the well-to-do.........

This has been said in such a way as to imply a criticism...which makes it one of more stupid statements uttered by a rightie. Of course, the poor utilize a disproportionate level of gov't services! That (in the best tradition of christian charity) is what the services are there for in the first place! Surely the utterer of this statement (accusation?) didn't think that government services were intended for those who could well afford to pay for them out of pocket.......? Silly fellow!!

If we raise the minimum wage to $20.00 per hour, what would we achieve? We would drive up inflation. A Big Mac would cost $12.00. I wouldn't care because I make a good income, but it would further marginalize those that don't have any income. Or a low income. Because this would create an underground economy of people willing to work for far less when paid in cash.
We would have a problem similar to the US with their illegal immigrants.
The opportunities are there for anyone who has ambition.
Yes I realize not everyone is employable, but I would support an increase in payments to the disabled.
Make your own way and you will do better than depending on the Govt.
Besides 16K per year is good money when compared to everywhere else.

I count 97 posts, almost all of them having to do with the limited and highly ideological opinions of two or three neocon apologists who always show up here, pumping the same right-wing clap trap. All that is happening is that we are wasting our time with these people. You can bring a horse to water... etc. It would be nice instead to discuss how we could deal with the problems presented in Dave Shrenks article...

IAMC:

Tell that to Bombardier.........

znarcho:
25 years ago, the pundits and armchair proselytizers predictred that all of Europe was doomed for adopting "wasteful" social programs. Now it's 25 years later, and Europe is still there...........

I am with you anarcho. But I still don’t get how people who decide to stay in crappy jobs can blame that on the government. Can I blame the fact that I eat, smoke and drink to much on Government ? This Shrek guy seems to think I can. Hey, if I can blame someone else for my own downfalls, I am all over it, more so if the government gives me a big check because if it. But is that really how life works?

The guy next door spends most of his time in his yard. When I sit on my ass drinking and smoking either sitting online or watching TV he is always on some Bob Villa project. His yard looks great, mine looks like crap. Can I blame the government for that too ?

I am one of the people Shrek wrote his economic theory about and yet I still have yet to find anyone who can explain why my choices are the fault of government. The only reason I even have a yard instead of an apartment balcony is because at one point in my life, I got of my ass and got a better paying job. I didn’t even go to University to do it. I took a $ 1200 course, most of which I wrote off, and used what they told me to get a job that paid me more money.

I look back and think if I had not been such goofball in hi-school and gone to University, I would likely have made more money. The guy we used to pick on and make fun of is a lawyer now, he makes tons of money and lives in a big house. In hi-school we made fun of him because he didn’t go to our bush parties and didn’t drink. Can I blame government because he was not as stupid as I was? I still do not get why the choices we all make should be able the fault of the government, maybe Shrek can explain it to me, I just don’t get it.

What is lost in the postings is the working poor, how Bush, Regan, etc. have to do with working poor in BC, is beyond me.

The real problem is that the free enterprize system, touted by Neocon, Capitalist, etc., isn't working. if there is a scarcity in jobs, wages should rise, simple, but it doesn't, Campbell brok contracts to reduce wages. RAV is employing south American workers at cut rate prices, again when there is a scarcity of workers, wages should rise.

After the great plaque in Europe, surving labourers made huge sums with high wages, especially in the UK. Why? The farmers who offered the highest wages got the workers. It was the industrial revolution which again made serfs out of labourers, true capitalism at work!

Fact is, workers were far better off in the UK in the 1750's than the 1850's!

Capitalism is the art of pure greed and nothing to do with private enterprise. Money begets money. so called investments are a mugs game, a true pyramid scheme, where the very few reap huge profits. The stock markets are nothing more than a vehicle to seduce suckers in handing over hard earned money.

The real problem in BC are extremely right wing politco's (Facists) perverting the tax system to deliver more money to their neocon friends. I'm afraid it will continue until the complete rotten house of cards collapses. What then?

Last time I checked Afghans earned average of $130 per annum and paid $3 US litre for diesel and $1 US for a bundle of firewood. Kinda puts it into perspective.

i guess it is your fault, anarcho, your lack of character, lack of ambition, everyone knows that the poor deserve to be poor.thank God you saw a bit of the light, sucked it in, and got yourself upgraded to something, instead of making fun of lawyers and all that.now you can supprt those big diner that the upper crust have to pay so much more for ecven if they can afford it and all those restyaurant owners who hired thoswe fancy gourment cooks who probabaly went to culinary school after tehy saw the light just like you can also make some money and than thir kids will see the ligfht and not laugh at those lawyer and everything you know...

I also agree. They day of high paying jobs with low levels of education are long, long gone.

BC's lefties, Scheck included, will do anything they can to malign the economic success we have seen here in BC the last five years. My own payroll has more than doubled and the money I send to the government in the form of payroll remittances, GST and PST is close to triple what it was in 2000.

Further, neitehr Shreck nof his National Socialist Flunkies have not the faintest idea of what real poverty is. What a better paying job? Try Langarra, Capilano or VCC. Snivelling here won't improve your lives, lefties. Only you have the power to do that.

And that so called "povert" number the welfare industry likes to bandy about conceals a deep, dark secret. Anybody have enough guts to reveal it?

Working man, Nationa socialists were Nazi's, facists, who were extremely right wing. Nazi's smashed unions, while at the same time promoting big business. In Nazi Germany, the small elite ruling class made huge sums of money, when compared to the working masses. Well we all know what happened, eh?

Grumpy; National Socialists ???
While you are busy killing even more Jews, do you ever think that you may be disillusioned ?

What always staggers me about capitalist theory is that it depends on there being millions of jobs, all of which are necessary, critical even, to the functioning of the economy as we know it (garbage collection, childcare, gardening, waiting tables, cleaning hotel rooms, etc. ad infinitum) but which fail to provide a decent wage and by extension, a decent living.

Despite the fact that people who have escaped this low-wage ghetto rely both implicitly and explicitly on the performance of the minimum-wage "losers" on a daily basis, the prevailing attitude toward such people is that they are failures, second-rate (or perhaps far lower), and that they owe their poor fortune in life to nothing but their own incompetence and lack of ambition.

How can such hypocrisy go continually unnoticed?

Oh, sure, a corporate CEO can make his own coffee and drive himself to work and shine his own shoes and vacuum his own office, etc., etc. BUT HE/SHE DOESN'T.

TRUE, the shoe-shine boy isn't quite up to designing a leveraged buyout just yet. So he doesn't, either.

BUT BOTH WORK (usually). A society with the division of labour that we have REQUIRES thousands and thousands of low-skill tasks be done. But capitalism determines that these will be poorly, often inadequately, paid as well. It's easy to agree that highly skilled work deserves something of a premium in reward over non-skilled or low skilled work. This should NOT, however, mean that a tiny minority on the planet enjoy spectacular wealth and privilege and that vast numbers lack even the basics of life--clean water, public safety, opportunity for an education, etc.

Too many of the people occupying First Class, munching their gold-plated peanuts and scanning their Niemann-Marcus catalogs while fingering their platinum cards have truly lost perspective, often "scorning the base degrees by which they did ascend," but perhaps even more often blissfully unaware from their relatively privileged upbringings the incredible and often unsurmountable challenges existent among the poor.

Finally, whoever above characterized an average Joe's wage as 100K hasn't looked at an average pay packet in a long time.

WM,

Record deficits bailed out by record transfer payments while raising the level of poverty, increasing child deaths and lowering the quality of health care. Truly a miracle on par with the bread and fishes one. I hear Gordon is up for sainthood.

The funny thing about averages is they don't just check out one guy and say the world is a better place because he got a raise. You're making more money, I'm happy for you. But others aren't. And calling everyone a loser is a winning argument in grade 8 but unfortunately when high school is over it tends to demean the one voicing it more than those you're referring to.

IAMC,

Do you bother reading what you write before you hit send? How would somebody who just got a raise from $8 an hour to $20 an hour be worse off???

And even assuming the cost of labour is the only input into a Big Mac how does increasing that cost by 2.5 times raise the price by 7 times???

That's bad math even from a guy calling Grumpy a Jew-killing Nazi.

Latarnik, tried to read your post but unfortunately when you wrote it you were high. Not to worry, its common knowledge monetarist economics only makes sense if that is the case.

"...hospital cooks...people are willing and able to do that job for $10-12/ hour, yet you wish to pay them $20/ hour....you could take that $10/ hour and provide relief to those who need it most". You are right, Capitalist, you could take that $10 dollars/ hour and provide relief to those who need it most. Instead, the Liberals pay a foreign company $20/ hour. The company in turn pays the cook (or cleaner) $10/hr. Instead of the money going to those who need it most, it ends up in the bank, probably in France, and we get hospital food that no one can eat, not to mention filthy hospitals. Personally, I would rather my taxes go to someone making a decent living in my own city and in turn paying taxes which might actually help pay for services to "those who need it most".

Freebear said: "You are pathetic. Would you describe the armed forces personnel you so often loudly support as middle class? Many are working poor, but I guess that is their fault for not educating themselves enough so that they would not have to serve as soldiers!"

Amen to that Freebear. These ARE poor children who fight these wars. They don't even understand the issues except for the lies they were told. I have yet to see a political leader, or a top industry leader's (ie.oil executives from Alberta) offspring go off and fight a war, and even if they did, are they in the trenches or are they behind a desk??

All I can say is no wars would be fought if political leaders, and industry leaders gave up their children to fight their war...

Peace and Love

RTB

RickW:

I agree. The payouts that Ford Canada, GM Canada, Toyota, Bombardier are foolish. They do indeed help sustain jobs and economic activity in the industrial heartland - however, this is nothing short of a hand out...

Europe is falling. The standard of living has eroded and businesses is moving on....

This is not true. I can't even remember half of my University nights. You can get smashed all you want, but you have to keep your eye on the prize. I knew what kind of marks I needed to get into Commerce - I got 'em (barely). I knew what kind of marks I needed to get hired by the employer of my choice - I got 'em (barely).

If you look at my post, I was using round numbers. I didn't want to have to do the math in my head using $60K or $300K....

I was by no means implying that 100K is the average salary. I understand that to be around (65K) - average household...

Yes, and in 25 years it will still be here, whereas the United States will not.........

switek wrote" I am with you anarcho. But I still don’t get how people who decide to stay in crappy jobs can blame that on the government. Can I blame the fact that I eat, smoke and drink to much on Government"

Switek, I don't think you are an ideologue like some of the others, so I am willing to discuss this matter with you. First off, can you accept that maybe the causes of low wage jobs and people's failure to get an education are a little more complex than what you assume? Can you accept that there is a social science called Sociology which explores these very problems?

"This should NOT, however, mean that a tiny minority on the planet enjoy spectacular wealth and privilege and that vast numbers lack even the basics of life--clean water, public safety, opportunity for an education, etc."

The reason things are so crummy is that each individual member of the human race has become such a cheap commodity. This is solely due to the relationship between supply and demand. Whether we are willing to understand that or not, population control is the key to better states of affairs. Canada's population has understood it, and reacted accordingly, but our politicians, who live in the pocket of those greedy for cheaper labor, are blindly buying the dogma that immigration is still needed, so we are being dissed by our government every day on that.
Did you see the film 'Big sugar'? imagine the impact on that scenario of the women producing no more children, which I'm sure no one would, given the choice. You'd have to be totally sociopathic to want that life for a child of yours. There is a minimum acceptable set of terms of living, and these people were clearly below it.
If you want to improve on the World situation, the only institution it makes sense to support is Planned Parenthood.

The extreme wealth share that exists at the minority end of capitalist society, like all class based societies of the past, can only occur by looting the share that would otherwise go to the lower class strata, if they were to secure a living/thriving income from their labours. (Like Fait says, and the principle operates at a number of different economic/social levels, new wealth can't be created, especially by paper shufflers and market manipulators, it can only be transferred-, from nature, to humans through their labour acting on nature, and from that labour share once it is reduced to paper (money), directly to the ruling class "paper economy."

It is not really a mystery-, hidden and going on in the backrooms of the marketplace and in the stockmarkets etc perhaps, but obvious enough with a minimum of effort to understand how wealth is transferred from those who do the actual labour to those who have secured a formal "paper ownership". And in the sleight of hand that occurs in that marketplace, there is always a large working class strata whose labour, however necessary, is always deliberately and consciously "under valued", who have a greater "decent living share" stolen from them in the labour market transactions, creating their impoverishment on one side of the lopsided bargain, and an obscenely wealthy class at the other.

Capitalism is organized theft, and there is really no more to it than that, save the slowness of folks to catch onto the criminality at the core of the system, and then actually organize to do anything about it. Which is the only reason why the system goes on and on running, like the proverbial battery operated rabbit.

A good place to start from, here and now though, would be to begin a national movement of the poor to raise the minumum wage across the country to $16 per hour, and secure it if necessary by special taxation on the wealthy. I believe in taxation as a wealth transfer mechanism, though generally the flow is in precisely the wrong direction, in the form of tax breaks and write-offs etc that favour the ruling class, if the intent is to eliminate povert and return even a greater measure of income equality into the theft based system of capitalism.

It isn't the solution to the problem, of course, only an alternative "democratic power and economic system" to that of capitalism holds out that possibility, but it is a start, begins to get folks understanding the root nature of the class and poverty problem, and sets them to moving in the right direction, challenging capitalism itself.

$16 per hour as a national minimum wage to begin to overcome poverty.If the bourgeois ruling class fuktards attempt to move their businesses offshore or otherwise out of country, stop them, workers take them over, and begin to learn how to run them for themselves and a more egalitarian social benefit, democratically.

The system of capitalism has come to the end of its social usefulness, at least in the so-called "advanced capitalism" countries. Time to move on and create the socio-economic system that takes society and us to the next level, away from this bullshitt mired one.

You know Coyote - here you go again with your tax the rich philosophy. You can despise every action that GWB has taken, but the one thing that has worked is his tax cuts for the rich.

Employment is up, the economy is absolutely booming with 5.5% growth in Q1 of this year. The fed can't raise rates fast enough to try and put the breaks on the economy.

Read what I have written above. Taxes are a function of the demand curve. As taxes increase, the demand for products and services follow. This especially in the labour markets, etc. When employers have less to spend, they invest less, when they invest less - they employ less.

So, this minimum wage tax will create fewer jobs and less opportunities. I was very happy to see that Encana is recognizing a $450M income tax recovery in this quarter - both Canada/Alberta have decreased the tax burden on this (and other) companies.

As a result, Encana is increasing its output from their natural gas facilities in NE BC. There are putting this money back into enriching their oil sands investments - this will all lead to more jobs, more wealth and a better Canada!

Be careful with this misleading statement. Every province has seen higher transfer payments due to their increase by the Martin government.

All your idealogical nonsense is just that, nonsense. It does not put bread and butter on the table. It is just hot air. No worder we are seeing a decline in union membership and a dearth of NDP governments in Canada. What is more, you people simply do not want understand the reason for your failures and thus doom yourself to more.

The fact is, hard work, education and skills put bread on people's tables. It is not rocket science.

Capitalism, I disagree. The US economy is doing (relatively) well do to the levels of defecit spending they are at now, plus the fact a significant portion of their labour force (illegal immigrants) are not on the books. We had a very similar situation in the Mulroney era.

Eventually that spending will have to be reigned in and that will cause recessions in both the USA and Canada. Remember 1991? I do. Those were hard times. My advice is keep a nice cash reserve.

If the object of it was to reduce the availability of services going to the poorest in US society, and to increase poverty rates amongst them. Folks is working alright, but for less and less while everything else rises all around them. So stop the bullshitt, IAMClueless.

You have a reputation to live up to I know, but c'mon...

On poverty rates in the US. (And these are official ones,which are always low-balled to make the system look better than it actually is.)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9130342/

or this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

In the case of this last site, one might want to make sure they read the lower section on how poverty rates are "under calculated" . Which applies as much in this country as the US.

Propaganda is neither really a serious analysis, IAMClueless, or objective information.

Coyote says: "Capitalism is organized theft, and there is really no more to it than that"

To borrow a Heinleinism, consider the apple pie. It consists of apples, flour, butter, sugar, spices, all grown for sale at modest profit. The baker pays for these goods, then uses her skills and knowledge to transform these ingredients into a product which is then resold to customers who lack the time or ability to make their own pies.

Everyone profits from their transaction. The farmers sell their produce, the baker markets her skill, the customer purchases a finished apple pie. Who is being stolen from?

From skewered "official stats". Just in case one finds actually checking out the real information to "taxing". :-) This is a US figure.

Which proves my point in my day's lead-off comment, even accepting these "official" stats at their face value, which I personally do not.

noleftnutter
c'mon up. I

would be happy to show you a round.

North American, overall living standards reached their highest levels in the '60s and have been going down since.

Living costs and prices inflated approx. 1000% in the past 35 years, but wages remained virtually stagnant. E.g my wife had a part time giftwrapping job at Woodward's in the '70s that paid around $5, plus per hour. This means a similar store job today should pay about $50.

I bought a brand new Dodge Tradesman 200 van for my business, from Johnson Motors at Main and Kingsway, with all kinds of extras for $5,600, in 1975. We sold our brand new, ultramodern bungalow we built ourselves for $65,000 in 1979. The material costs were about $15,000. plus some trades, so let's say $20,000. A year later it went for $138,000. Today it would be close to a half million.

I can't remember what the minimum wage was in 1970, but we could feed our family of 5 very well from $75/month from the supermarkets, a hamburger was .50 cents, a hot dog .25 cents and when my family was away and I ate in restaurants I could get a decent meal for $1.50.

The UN Development program reports that 80 countries have a per capita income less than they did 10 years ago and 60 have grown steadily poorer. In 1960 the income gap between the richest and poorest countries was 30 to 1, in 1990
60 to 1, in 1998 74 to 1. About half of the world's wealth is now owned and controlled by less than 400 people and families. 3 billion people live on less than $2. per day and of them 1.3 billion on less than $1.

The workday of the average American expanded by 184 hours since 1970, without any rise in income. In the first 7 years of NAFTA, 33,000 US farms have disappeared. Bush has lost 5 million industrial jobs to globalization in his first 5 years in office and now the so called intellectual jobs are also moving to India and China from all over the world.

I could go on with such figures, but I have to do some real work, so now I wait for some more faith based claptrap from the true believers.

When will you poor people finally realize that the sale of capital is not an income and we're living in what the Europeans call a "robber economy" our grandchildren will have to pay for with their blood?

Ed Deak.

RTB said:

All I can say is no wars would be fought if political leaders, and industry leaders gave up their children to fight their war...

That said, tell all the youth you know of this world view you have - I do it all the time. I advocate that they do not 'volunteer' for such a bad opportunity.

Education, what have you done about that?
I am home-schooling, because the stupidity factories are not really preparing children well enough to face the world of tomorrow.

Fight? War? Rather than the 'children' of the 'rich' --> make the 'leaders' whom advocate fight and war do the fighting of the war.

Which proves my point in my day's lead-off comment, even accepting these "official" stats at their face value, which I personally do not.

Coyote - by my rough calculations - this is less than 3%. I can assure you that the US population has increased by well over that in the past 3-4 years. Furthermore, the increase is primarily due to immigrants - who are more likely to be at (or below) the poverty line.

You gotta think Coyote - think.....

Madame Guillotine!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mr. Lux:

This is entirely not true! Sure, the cost of Vancouver/Victoria living has increased - but there are the new Vancouvers emerging in Surrey/Abbotsford.

Futhermore, people are living longer than ever, we have better medicines, we have the internet and mobile phones which have drastically allowed for greater convenience, average wages (adjusted for inflation) are way up, water quality, quality of food and health standards are far superior to where they have ever been.

To sum up, people are healthier and wealthier than they have ever been...with exception obesity. However, Canadians are starting to understand the importance of health....

Yammer sez, "To borrow a Heinleinism, consider the apple pie. It consists of apples, flour, butter, sugar, spices, all grown for sale at modest profit. The baker pays for these goods, then uses her skills and knowledge to transform these ingredients into a product which is then resold to customers who lack the time or ability to make their own pies.

Everyone profits from their transaction. The farmers sell their produce, the baker markets her skill, the customer purchases a finished apple pie. Who is being stolen from?"

You are comparing apples and oranges. That the economy was to consist of independent bakers, farmers etc trading with each other is not what the corporate capitalist economy is all about. You are comparing a kind of peasant-artisan free market economy with one that is controlled by government and vast corporations working together. Instead of independent producers you have a population of which 80% work for someone else. The vast corporations, as well as all kinds of laws and favors from the state, are oligopolies and are thus able to control or manipulate the market in their favor. It is inevitable that workers, consumers and small producers are exploited.Then there is the question of historical origins of this system.
These lie in the seizure of the peasant land (Enclosure Acts) the colonization of Ireland, America, (Which means stealing other people's lands, once more.) etc and the crowning glory of early capitalism, the slave trade. Truer words were never spoken by Coyote, when he said "capitalism is theft." By the way, I shouldn't have to tell you this stuff, what with the internet and all, you could discover the origins of capitalism and a critique of the present corporate state system yourself.

200 children die of cancers every year in Canada. 30 or 50 years ago virtually none. there were no leukemia etc. and bald haded kids in the hospitals.

We heard of the odd cancer, but never in children. We were in our mid 40s in Vancouver, when we first heard of breast cancer, when a poor woman across the street died from it. Today 30 or more percent of women come down with it. Why? What's causing it? And please don't come back with the crap that the detection mechanisms were there. I grew up in the great depression and in all my school years I remember 2 kids dying.

The life expectancy increased by a few years, but illness by hundreds of percents and keep on increasing, caused by chemical saturation in our foods, water and air.

This is why we have health crises and idiots, like the Fraser Institute's and SFU's Herb Grubel declaring :"No country can afford universal health care".

Then I listen to my American friends and relatives on up to $1,000/month health insurance paymnents, while 45 million without them dying in the gutters and Bush wastes a billion a day on wars.

Hi tech oviously has brought us benefits, but every one of them at a very high cost. Newton's law on reactions at work.

Ed Deak.

Anarcho is right. But it's no use arguing with zealots. Capitalism and IAMC haven't answered my questions or rebutted my points from days ago, so we shouldn't expect anything from them but more made up "examples".
\
If you want to see how things work, don't make up examples, just look: More poor. More income disparity, more pollution, more governmental debt, more of our future thrown away on the War Machine. More corporate corruption. Smaller Middle Class.

And one HUUUUGE damn debt!

Who is going to pay that off? It won't be the rich. After years of sucking at the govermental trough, these piggies will remind us that "government is evil".

Cappy, methinks that you're calling the kettle black here. Wage rates, in general, have not kept up with inflation (CPI is used for this measure). For some professions (i.e. CEOs), wage rates have exceeded the CPI annually, but for most, it's a different story. The saddest part is how minimum wage increases are far, far below the annual CPI. Also, I question your claims that we're healthier and wealthier than ever before. Your two measures, life expectancy and incomes respectively, are incomplete. You mention obesity, but I would include other indicators like increases incidents of asthma and cancer as indicative of widespread health issues (resulting from environmental degradation?). Also, I recall a survey not too long ago measuring the indicators of quality of life and contrary to your (narrow) mindset, most people do not rank money as the number one indicator. You definitely entitled to your opinions cappy, but I wish that you’d stop passing them on as fact and I wish that you’d stop representing yourself as the status quo – you’re not!

Also cappy, you want more indicators that we (in general) are not doing as well as you believe. You seem to think that because more and more people are enjoying life (buying cars and hummers and condos and things and stuff and more junk) that life is find and dandy for the general citizenry. But next time why don't you throw in a mention about personal debt and how that's skyrocketed out of control. Sure, people are making more (in absolute terms - not adjusted for the CPI) but they're also spending more than they're making.

This is a meaningless statistic. First, the population has more than doubled. Second, diagnois has massively improved. Finally, there is no proof his the last part of the statement of "virtually none."

Also recall that in the above related time period children died of diseases that are no longer around, for example polio.

WM,

Yes, your statement is that Campbell is a financial genius because the Feds bailed him out. It was misleading so I corrcted you.

And this means what? So just because other provinces got money he wasn't bailed out by the transfer payments? That is nonsense. Newsflash ,money from Ottawa to Halifax does not show up in the BC budget. I know you believe it does but I'm telling you now it doesn't. The BC budget is not affected by federal transfers to other provinces. I can explain this in more detail if you need it.

Back to the grade 8 thing of calling everyone you disagree with a loser? Fine, I'm sure you win arguments with your kids but you need to do better than that when you talk to adults if you want to be taken seriously.

If you think that's all there is to ending poverty and economics in general you're sadly mistaken. Read a book, travel outside of Canada or live in ignorant bliss, I leave the choice of educating yourself up to you.

Given the context within which Ed posted his comment, that statistic is very relevant. He was responsing to the claim that because life expectancy has increased (albeit minimally) we are somehow healthier. The fact that cancer is on the rise (and better detection methods is, I admit, a valid point) is just one of many indicators that need to be looked at when making such a simplistic claim.

sorry, my comment above was directed to WM!

Exactly true as Ubiquitous says, and which is encouraged by the system through its marketing and advertising strategies. Deeply indebted folks, and keep 'em indebted, are more likely to keep their noses to the old grindstone, and do as they are told. There is a desparation/panic too that arise out of indebtedness, to keep folks on the capitalist marketplace driven course.

Gotta bake some buns, baby. :-)

Don't forget about the baby boom. You are 4x as likely to get cancer in your 40s, 50s and 60s than you are in your 20s and 30s.

I don't know, but would presume that rate/age group has remained consistent. You know lefties, there is almost always an explanation for your silly little statistics.

You demonstrate time and time again, your terrible understanding of mathematics and statistics....

So by that logic, and all things being equal (ceteris paribus - an econ 101 term for ya cappy) we cannot be certain if we're actually getting healthy until the 20's and 30's cohort reaches their 40's, 50's, and 60's. Seems to me cappy, that you're the one who always has a silly explanation for your silly little statistics (which seem to be alway made up - i.e. lack of source).

How?

Cap, we've already established in the past that your knowlewdge of math and stats leaves much to be desired. Leave that up to those of us that didn't get drunk every second night in university.

You want to blame cancer rates on the baby boom, great, I know I'm a believer now. I don't need to see evidence or anything.

Still waiting to see that long list of links to wealthy groups advocating no taxes.

What the heck folks?

How is it you allow yourselves to get sucked in by Capital Ism, et al? He baits, you bite. Good grief!

You can state truths all day long and he'll side step. He's devout. For instance, you could point out BC's revenues from skyrocketing natural gas prices helped in no small part to bail out Campbell's tax cuts to the wealthy. The Capital ist retort will parrot the mantra, "another example of the free market at work", while ignoring the gist in your rejoinder.

You could mention the (countless) decent-paying manufacturing jobs lost to Asia. He'll respond by questioning your "committment to wealth sharing", turning a blind eye to the brutal Chinese regime that is becoming more capitalist than he ever hoped to be; ignoring the fact of greenchain workers now toiling at 7-11 for subsistent wages.....

Isms and Ists should be guidelines, not steadfast rules. Capitalism has its place. Unfortunately, we all know only too well what it has become: Feed dead cows to live cows and save/make money.

Respond to the Capital ist? Not for me. I don't flog dead horses.

Yo mamas is right, too. You can neither debate nor negotiate with rigid ideologues.

I don't know what these guys do when they read the paper and see the incredible messes we're in - do they just turn on Limbaugh, or something?

Anyway, it's not worth any more of my time.

Yammer:

Yammer

“who is being stolen from?”

In the picture you are presenting – nobody, but there also are no capitalists there. If the baker must borrow the money for locality and goods, the lender would be the capitalist.

Ultimately, capitalism lives on lending capital and setting a fee for the lending. If no one would spend a penny beyond what they had in their hand, there would be no capitalism.

This was and is the idea behind worker’s credit unions: to have people help each other raise capital, through lending your savings when you have them, and then you or your children can come back and borrow when that is needed, for a home or the like. The idea is ‘no profit’, you get it at cost.

Large extended families often work as their own credit unions, and that is why they generally do better. It stays in the family.

Capitalism (the idea, not the man using the moniker) rests on people being isolated, hemmed-in, having had the stuffing beaten out of them before they reach adulthood, in other words, being good consumers. If you can find a group of people vying for greater independence and freedom from exploitation, you can create buying clubs (co-ops) etc.

Every time you think of giving out a penny, think again, reduce, reuse, recycle, and damn the snob appeal, which is just a gambit to make you feel small and buy more in an attempt to feel bigger.

Typically, capitalism (the man this time), expounds the evangelium of measuring relative sense of self-worth and well-being in material terms. Want to know what I really think, when I see my neighbor’s Mercedes: there’s a guy who doesn’t begin to know what counts. My boss is too astute to fall for status plate-metal, she drives a Subaru.

Frank, I know this is a really hard one for your NDPers to get get a hold of and I have stated thes questions many times, never having had an answer here. I pose it one more time:

-Given your party's lack of electoral success, what can it do to make itself more electable?

-Can your party examine itself and come up with a platform that will consistantly win elections?

I will not see an answer to either.

WM, do a search on my name here in the Tyee and you'll find all my previous responses to that question which you have sometimes said you agree with. So having agreed with my answer in the past its hard for you to now claim you've never got an answer.

Regardless of whether your memory is as bad as you claim or whether you don't know how to search back through the archives, your questions are considered trolling in that they are simply a transparent attempt to shift the discussion away from the topic at hand because you'd prefer to be on the offence than the defence. Unfortunately its not only transparent its also tedious answering the same question over and over for a year and a half only to be told you don't remember the answers or your own response to the answer.

Now, I assume you've googled and discovered that federal transfers to Nove Scotia don't impact on any line of the BC budget?

It is generally acknowledged that 50 years ago the cancer rate was about 2% of the population, now it is up to 50%. We're taking about percentages of population, not simple numbers. Thanks to the results of and the pollution caused by "wealth creation". In other words, the more wealth we create the sicker we'll be, with dozens of deadly chemicals in our blood. Check it out.

If there had been any cancers in children 50 or 60 years ago, we would have known about them and witness them, as the knowledge of detection has been there. There were none in my 12 years in grade school and nobody heard about them even when I was at Cambridge, before the great coverup campaigns to "create wealth" .

The first time anybody, apart from experts have heard of leukemia was in the early '50s, when the actor Red Skelton took his, I believe 10 year old son, to England and Europe, to show him the world before he dies of a "rare cancer of the blood called leukemia" as it was reported in the British press at the time. Again, the detection system was there, but had nothing to detect.

We would also have known and heard of breast cancers, but there were none, babyboomers, or not.

On the other hand, there's no point in arguing with the brainwashed faithful, regardless what ideology or religion they follow. I've heard the same whitewash baloney now used by capitalists, spewed forth by nazis and communists. Only the colour of the flag has changed.

"Faith solves all problems", doesn't it kiddies ?

Ed Deak.

Frank;
I know you like stats and like to try and get it right. The Health Care budget is up by $3B per year under the Liberals, hardly "lowering the quality.
And, this link will take you to the stats that show the 3 highest years of child deaths in government care in the past decade were 1996, 1997 and 1999.

http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/about_us/statistics.htm

Not sure how you make that out to be an "increase"......

NLN, you deem quality by how many dollars you spend and not on the outcomes? So the Feds increased health transfers to BC and some of that money was passed on and therefore health care is now better? Unfortunately you'd have a hard time trying to convince even many of the Liberal voters who have complained in newspapers and on radio or the net about deteriorating care across the province. In many cases its Liberal seats such as in Delta or the Interior that have complained the loudest.

if your point is that spending on health care in absolute dollars not adjusted for inflation or population increase is up, then sure, but that wasn't what I was arguing.

On child deaths the stats you put up, and I thank you for that by the way, you've always been the one guy I can count on to use stats and links to defend your position, its only talking about kids in gov't care etc.

The bigger problem is not confined to 14 kids or so as those stats show. Here's a link to Paul Willcock's column on the issue.

http://willcocks.blogspot.com/2005_11_13_willcocks_archive.html

Capitalism said:

Actually, this isn't true. While rich people are obviously investing more in the economy in absolute dollars than poor people, they are not investing "every dollar".

Rich people are much more likely than working class and middle class people to spend money on overseas holidays, purchase imported luxury goods such as foreign cars, and invest in foreign countries.

I contend that $1 spent by a working class person usually has more secondary effects on the regional economy than $1 spent by a rich person.

Schreck is focusing on the important point that, in absolute dollar terms, a small number of the richest British Columbians have benefited disproportionately from BC Lib tax cuts. Meanwhile, we have become the province with the highest poverty rate in Canada.

I should add that even from a purely economic view of government a high poverty rate is bad for growth, not good.

Poverty leads to: higher education costs with poorer outcomes (and thus reduced human capital), higher health care costs, higher crime rates (and insurance costs), reduced attractiveness of province as investment location, and a damaged social fabric which makes it more difficult for future generations to escape poverty.

It makes sense from every point of view to try to ensure that we're not abandoning people in our society as our economy grows and prospers. Every point of view, that is, except that of the richest and most selfish.

Oh yeah, I also thought I'd share this New York Times link.

It's an article about the so-called 'ghetto tax' paid by the poor in some US low-income urban areas. A study found a bunch of examples of lower-income people paying more for the same services, like car insurance, furniture and appliance purchases (because of rent-to-own deals), and car loans.

You have to get a membership, but it's free.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/19/us/19poor.html?_r=1&oref=login

Fine writing, Kano. And an excellent characterization.

Frank - spending on Health Care is up whether you adjust for inflation or not.

As I've said previously, governments get too much credit in good times and too much blame in bad times. IMHO, the politicians do very little to influence the day-to-day activity in Ministries as large as Health Care. While they make grand proclamations, the bureaucrats actually run the system.

I don't think there is enough meaningful discussion about more effective Health Care management. I'm open minded, I have no axe to grind except that I think the system has enough money. It needs to be spent more effectively.

This is no smoking gun, Frank. The government, and a few others it seems, failed to properly track and process the files of all the child deaths in BC over a two year period.

Again, hardly grounds for you to say

Record deficits bailed out by record transfer payments while raising the level of poverty, increasing child deaths and lowering the quality of health care.

Hey murdock... You said: "Fight? War? Rather than the 'children' of the 'rich' --> make the 'leaders' whom advocate fight and war do the fighting of the war".

Indeed this would be the next best thing to a peaceful, harmonious existence here on Mother Earth... Those that want war, may they war with themselves and eachother...QUIT drawing in the 'peaceful'.

Your right murdock, children are never reponsible for their parents wrongs, but man, it seem that this generation sure are paying the price for the last generation eh...??

Here-here to home schooling if it is possible murdock. "Stupidity Factories"...too funny and too true.

And yeah mur., I am on it when it comes to talking to young people about war and peace. My 20 and 23 year old sons promote peace and understand the reality of war... Neil Young says it well on his new CD "Living With War"...great gift for someone\everyone.

Truth is NOT an economy, but a reality to be exposed...

Peace brother,... Sorry 'bout the rant dude.

RTB

"I don't think there is enough meaningful discussion about more effective Health Care management. I'm open minded, I have no axe to grind except that I think the system has enough money. It needs to be spent more effectively."

Amen to that. I believe the two biggest obstacles are bureaucracy and rank-ism.

NLN,

Could be, I don't work in health care so its a case for me of accepting the word of those that do. I've often heard quotes myself to the effect that there is enough money but its not managed effectively. And I don't mean the Fraser Inst. who says that all the time, I mean from people in the system. So when it comes to outcomes it appears that even though the Libs have more Fed money to put into health care they haven't done a good job on the management of those dollars. Agree?

Yes, and rather than try to improve the system Campbell made it worse, agree?

Would you prefer:

Record deficits bailed out by record transfer payments while raising the level of poverty, increasingly ignoring child deaths to save a few bucks and mismanaging new health care dollars given to the province resulting in the closing of some hospitals and emergency wards and the increasing perception within communities that the quality of health care has diminished?

Don't have the time or the inclination. I am too busy making sure 50 odd people are working (not including sub-cotractors), paid, their taxes remitted, WCB paid up, GST and PST returns filled out, looking for new business and even more pressing:

New employees! I am looking for two labourers right now, Frank. $15/hour for the first three months, then $18 and profit sharing. If you are interested, Frank, I'll even buy your boots. Send me an e-mail address and your shoe size ane you can be working tomorrow!

Is it really? Show me a scource.

A Short Story

There are a half million dollars worth of cars in the driveway of this westside house. Years ago it would have been middle class but now it's upper. The mailman is walking up to the door to deliver the days mail. He is an evil union worker and parasite on society,but he bears in his hand a collection of GST cheques, one for every member of the houshold. The father isn't there to collect his cheque because he is off in the capitalistic paradise of Hong Kong making money for his family. The kids aren't there to collect theirs because they are off at UBC interacting with the kind of people they need to know in order to run the world for the benefeit of their peers. The Filipino nanny is getting ready to take the baby for a walk to the park, she's an evil parasite too. She takes the mail and notes the cheques for her employers. "None for me?" she asks. "None for me either", says the mailman. These bad people don't understand the benefeits of a good education and a good accountant. (oh, and no taxable income on record) the end

Palharry

For Kano, whom appears to have missed my point earlier:

10 people went out to dinner every friday and they always had the 'rich' fella at the table pay for 50% of the meal and the other 9 shared the remaining 50% (about 5.5% for those without calculators) all the time.

One day the restaurant decides to 'lower the meal price to the group' since they were such loyal customers and always came in every friday.

So the 1 fella who always paid 50% of the meal got a 50% break on the cost of the meal right?

But then the other nine started doing the math...

If the total bill used to be $250, but is now only $200, then the rich guy got to pay $25 less than he used to. But all the others now pay $2.78 less than they used to, how come HE - the rich guy gets such a BIG break!

The argument then follows this line...since the group is always there and the other nine have always paid and because they are there then all should benefit from the advantage equally and now they should get to pay $5 less each!

Tell me David, what happens when the 'rich' guy decides that he is being taken for a ride on this meal deal and decides not to come any more?

You, Kano, then state:

I should add that even from a purely economic view of government a high poverty rate is bad for growth, not good.

First, exactly as I pointed out with my allegorical story, those whom have been paying the most taxes, still are paying the most - just less of them in absolute dollar terms.

If you want a 'poll tax' that's fine tax everyone the same and call it done. Our system does not work this way, but to call the system 'progressive' then to apply absolute or single-payer methods to reductions is madness!

Your secondary point is not missed by any of the 'wealthy' - check out how many are really sticking their own children into the 'pubic' (not a spelling error) education system.

to murdoch:

No, we didn't miss your point. The rich guy who pays the most gets his accountant to write off his expense against his taxes and saves himself some money in the process which the others are to stupid to do. (or they don't have accountants?) It's all based on taxable income. I bet Mr. Pattison has a lower income than me but a bigger boat. ( really, I'm not jealous, I like my canoe)

Palharry

murdock, your example is absurb. Change restaurant to airport where only the rich guy can afford to fly anywhere but the other guys still have to pay and you're closer to the truth.

WM, you may not have the inclination to look in the archives but your memory can't be so bad as to have completely forgotten your own responses to my many answers.

Well said, Mr. Schreck. The poor got poorer while the rich... why, they got Mr. Campbell and his Liberals!

And Capitalism, thanks for the chuckle at the image of you tightening your belt. Was it terribly uncomfortable? Does it enhance your profile when you puff out your chest at the same time you suck in the old gut?

You really must take a look at the alter.net article on the high cost of being poor these days (see links list on the right). Perhaps it will be an eye opener for you? Somehow I doubt you'd have any qualms about living high off investments that make vast profits by stomping and preying on the poor -- paying $6/hr, payday loansharks, hire purchase outfits, Third World sweatshops, etc, etc. It must be nice to have Mr. Campbell & co to help you get fatter by milking the poor, but that belt tightening thing is going to get more and more difficult & uncomfortable for you, I'll reckon.

Christ I use to make that 20 years ago plus benifits when I got out of school and went to work for a union shop.

I would not even get out of bed for that paltry wage. Hell I would not even ket my kids work for that.....

Working Man:

What's your annual income?

WM:

http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/health/cancer/

It varies acccording to how well my company is doing.

Have a a look at the words profit sharing.

You think there is a high price for being poor, you should try being middle class.
They don't get any breaks. If they have children their cost of living is extremely high. But there is hope for some . My daughter got a cheque today for $300.00. This cheque represented the $100.00 per month for children under six to assist with the costs involved with raising children. The other kid is six, so nothing for her.
She also gets another $400.00 per month for some kind of child tax credit.
Because she cannot work, all this income goes to her.
If you make under 16 thousand a year you don't pay income tax, so she gets to keep all this $700.00 per month = $8,400.00 per year.
There is hope out there. Besides this she can enroll the children in athletic programs and deduct some of the fees from their income tax return.
My son in law, who is a journeyman tradesman, can seek out new employees, with the knowledge that his apprentices can deduct for tools and training.
Things aren't that bad. This new Government seems to be on the ball.

All people harping on the contractor should try telling a home owner that good trades people are worth 35 an hour — or even 15. I do work for 15 bucks and hour, and I have my own tools. Maybe I should sleep in tomorrow — oh, wait, my family isn't going to get me a union job for 20 bucks an hour.

You should try being rich. Trying to find a crooked accountant is much harder than it used to be. Sigh.

adamw, assuming you're looking for work, not already employed etc and live in the Vancouver-Abbottsford corridor maybe you should take WM up on his offer. He always says he's a great boss to work for and if you have the experience you say you do I'm sure he'd start you at $18. I've long had the feeling he's better in person than what he serves up on here on a regular basis.

Of course I used to think that about Cap too so I'm probably not a good judge

That's 'cause you're just way too nice Frank. I "almost" never get fooled by these wingnutters in disguise. :-) Like say He Who Blooms at Night. :-D lol.

It's a general problem with "the left" though. Way too cute and nice, and playing by the rulesish. When we're desparately in need of more hard asses.

Palharry, the restaurant example is a parable that directly compares to the situation in any of the progressive tax countries of the western world.

We choose to live here, and therefore we choose to be taxed with the methods of the society.

Just as the 10 persons at the dining table choose to eat at joes. So when Joe changes the price of things for that table of diners, it is for that table of diners to establish how they are going to distribute the 'winfall' savings in the dinner bill.

Just as we all here in BC have decided that we have a progressive tax system, then we have to accept that when a reduction comes the 'winfall' savings must all come progressively to everyone. Not by some new method dreamed of by David Schreck, nor Glenn Clark, nor Jimmy Pattison, nor Gordon Campbell. We have a system, we have agree to it before, we must continue to do so - or all agree to change it.

If we change it, then we had better be prepared to accept the consequences, such as having the larger payees walk away.

murdock, your example is absurb. Change restaurant to airport where only the rich guy can afford to fly anywhere but the other guys still have to pay and you're closer to the truth.

I cannot see the example, since to fly you have to have some need to do so.

If you are making the statement that living in the city is expensive, then leave the city: use the train, or your car and trade cost for time.

Your comparison cannot work since the diners are all paying together in a group, with one paying 50%. Your flyers are all paying a flat rate (perhaps some are getting early deals - or last minute seat sales). Therefore your comparison is closer to a head tax or poll tax.

Actually AdamW, you are making the point we on the left here have been attempting to get through thick skulls here throughout this discussion. In this new neoconservative economy, no one, ccertainly at the level of the working class (some amorphous middle class be fuked) is able to make or pay what is really needed for working people to actually make the incomes they need in order to live at a decent level anymore.(To big a share being creamed off the top going to an upper ruling class share. Look up the stats of income share and who's getting what. Do the math.)

That's the point. It's the really most important measure of what these neoconservative fuktards have done to our economy, across a broad swath of yes, true middle and working class strata, here in BC and across the country. Indeed all the advanced capitalist countries are evidencing similar stressors. (And that they have created a really dangerous evolving world as well, should be immediately obvious.)

I've raised four kids, and for a long time was the sole means of support for my old lady too. I know what it takes coming in to be able to afford a home, a means of transport that isn't bleeding you to death, and isn't having to be constantly wrenched to keep it running, to educate your kids properly, prepare for retirement, and have some modest comfort in one's life. And $15 per hour ain't never going to do it. If you are who you say you are, and I have some doubts, you might as well face up to that one right now.

You are always going to be chasing after and sucking the hind tit, my man. Your debts will never end, you'll have to be working lots and lots of overtime, with no life outside of work of your own, and your life is generally going to be a walk from home to work. Eat, drink, work, shit and sleep. And the old lady might just be inclined to do a lot of ragging on you as well, for all these same reasons.

Only there ain't anything for you to gain by blaming other working folks, or "the left", all of whom are increasingly being pushed down and back into this same kind of income level life. They and you is going to have to work out the issues and problems of organizing yourselves collectively, pushing back and kicking ruling class ass. Until this actually occurs across a broad swath of the working class, there ain't nowhere but down in this neoconservative economic and social reality, whether it's all dressed up as Liberal, Conservative, NDP or Green-jeans. (None of them are actually of a whole lot of use to the working class in this environment. The working class is going to have to find the wherewithal again to look after itself, AGAIN. As it used to do.)

You need to prepare for war. Might as well face up to it and suck it up.

Coyote, as I said to Right to Bear:

YOU, Coyote, are advocating war:

No more preparations Coyote, will you personally go out and put your life on the line for this 'class war' that you see?

Do you think it will have any lasting effect longer than the one in 1917?

Re the definition of capitalism.

Ah, I see.

So to the good Tyeers, capitalism isn't, as I thought, an economic system of transactions of goods and services, motivated by profit, using currency as, well, currency.

No, capitalism is whatever banks and corporations do.

Woe to the baker who incorporates, borrows, or hires an employee! She'll be up against the wall when the Revolution comes...

Do you think it will have any lasting effect longer than the one in 1917?

Murdock,

The class line at which we part company, eh Murdock? You going one way, me another. :-)

Everything in war, even class war, is contingent on particular circumstances and opportunity.

And I have been in this war, here going on beneath the surface of things, there breaking out into the open, for my entire life. And the good soldier, even an old one, never lets his enemies determine when, where or how he fights. :-) lol

All in good time, in the appropriate season for such things.

A good day to you.

Schreck seems to be doing his job, ie. perpetuation a class-war by scrounging statistics to try and prove that the world is ending because his team isn't running the show. I guess it's a living.

Even though the present BC Liberal government gave two tax cuts, including one specifically to the lower wage earners, this still is not enough for those like Schreck. He goes on about higher wage earners benefitting most. Well, of course Davie, you earn more you have to benefit more from an across-the-board tax cut! The only thing that would make him happy would be for earners of $25,000 to get a $100,000 tax benefit. Naw, he'd still be upset, that's how he makes his money, complaining.

Looking over the HRSDC statistics that he cites one can see that, in fact, over the past few years of Liberal government, British Columbia's poor are actually reducinging in number.

Coyote:

I edited some sentences from my first post; these stated that I earn more than most of my friends. Granted, I live in Victoria, a mecca for people seeking the winning combo of low wages and a high cost of living, but it's true — I'm not aware of many high-paying jobs for people without 5 -10 years experience, or a "family" connection.

Yes, the economy is booming, but the jobs seem to be in the sub-13$ an hour category, or dead-end technical positions.

Yammer sez. Re
"So to the good Tyeers, capitalism isn't, as I thought, an economic system of transactions of goods and services, motivated by profit, using currency as, well, currency. No, capitalism is whatever banks and corporations do."

You ought to know that a difference exists between simple commodity production and exchange - a system which has existed in varying degrees since say, the Mesolithic Era and capitalism. The former exists merely to produce and exchange necessary goods, the latter to create capital for investors. The former society tends to be egalitarian and horizontal in structure. The latter is highly inegalitarian and hierarchical. If you want to read in depth about this see: http://www.mutualist.org/

Yammer, I have a book on economic history in Medieval times, do you think they were capitalist?

Stock markets, banks, corporations as citizens and banks creating money through loans etc is what makes capitalism different from the systems where a Celt gave 3 Roman coins to a family in return for a wife. Your example assumes that every transaction in history was capitalism which means that even the old Soviet Union or North Korea or Taliban-controlled Afghanistan were capitalist. They weren't/aren't.

If you think otherwise explain to me why those states aren't capitalist.

murdock, the reason flying is a better metaphor than eating at a restaurant is because we don't all get the same rewards from our society. The homeless guy, the single mom, even the mortgaged homeowner etc simply do not eat at the same table as the millionaire.

You are exactly right of course, AdamW. I am in complete agreement with you.

A good day, brother. :-)

We need hard asses in leadership positions. Carole James has been a failure as poll numbers show. So I agree that being nice in politics is for losers. On the other hand, I'm not in political life, I'm just a guy at work in front of a computer so I don't have any reason to attack anybody on here because the commenting on the Tyee is just a form of entertainment for me.

So I agree with you that if I was an elected leader of the left I would be an even bigger failure than Carole James. No argument there.

On the other hand if civil war came I am a crack shot with an FN rifle so I might be able to help out that way.

Now, I really must have a shower, The Mrs likes me smothered in artificial manly scent; candyass soaps and cologne. (My personal favourite is Escape.)

She's such a kinky sleaze. Always was.

Which obviously puts you much younger than me Frank. My familiarity is mmore with the old Lee Enfield and Bren gun. Oh, and the Sten.

In the Navy I was in the engine and boiler rooms mostly. (And with my mechanical background with Cats, loaders, trucks and the like, I'd certainly be handy keeping them tanks and such running.)

Though I'd probably be, given the years, of better use and less harm to my own side in an armchair. :-D lol

Still, I keep in good shape-, for an old man, who highly motivated might even surprise himself.

A good day to ya's.

Though, thinking about it, the FN was just coming out as the new "NATO gunt", about the time I was still in "the service". And I'm damn sure I must have at least range fired it, and done some familiarization shit on it. I mean, really how different are "the principles" from one to the other, when you really come down to it.

You put it in here, sight it here, pull the trigger here, and it comes out there.

'THWACK!"

"My Gawd! I'm sorry.... I thought it was empty. I'm sure it was..."

Ehhh, and I'm going to have my homemade bow spitting out deadly shitt here-, once I get the final tillering done come winter.

The spirit of Tarzan lives yet amongst us. :-D lol

Kreegah Bundolo big guy...tarmangani bundolo...Tantor...Numa...bundolo

In the Navy I was in the engine and boiler rooms mostly.

Dad? Is that you?

:-)

(My dad was also in the RCN and has his veteran plates on his car)

Coyote - what did you think of the Bren? Did it torque to the side cuz of the strange magazine placement?

Now, you are asking me to reach way back into the mist of time, but my recollection is the Bren was top magazine loaded, and had the strange tendency on firing to actually want to walk forward on its pipod. (Didn't it also use the same cartridge as the Lee Enfield; a 3:03?)

The Sten, on the other hand, is the one that had a (left?) side mounted magazine that torqued/drew right I believe it was, upon firing, though it may have been left. It is likely the Sten that you are actually thinking of.

Ode to a Sten Gun
By Gunner. S.N. Teed

You wicked piece of vicious tin!
Call you a gun? Don't make me grin.
You're just a bloated piece of pipe.
You couldn't hit a hunk of tripe.
But when you're with me in the night,
I'll tell you pal, you're just alright!

Each day I wipe you free of dirt.
Your dratted corners tear my shirt.
I cuss at you and call you names,
You're much more trouble than my dames.
But boy, do I love to hear you yammer When you 're spitting lead in a business manner.

You conceited pile of salvage junk.
I think this prowess talk is bunk.
Yet if I want a wall of lead
Thrown at some Jerry's head
It is to you I raise my hat;
You're a damn good pal...
You silly gat!

pipod should be bipod of course. Though some also had a tripod, not? I'm sure, in fact.

Carole James leads one of the worst oppositions I have ever had the displeasure of observing, it is so pathetically awful that she is never on this site, let alone on TV. It is pretty obvious their tactics are not working (mostly personal attacks of the Premier) yet they keep beating the dead dog on it. The response on the public accounts was so pathetic it was unbelievable. All I ever see is Adrian Dix being a charicature of Adrian Dix. If there ever was a party that needed some new blood and ideas it is that one. I mean, you are never going to have a better chance to win than they did in 2005 yet they still blew it. Muffy the Poodle could have defeated Gordon Campbell in 2005 with a decent campaign yet they still hammered on two issues, the "left out" and "Satan Campbell," not realising that the "left out" don't vote and personal attacks never work. Lame and pathetic in the extreme and now they are letting the government have a free ride.

Like it or not, elections and governments in the eyes of the vast majority of voters is "what can you do for me?" Reality bites, eh?

And Frank, I also use this site as a form of entertainment. I find the obsolte ideaological rantings of geriatrics here absolutey priceless because it is so out of touch with what is happening on the streets real world.

Keep it comin'!

Working Man

Me too. It's fun. The days of of the loony left are fading. Thank god we've moved on.

Frank reasoned:

Ahh, that is where you are wrong.

We all do eat at the same table when it comes to government services, and the means for paying for them -> TAXES.

That is what this discussion is all about right?

So when it comes to 'income' taxes we are all set the same on the 'progressive' scale, so the diners metaphor does work.

The rich guy leaving the table is simply when the wealthy realize what a raw deal they are getting for the puny and meaningless services that are being provided at beyond monopolistic rates, get tired of it and leave.

The leaving part has been going on since the fall of the Berlin wall and is starting to accelerate now.

In the end this entire argument that Schreck is making is moot, since the real change that is happening is going on in the international arena. Nations are becoming more 'at par' with one another, within those borders there are greater spreads of weath, between the haves and have-nots, but the 'average' between the nations is getting closer.

We here in North America have always had a greater parity - due to the income redistribution systems that we invented after the Beverage Plan at the end of WWII. Now that system is coming apart, as it does the income disparity becomes more visible. In places where such disparity has always existed there will not be such a hew and cry towards class war, but this is a real threat to the stability of Canada, more than the cross border trade or tariff issues, more than the tax rates. It is our own madness of declaring a 'class-war' and making it loud enough that others hear of it that will drive the persons of substance whom may have an interest in helping our country develop whom will decide not to due to the instability that such a social upheval represents.

Understand this well, as the world can read what we say here....

murdock, nope they don't. many people in Canada have never used an airport, don't own a car etc.

We do not all get the same benefit from gov't services. Nor, to talk extremes, can the homeless person call up the prime minister for a little head to head.

Therefore your restaurant metaphor is so stretched from the reality of most people's lives that it is useless.

Then I'll offer you the same challenge I offered anyone else, where are these groups of wealthy who want to "walk away from the table" that is the nation-state? If you know of a website where they are clamouring for no more taxation and the end of gov't as you suggest, point me to it, I'd like to read what they have to say.

realisticman,

Really? I didn't know the left had ever been in power. You may want to discuss this with Working Man. He says the left has never been in power and never will. You say thank god the days of the left are coming to an end.

You guys may want to work that out so that you're on the same page and then get back to me.

Or I'll make it easy for you, one of you is a Liberal and the other is a Conservative.

It can be good can't it? Where else would I see in back to back postings one guy claiming the world is great and its because the left has never been in power followed by a guy saying the world has been in the crapper for decades and its all because of the left, and they agree with each other.

Its better entertainment than whipping my semitic slaves, eating babies and shooting the last tiger.

Please please keep it coming.

Looks like you've all left me to ponder the great issues alone. Transfer payments to Nova Scotia being a line item in the BC budget, the ancient Celts being capitalists, the fading of the left's power over Canada and beyond, binge drinking by Commerce students, the wealthy taking their money and leaving the planet and so on.

Well, it was a good day at the Tyee, I mucho enjoyed all the above. I don't know how you guys will top it tomorrow but somehow you guys always find a way.

Who knows, maybe the old righty crowd of Jim, sdgreen, Bongo, Ron Erwin, Jean Binette, Sir John et al will come back and provide me with even more laughs. I can dream can't I?

Really, really good Frank. What really shines here, around your very competent discussions with these wingnuts, is their living and thinking in some kind of sciefi social, political and economic fantasyland themselves.

They think they are so "with it", so "now", but really it is they who are living in some kind of fairyland, mythical marketplace past. Folks may be having difficulty catching up with this reality, but you're doing a beautiful job of drawing these assholes out and in your coup de graces, helping to make it clear.

You see Murdock, what you don't understand, because of wherever it is you come from social class-wise or whatever, is that it isn't we who create the reality of class war, it's you supporters and soldiers for Capital who do.

You bring the class war to us.

There are so many other things we would rather be doing, most of us. But at the same time, we can't have these privileged ruling class fuktards walking all over us all the time, stealing from our plates and disregarding our social and material needs all the fuking time.

You draw us into it yourselves. And it's working.

Me. I've been onto you fuks for a long time. I'm just waiting for everyone else to catch up. I've always been ready. It's why so much of my life has been lived on the edge.

To quote the great GW, "Bring it on." :-)

So there is a no class war coming. I find it hard to take this seriously. We are negatively effected by George Bush? How did you figure that out?
"Bring it on " was a comment. You can agree or disagree. That is the freedom we have.
Many don't have this freedom.

Given the ages of most of their posters it comes as no surprise.

Really? I have pointed out that in BC the left has held power 12 years since 1871 and 0 since 1867.

That is really something for you lefties to trumpet about!

Frank, give it a rest. Federal transfer payments have increased to every province, not just this one.

WM, I'd be happy to give it a rest but you but since you want to bring it up again...transfer payments to other provinces don't show up in the budgets of this one.

I'll break it down further. My daughter gets an allowance. Other parents give their kids allowances too. But the money other parents give to their kids doesn't show up as a line item in my daughter's budgeting.

Get it?

Federal transfers to other provinces have absolutely no bearing on whether this province's surplus came about as a result of federal transfers. None, nil, nada, zip, zilch, zero.

Why point that at me? I already know that the left has not held power in Canada at all and in BC for only 3 terms. You want to direct your comment to realisticman who thinks we have in fact been ruling the roost forever and finally our reign of terror is coming to an end.

Brace New World type stuff, you get the picture, give it a go, I'll watch you explain it to him.

He'll then tell you he thinks Libs are lefties and you can discuss that with him too.

If the "right" was able to define what the "left" meant, instead of using it jingoistically and by rote, they would see that, in fact, they are not all that "right" after all. Then again, maybe they DO see how far "unright" they are, and it scares the willies out of them.....and in the best manner of bullies everywhere, they bluster and swagger......

great idea RickW:

what if the lefties call you right and the righters call you left?

Did I ever say that, Frank? You are beating a dead horse. My point is that you cannot say "the only reason BC has a surplus is federal transfers" because it is simply a red herring. Of course transfers to other provinces do not show up on BC's books. What I am saying is your point is moot because every privince has seen its transfers increase. It is not only BC.

No amount of statistical quoting can convince me I was better off in 2001 than I am now. The bottom line shows me that. Have a look at provincial income tax and PST revenues are way up. Unemployment is at a 30 year low.

Besides, it is all hot air. The government has never polled better, the Premier never having seen better approval ratings. With Carole James at the helm of the NDP, another 2001 is a distinct posibility.

That's right, we do have the freedom. And it didn't drop down out of the sky or come to us as a freebie gift from capitalism. It was fought for and won by generations of the wage slave class, its men and women.

We fought for it. We won it. And I intend to use it.

Even tthough you neoconservative wingbats are attempting to take it all away from us again, in this new "hit the wall" period of capitalist development.

And its all relative Murdock, to where you are on that left to right spectrum line, and who's on your left and who's on your right at any given point. It's merely an intellectual device that helps to explain the relationship of one ideas/class set to another-, and I know you actually understand it very well.

And,

Then I'd say there's a high degree of probability you are in that crowded mushy middle, where all the status quo parties are doing a whole lot of pushing and shoving right now, each trying to claim the "mythical centre" one from the other, with left and right charges being hurled all around.

Where I am politically, there is no such confusion, at least currently. :-) Everyone knows just about exactly what I am, and where I am on the line of the class/ideas divide.

From here, you are definitely a "rightie"-, even if with some contradictions. No doubt about it.

Yes Coyote, the men and women of Canada have frequently given much to keep this country free. Also, the government reminds us that, "The war had one positive aspect: it finally enabled Canada to emerge from the Depression. Canada's factories hummed as war material rolled off the assembly lines." Thanks have to go too to the capitalists that owned and ran those factories. Then, after freedom was secured, "Canada was also deeply involved in the creation of several United Nations agencies and other international organizations. A Canadian delegation took part in the Bretton Woods conference in 1944, which established the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development."..."Canada emerged from the war immeasurably strengthened. Her economy was booming and more diversified than ever; in 1945, Canada even racked up its first trade surplus with the United States. Although many feared a new depression, that did not occur, and the nightmare of the 1930s seemed a long way away." Thanks again to capitalism and the industrious workers!

Sorta, it was your one line response to a post of mine.

Yes, I can. Because take away that federal cash and we're running large deficits.

You're mixing apples and oranges here. I'm not trying to say the economy is bad under the Libs. Again, in the past I have written post after post where I talk about commodities and interest rates just to use two examples, both of which are much better now than they were in 1998. My point is not to tell you you were better off when the repercussions of the Asian crisis hit BC, I can look for myself at BC Stats and see that's not true.

My point is that commodity prices, Bank of Canada interest rates and federal transfers are not the result of Gordon Campbell being a financial genius as you guys keep claiming. They're the result of out-of-province decisions.

So if you want to say, Geez Frank I'm much better off now than I was under the NDP, I won't argue with you. But if you say its because of Gordon Campbell's policies then I will. And if you want to argue that he is in fact a financial genius then it becomes incumbent upon you to show me when, where and how.

realisticman,

That was Keynesianism that got us out of the depression and moved us along through the 50's, 60 and 70's when monetarism became the new orthodoxy.

They're both "capitalist" but they're not the same. Keynes saved capitalism, monetarism, which is closer to the 19th century economics of industrialized Britain will lead us into crisis again.

In a way you are right, Frank but you could make the same claim about any province. All have seen huge increases in transfer payments from Ottawa.

You are also correct that many of the reasons the economy in BC is doing well are external but believe me, the paper and edicts coming from Victoria are waaaaaayyy less now than they were under Chairman Glenn. "Fair Wage" and "Sectoral Barganing" (to name just two examples) and long with Corporate Capital Tax (whose rules were constantly chaning to allow more gouging) are all history.

Frank, your insistence on using these terms to define federal transfers is deceptive and misleading. You can't calculate total transfers as the majority of the money is from federally taxed, provincially managed programs. The equilization transfer for the most recent years was $590M, the budget surplus was $3.1B.

Now the financail pages are telling us BC gas prices are heading for the toilet,( a big sourse of our surplus) a large court case if it goes against the government the surplus will be hard to keep. As for transer payments, since almost everyone alive can't quite fathom how they work, but everyone takes the money. I take part of that back , as the high rollers on this site seem to know all about such things and folks like Shreck who has a PHD in, I believe economics, to their minds knows nothing. Maybe the transfer payments will become very handy as our big day in the sun, 2010 is heading our way and we are down 125 millions so far and counting. and of course the softwood deal origionally supported by Gordo and his Forest minister is looking more like a no brainer every day things in the wood revenue may be down there a bit for sure.

DPL- another planet heard from. So, you say that our income may be going down? I suppose that you follow Schreck's logic - we have less money so let's spend more.

WM,

If someone was trying to claim the premier of Nova Scotia was an economic genius, I would.

Could be, I'm not arguing that point.

NLN,

No it isn't. Regardless of what program umbrella the cash arrives under its still transfer payments. You're trying to say that Martin's agreement with the provinces where he was going to "save healthcare for a generation" and transferred lots of cash to do so doesn't count. So if the Feds gave the provinces tax points you'd also say that doesn't count? C'mon. The numbers clearly show a huge increase in federal cash to BC if you compare now with 10 years ago. And regardless of what it says on the bucket of cash when the province gets it in goes into general revenue.

realisticman:

Quote from "The Avro Arrow Story" by Bil Zuk:

"The plant [that built the Lancaster bombers in WWII] hummed with approximately 8000 men and women steadily at work on three eight-hour shifts. Workers bustled with pride at theu achievements and a general spirit of camaraderie prevailed. Pay was modest, but at $1 an hour, it allowed most the luxury of a home and a car."
Gosh! A house AND a car on "a modest" $8/day! Today, the pundits tell us we need to be making about $600/day ($140,000/year) to get the same thing. How many "workers" you know make $75/hr.?

All I can tell you is that things are goin nut's right now.
I have been doing business in Victoria for 29 years. Most of the time it's been a miserable, grind it out existence, fighting it out in the trenches, trying to get an order.
Now, it's different. It is kind of like a blind squirrel finding nuts.
If you lose one, there is another one coming right around the bend.
Times are good right now.
Go out and pick a peach.

IAMC, my business is also flying. I thought I might get a break in February, no luck. Now I am booming again. Last month was my biggest payroll ever, my biggest Receiver General Remittance and my biggest GST payment. I paid my highest ever personal income tax in 2005. I suppose that is a bad thing for lefties, right?

Must be an accounting error, right Frank?

Oh, and your beating the horse on transfer payments is sheer nonsense and you know it.

Why is that?

You mean because no one cares? Sure, but its no skin off my nose either. I'm just here to help those that can't do math. And every day you guys prove you're helpless without me.

Coyote, I forgot to say thanks for your post!

Ok, and if you took out the impact of federal transfers 10 years ago we would have had significant defecits. I don't see how that one point determines whether the current government are good financial managers or not.

The federal gov't did reduce transfers and the gov't of the day did run deficits. So I'm not being hypothetical, it happened.

What would you suggest is a better barometer? Remember, we're looking at a provincial gov't, not a national one.

Frank - I'm still puzzled about why you have your teeth in the federal transfer issue. It happens, neither you nor I nor the provinceial premiers seems to have much influence over it.

Seems to me like the provincial budget is more complicated then the impact of one issue.

Why would I raise the issue? Look at the article and the initial comments following.

Its not like this was a discussion on genetics involving fruit flies and I brought up transders.

WEll, the article was about directed tax relief and was the Liberal approach fair for low wage earners.

It still strikes me that you're saying you can only balance your books cause you earn a paycheque.

Frankly, in the context of the article, without the federal repayment of our tax dollars there wouldn't have been any tax releif and a helluva lot less social spending.

Nope, I'm saying you can only balance your books because dad helped you out.

Hmm, I see, you want to believe transfer payments are "earned income"

Who's income is going down ? No evidence of this.
My daughter got her cheque from the Govt. of Canada this week.
$700.00 . As a mother of four, with her husband working, she get $800.00 per month. $400.00 as a tax credit, family allowance type scheme, and also $400.00 for three of her four children being under 6 years of age, thanks to Stephen Harper.
$9,600.00 per year, and it is not taxed, because her income is less than $16,000.00 per year.
It's enough to pay for private schooling.
Life is good in Canada.

Glad you like being at the front of the trough IAMC. Must be nice getting cheques from the gov't I guess.

Although I have to note that in your previous identity on the Tyee you vehemently argued with me for suggesting that my preferred way to cut taxes was to raise the basic personal exemption. Now that your name has changed to IAMC you seem to like it. Guess its not the suggestion you didn't like, you simply disagree with anything uttered by a lefty as a matter of policy?

I agree with Frank that personal exemption rate should be high.' That;s what my side has promoted, as well as the goodies my daughter is getting.
We want it all. And we will get it.
Cut taxes Frank, I will love you for it.

commentor: NoLeftNutterposted: 1 Day AgoDPL- another planet heard from. So, you say that our income may be going down? I suppose that you follow Schreck's logic - we have less money so let's spend more.
--------------
Your attempts of humour really arn't that funny. But it does occupy space on this article. And I didn't say my income was going down. and yes we are spending more money for just about anything we require. And as far as I know, I'm from the same planet you are from, but from some of your postings, maybe you are from some other one.

IAMC said

I am still in shock over reading this. Thanks, finally a little common ground eh?

Hey, that's great -- a BIRTH TAX! That's a wonderful way of thinking of it.

Me? I refused to pay the US Birth Tax, and three years to the day from May 3rd, 2006, I'll be applying for the right to vote in Canada (current birth tax, only about $11,000.)

IAMC
You think her "earnings" aren't taxed just because she makes less than $16,000 per annum?

Better check again my solipsistic friend. I think you'll find that her earnings (even if less than the 16 G you mention) will affect her value as a deduction to her husband - which will decrease the amount of transferable tax credits available to offset the tax payable on his own income. There is no free lunch and you can be sure Mr. Harper knows this. You may not be aware of it, but even to claim the tax credit Harper has boasted about granting for those who pay for monthly transit passes the taxpayer involved has to keep and be prepared to submit the receipts.

All the best deals, and the ones with the least accountability, go to his friends - among whom your daughter would be naive in the extreme to consider herself to be numbered.

The sad part of folks like you is that you don't even know what is in your own best interest and instead support the lies of the politicians you so naively continue to worship.