TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- The Belinda Bounce
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

^^^ some of us care about other people too though

I know what you mean though. I guess I figure that I'm *relatively* immune to whatever any gov't decides, so I'm ok with other people benefiting a bit more than me in any proposed cuts.

I'd honestly rather see a budget where the "greater good" and the less fortunate are the main focal points (i.e. getting people off of welfare, EI, etc).

I'm all for helping the less fortunate, but I'm not for helping the less motivated, and until we come up with an airtight system for differentiating between the two, I won't support any initiative that claims to benefit the former group.

In reality, the size of the "less fortunate" group and the amount of money needed to get them back on their feet is 1% of what we pay, if that. The war on poverty started over 40 years ago and yet somehow, the more we spend on it, the more poverty seems to be winning.

The best possible thing for the "greater good", proven time and time again, is the freedom to make one's own choices. Choices about what education to pursue, where to work, what to do with one's income, and how and to what extent one should care for the "less fortunate". It may not be a perfect system, but it's the best that's ever been seen in practice.

Also, unless you make a pile of money, you're not immune to the effects of income tax. People in this country may be accustomed to it but that does not make them immune. Think "cost of government day" - we work for over 8 months of the year in Canada just to cover the tax burden imposed on us. You want to care for the poor? How about the working poor!

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT income tax cuts benefit everyone and they can be tailored more to the people who need it most (ie. reduce it for lower income brackets). ... Income tax cuts put money back into an employee's pocket *right away*...it doesn't require them to spend in order to save.

...which is why income tax cuts will be part of the Conservative platform (along with the GST cut, dividend tax cut, tax credits, etc.). --> a balanced approach

quote:

Originally posted by AwakenedAddict Seriously Jay, I wouldn't have expected such an ignorant and outrageous claim from you. But now I'm prepared. Let the stupidity flow!

I suggest you seek alternate news sources. This was a massive story 6 weeks ago, yet you don't seem to be aware of it.


White males need not apply

Internal e-mail reveals hiring ban at Public Works

Tom Blackwell
National Post
Saturday, November 19, 2005

A major federal department has temporarily banned the hiring of able-bodied white men in an unusual move critics say could spark a backlash against the very disadvantaged groups it is meant to help.

Managers in the Public Works department must hire only visible minorities, women, aboriginals and the disabled, except with written permission from their superiors, David Marshall, the deputy minister, ordered in an e-mail circulated yesterday.

The policy, designed to address shortfalls in the department's employment-equity goals, will last at least until the end of next March and be reviewed then, the memo said.

"As executives and managers, our role includes ensuring that the public service is representative," Mr. Marshall said in the memo. "This involves providing direction and leadership by example, and demonstrating a firm commitment to an inclusive workplace."

Pierre Teotonio, a department spokesman, said last night the order was prompted in part by a precipitous drop in the number of employees hired from the designated groups this year. The proportion of female, disabled, aboriginal and non-white new hires fell from one in eight this March to only one in 20 by September, he said. The federal benchmark just for the hiring of visible minorities is one in five.

Still, a veteran labour lawyer said yesterday he had never heard of an edict actually barring the recruitment of large numbers of people. And even a federal civil service union that strongly supports employment equity questioned the wisdom of the policy.

"I think it's creating a possible backlash against equity groups and then it's not helping these people to get into government," said Nycole Turmel, president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

"It's even creating more frustration or anger from the workforce as well as from the population ... I am quite sure the people they hire will be competent and good employees, but that is not the point here. They will be seen as targets, and then people will question their hiring, and I don't think it will help them."

She also charged that many of those hired over the next few months may well be laid off once the department reaches its targets by the end of the fiscal year in March.

Ms. Turmel said a more effective strategy would be simply to encourage managers to consider members of the designated groups, and provide help to those people to find work in the federal government.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms does allow some discrimination by government to aid groups it identifies as being disadvantaged, said Robb Macpherson, a labour lawyer with the firm McCarthy Tetrault.

However, that usually means implementing equity programs that promote the hiring of qualified people from those groups. The Public Works order appears to take the idea a step further, he said. "They are in effect cutting off a significant portion of the workforce from these opportunities," Mr. Macpherson said. "It sounds like a pretty extreme measure that they're contemplating."

Federal statistics for 2003-04 show that the representation of women, aboriginal people and the disabled in the government was actually greater than in the Canadian workforce as a whole. But the percentage of visible minorities -- 7.8% -- was less than the 10.4% in the overall workforce.

Mr. Teotonio said the move was taken as part of the department's efforts under the six-year-old "Embracing Change" program, designed to bring more members of visible minorities into the federal government.

The percentage of visible minorities and the three other designated groups hired by Public Works over the past year dropped in part because there was relatively little recruitment of any kind, he said.

"All persons recruited externally must be from designated groups (persons who are visible minorities, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and women), except for cases having received ADM/CEO written approval," the memo said.

"This measure will be in force until March 31, 2006, at which time we will re-assess our progress."

quote:

Originally posted by AwakenedAddict For that to be possible the percentage increase in consumption would have to equal to the decrease in taxes. For tax-generated revenue to remain the same after the 2% proposed GST tax, actual consumption spending would have to increase by 40%. HARDLY LIKELY AT ALL --> moot point #1 on Jay's part i said that its not likely but there is no doubt that it would help to pay for itself if comsumption increases. The tax cuts are aimed at lower/middle income families. However, in order to be fair, upper-income citizens were also given tax breaks, to a lesser degree. Moot point #2 on Jay's part they sure were but as i said, the people WITH NO INCOME SUCH AS THOSE ON ASSISTANCE OF ANY SORT WONT BENEFIT FROM AN ICOME TAX CUT I don't vote for Paul Martin, I vote for the candidate in my riding. There is no direct election of the PM, why are you acting like there is? Ohh that's right, again with the powers of persuation. Feed people enough shit, and they might begin to like it after a while. Moot point #3 on Jay's part. indirectly we vote for the prime minister. We have the option of voting for the party (prime minister) or the candidate depending on which point of view we wish to see it from.

quote:

Originally posted by AwakenedAddict Seriously Jay, I wouldn't have expected such an ignorant and outrageous claim from you. But now I'm prepared. Let the stupidity flow!

do you know any white guys who have applied for a government job lately?

Well i do...

people are talking about an income tax cut like its a yearly windfall.

Well guess what? You will see it little by little on each paycheque just as you would with the GST. Except with the GST youd actually notice it moreso because you can relate the numbers a little easier than an income tax column on your biweekly paycheque. You will also notice it almost EVERY TIME you buy something.

^^^ you're subscribing to perception over reality? So it's better to consciously notice a bit of savings vs. *actually receiving* more savings?

That strikes me as rather silly.

The gov't ought to simply put as much money as prudently possible back into people's pockets and leave the responsibility of managing and "noticing" that money to the people themselves.


Also, for the poor or lower class, isn't the bulk of their expenses likely to be shelter costs such as rent? Shaving 2% off the GST doesn't really affect that expense, does it?

quote:

Originally posted by ShadoWolf I suggest you seek alternate news sources. This was a massive story 6 weeks ago, yet you don't seem to be aware of it. White males need not apply Internal e-mail reveals hiring ban at Public Works Tom Blackwell National Post Saturday, November 19, 2005

1) The National Post hardly qualifies as an alternative news source. I prefer reality separated from rhetoric, thank you.
2) What makes this story so "massive" again? It's JUST SO MASSIVE, it's not on the agenda 4 weeks later....
3) The article states nothing about "state sponsored reacism", however, it does mention the declining diversity of the government's newly hired employees (1 in 20, instead of 1 in 5 being an ethnic minority) and the method by which they are rectifying this situation (hiring qualified members of non-white ethnic groups). This hardly amounts to state sponsored racism. Considering the fact that white people are targeted to comprise 80% of the total Public Works' workforce anyhow. However, please continue to make sensationalist claims that play on the emotions of the electorate, despite the fact that this type of reporting is despiseable, not to mention deliberately misleading.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I'm all for helping the less fortunate, but I'm not for helping the less motivated, and until we come up with an airtight system for differentiating between the two, I won't support any initiative that claims to benefit the former group.

I used to think along the same vein. However, I figure that the social cost of not helping the less motivated is greater than the fiscal cost of helping them. If you don't help people at all, they will turn to drugs and alcohol and probably will end up living the street. The urban landscape will swell with the ranks of the poor and sick and degrade the quality of living in Canada's cities. I'd rather feed and clothe these people and provide them shelter, and get them off the street and healthy.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut You want to care for the poor? How about the working poor!

Hahah, yes. But I think our definitions of "working poor" are slightly dissimilar.

quote:

Originally posted by AwakenedAddict 1) The National Post hardly qualifies as an alternative news source. I prefer reality separated from rhetoric, thank you. 2) What makes this story so "massive" again? It's JUST SO MASSIVE, it's not on the agenda 4 weeks later.... 3) The article states nothing about "state sponsored reacism", however, it does mention the declining diversity of the government's newly hired employees (1 in 20, instead of 1 in 5 being an ethnic minority) and the method by which they are rectifying this situation (hiring qualified members of non-white ethnic groups). This hardly amounts to state sponsored racism. Considering the fact that white people are targeted to comprise 80% of the total Public Works' workforce anyhow. However, please continue to make sensationalist claims that play on the emotions of the electorate, despite the fact that this type of reporting is despiseable, not to mention deliberately misleading.

Banning the hiring of white men IS state sponsored racism. Last time i checked, discriminating against someone due to their race was the definition of racism.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Banning the hiring of white men IS state sponsored racism. Last time i checked, discriminating against someone due to their race was the definition of racism.

A temporary halt in the hiring of white people does not constitute racism. Especially when they already account for 4 out of every 5 jobs in Public Works (as stated by YOUR article, try placing the facts into context, it helps sometimes).

Ohh no! Save the white people, we are soooo discriminated against. Being white I feel like such a foreigner in Canada

quote:

Originally posted by AwakenedAddict A temporary halt in the hiring of white people does not constitute racism. Especially when they already account for 4 out of every 5 jobs in Public Works (as stated by YOUR article, try placing the facts into context, it helps sometimes). Ohh no! Save the white people, we are soooo discriminated against. Being white I feel like such a foreigner in Canada

racism

� noun 1 the belief that there are characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to each race. 2 discrimination against or antagonism towards other races.

� DERIVATIVES racist noun & adjective.


NOT hiring white people because they are white is discrimination against a race. I dont care what the reasoning is, 2 wrongs dont make a right. And the fact that most people in the workforce are white IS PROBABLY BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN CANADA ARE WHITE.

I have zero tolerence for racism no matter how much it's justified.

If you cant get there on merit then you shouldnt be there at all.

So, who's Lois Brown? What did she ever do for Aurora-Newmarket?

quote:

Lois' volunteer efforts in the community have evolved over the years. She has initiated a number of organizations in the area including a networking group for young mothers and continues to volunteer at Southlake Village Seniors residence. Currently, she is the accompanist for the York Regional Police Male Chorus, a good will endeavour of the Police Force that has performed in Canada and in tours in the United Kingdom. Lois has always used her musical talents in her local church and at festivals, both as a soloist and as an accompanist to vocal and instrumental performers

and what she didnt do is screw over the voters of this riding by switching parties at the most opportune time for herself.

Id like to give her an opportunity to prove that she can do a good job. Because Belinda obviously cant be trusted. And if Lois Brown screws up, out she goes next time.

Thats how politics is SUPPOSED to work

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 I have zero tolerence for racism no matter how much it's justified.

I will admit that the Public Works policy is discriminatory, however it is HARDLY racist. This issue is sensationalized to get the common white man to vote conservative. This issue has been synthesized by the Conservative party to suit its needs (blind the electorate to the true nature of the conservative party, ie: tax cuts for the rich, increasing burdens on the poor and sick).

When you view the world in black and white (absolutes), everything seems clearer, but in doing so you miss the whole picture.

If you want to talk about racism in Canada today, why don't you focus on systemic issues like the following, that affect a lot more Canadians:

quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Canada More recently in Canada More recently, Canada has been perceived as practicing systemic, institutionalized racism by allowing employers to require Canadian-based job experience in a potential employee. This puts landed immigrants at a clear disadvantage, and can often result in highly educated people working for much lower pay than their Canadian educated counterparts, or even struggling with a minimum wage job. This unequal footing has left many new immigrants feeling disillusioned with the entire immigration process, and segregated from Canadian culture as a whole. Both as an expression of protest, and as a means of warning potential immigrants still overseas, online groups have formed to share information and stories of victimization. [2], [3] Such experiences have led to ongoing jokes that "Toronto has the world's highest qualified taxi drivers". However, racism in Canada has not only been connected to immigration. French Canadians, including Acadians, Qu�b�cois and Franco-ontarians, and aboriginals have purportedly also been subject to discriminatory treatment in Canada. However, having French recognised as an official language was seen as a step towards multiculturalism.

It's true that there are many professional bodies that are discriminatory when it comes to hiring foreign trained professionals. And i have long argued that these regulatory bodies such as the ontario college of physicians and surgeons and the ontario college of teachers do something about this. In fact the conservatives have promised to force them to change their policies and institute ways of evaluating foreign degrees easier and putting foreign professionals to work in canada.

Our current government has done none of this nor has promised to do anything about it. All they do is pick the easier solution which is to discriminate against white people since they are the easiest target.

There is a fundemental difference though when it comes to definition. The professional bodies restrict ALL foreign trained professionals no matter what race or nationality they are. If a Canadian born white man trained as a doctor in india he'd still be rejected. That is not racism (although its still wrong on many levels.)

Actually declaring that a person cannot be hired based on race no matter what his professional training may happen to be IS racism in it's purest form.

quote:

Originally posted by AwakenedAddict (blind the electorate to the true nature of the conservative party, ie: tax cuts for the rich, increasing burdens on the poor and sick).

The Lieberal Party is the party of the rich and of large corporations in Canada (the Rosedale/Mont Royal elite). Paul Martin is a multi-millionaire, but he did it using daddy's connections.

The CPC is the party of the middle class and small business/entrepreneurs.

The NDP is the party of the poor and working classes (most unions, etc.).

..and this has to do with Belinda bouncing because....

quote:

Originally posted by Abercrombie ..and this has to do with Belinda bouncing because....

After I've had a few lemonvodkas, I could offer Belinda something to bounce on.

Alright then... now we're on topic.

Now, which one of these two Newmarket-Aurora candidates would you bounce?

or ?

But seriously...

As a resident of Aurora, someone PLEASE why I should vote for Lois Brown. I don't want to hear why I shouldn't vote for Belinda, because that's all I hear.

quote:

Originally posted by Abercrombie As a resident of Aurora, someone PLEASE why I should vote for Lois Brown. I don't want to hear why I shouldn't vote for Belinda, because that's all I hear.

yeah really, why isn't there more talk about why people should vote for someone rather than the bash trains driving on and on about why we shouldn't vote for someone?

quote:

Originally posted by AwakenedAddict A temporary halt in the hiring of white people does not constitute racism. Especially when they already account for 4 out of every 5 jobs in Public Works (as stated by YOUR article, try placing the facts into context, it helps sometimes). Ohh no! Save the white people, we are soooo discriminated against. Being white I feel like such a foreigner in Canada

LOL absolute bullshit, if they dont hire 1 person cause hes white its racism and bullshit political correctness...no minority should have a job that a white is more qualified for just cause hes a minority, and vice versa. This goes on in so many industries, theres a quota, its ridiculous.

I'm disappointed in you Aron, I had no idea you were a card-carrying member of the Loony Left.

You keep referring to any information which doesn't support your position as "rhetoric", "synthesized", "sensationalized", etc. That's not a valid argument - if you have some sort of evidence that these issues haven't been reported on correctly then by all means, present it to us. But don't just start with the assumption that the status quo is morally right and go to any lengths necessary (including fallacious ad-hominem arguments) to defend it.

And "social costs?" Give me a break. We had much less of a problem with drug and alcohol abuse before the welfare state started eating up half the economy. People turn to this due to their own free will, but if we can pinpoint any real causes for that, they'd be:
a) The overwhelming tax burden that makes it impossible for most people to live comfortably on their own;
b) State-sponsored racism (AA) that bashes the idea into people's heads that they're inferior and can never succeed; and
c) The deterioration of family values, the nature of which is too "controversial" to start debating with an entire forum full of bleeding-heart liberals.

Newsflash: poor people in Canada would have been considered well-off 50 years. Many if not most people on the streets abusing drugs and alcohol came from well-off families and are either mentally ill or just made very poor choices in life. Don't look only at the results (i.e. the "poor") - look at the circumstances which caused those results (i.e. the fact that they dropped out of school in grade 10 and never even tried to hold up an honest job or develop any marketable skills).

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I'm disappointed in you Aron, I had no idea you were a card-carrying member of the Loony Left.

I belive that the taxpayers' money should be used with discretion. That's not so say that I don't believe that redistributive policy funded by tax revenue is a valid policy tool. I'm not advocating anything as loony as communism, however I do believe in equal opportunity for ALL Canadians, regardless of race/ethnicity. Those who aren't white are often marginalized in Western culture, it's kinda sad.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Who the hell cares about benefitting the poor? I care about what benefits me, and that's all anybody should care about.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I'm all for helping the less fortunate.

Obviously our views of social responsibility differ.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut You keep referring to any information which doesn't support your position as "rhetoric", "synthesized", "sensationalized", etc. That's not a valid argument - if you have some sort of evidence that these issues haven't been reported on correctly then by all means, present it to us. But don't just start with the assumption that the status quo is morally right and go to any lengths necessary (including fallacious ad-hominem arguments) to defend it.

I don't believe that the status quo is socially right. I vote liberal because they represent the set of policy which I think will benefit Canada the most. I don't vote for them because they are incumbent! I do realize that the Liberal Party was totally in the wrong regarding the Sponsorship Scandal. However, I will not (in my view) harm Canada by voting in an inferior party. The Sponsorship scandal was the problem of individual Liberal Party members, not the Party as a whole.

quote:

sen�sa�tion�al�ize (sĕn-sā'shə-nə-līz') To cast and present in a manner intended to arouse strong interest, especially through inclusion of exaggerated or lurid details

Was used in reference to Jay's claim that the Public Works' policy of maintaining a workforce that is representative of the Canadian population was tantamount to racism. The use of this word was not only appropriate, but apt. Do you really think that this "fact" would arouse the same interest without the use of the word "racism"? Hardly. The word was only used in order to persuade the forum to think that White people are actually disadvantaged vis-a-vis ethnic minorities.

"Rhetoric" was used to describe the National Post's news coverage, a fact which had no bearing on this debate.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut And "social costs?" Give me a break. Newsflash: poor people in Canada would have been considered well-off 50 years. Many if not most people on the streets abusing drugs and alcohol came from well-off families and are either mentally ill or just made very poor choices in life. Don't look only at the results (i.e. the "poor") - look at the circumstances which caused those results (i.e. the fact that they dropped out of school in grade 10 and never even tried to hold up an honest job or develop any marketable skills).

Well this again obviously comes down to different ideological viewpoints and cannot be argued effectively in this forum. Suffice to say however, I would advocate that the proposed tax cut not be put into effect and the current revenue surplus to be used in full to help the poor (gov't subsidized housing, drug treatment programs, education). None of the money should be refunded. Seriously do you actually need the extra couple hundred bucks or even a thousand? I don't even have $1000 in my bank account right now. And I think using the money to help the poor would be much better for Canada, than if I had a couple new pieces of clothing or a new video game system, etc. Furthermore, by giving the poor aid it would remove them from the streets, and prevent them from getting there in the first place. This is not to say that all the money spent in this manner will have a direct and measureable effect on the quality of life. However, increased social spending in the abovementioned areas would definately promote equality of opportunity in Canada.

And yes, some poor people are the product of bad life-choices and drug abuse. However, class-reproduction and stratification are problems which are the product of the institutions under which a citizen lives.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.