|
Tories slammed for court program cut (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| malek |
jayx1 so following your logic, we should abolish the human right commissions because they also do assume the legal fees for someone who has been victim of human rights violation (sex, color, age, etc)???
It does not make sense.
If you're a minority, there's no way you can afford a legal battle with the federal unless they do provide the money to level your chances. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
If you're a minority, there's no way you can afford a legal battle with the federal unless they do provide the money to level your chances. |
aaahhh because all minorities are poor and have no recourse to legal funds.... :rolleyes: (note the sarcasm) |
|
|
| malek |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
aaahhh because all minorities are poor and have no recourse to legal funds.... :rolleyes: (note the sarcasm) |
no, because you know that the govt has deep pockets and will spend at will.
So why not take some of that money and fund the plaintiff and shorten the whole case? |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Why should the GOVERNMENT fund the ability of groups to sue the GOVERNMENT? Its pure lunacy! If they have a problem then they should raise capital for their cause like anyone else would. Whats next? asking the tobacco companies to finance the people who are suing them? |
becuase the gov't REPRESENTS THE PEOPLE. It exists, because we want it to exist and it exists to SERVE the people. We give up unlimited freedoms for other protections.
How can one person, or a small group, take on the gov't when the gov't has virtually unlimited access to the capital required to fend off challenges (since WE, as taxpayers, end up footing the gov't bill).
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
As for the cuts when there is a 13 billion surplus. Keep in mind that $13 B surplus means they have 13 billion too much of our money. At the same time, this shouldnt give a government carte blanche to waste money. The government should still only spend on what is needed regardless of a surplus. They just handed that surpluss over to pay the debt which is THE BEST POSSIBLE USE THEY COULD EVER HAVE FOR IT.
Why? Because interest payments for the debt is the single biggest expense for the government. $1 OUT OF EVERY $3 GOES TO THE INTEREST PAYMENTS FOR THE DEBT. Remember thats just the interest payment, so the debt doesnt even go down. Just imagine how much money wed have to spend on social programmes in the future if we focussed on paying of the debt today? But thats something left wing people dont seem to understand. They just want to spend spend spend until we are bankrupt. |
LOL...I've said the *exact* same thing before...but I don't ever recall you supporting debt pay down with a surplus (but prove me wrong, if I'm wrong).
when it has been proposed/considered by the Liberals or here that we should pay down the debt with the surplus, did you not cry foul, stating that the gov't should return the money they 'stole' back to the people?
I've always supported debt pay down as a priority...a priority over GST cuts and even income tax cuts for middle and high income earners. |
|
|
| MarkT |
btw...the reason I pointed to the end of the article is because the VP of the Bar Assoc. stated that the CCP has NOT just been used by small, special interest groups.
Everyone is entitled to equality under the law and that should, IMHO, include cases where the defendent is the gov't.
Not providing any funding is basically preventing people from challenging the status quo...and when that status quo has historically favoured 'able-bodied white Christian conservative men', it means people of a differing philosophy don't have the means the challenge that status quo, even when our Charter provides that we do have equality under the law.
i.e. it's equal on paper, but not in reality.
Harper does indeed appear to be throwing a bone to his right-wing party faithful. Take away, or severly restrict, the ability of your foes to challenge you and you've won before the battle starts, right? |
|
|
| malek |
as for debt repayment, what a lack of vision by the conservatives!!! its as bad as those 400 ralphie dollars!!
the country severly needs some infrastructure overhaul, how about returning the money to the provinces to restablish the 93 cuts. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
as for debt repayment, what a lack of vision by the conservatives!!! its as bad as those 400 ralphie dollars!!
the country severly needs some infrastructure overhaul, how about returning the money to the provinces to restablish the 93 cuts. |
Lack of vision? WHAT? Thats the best long term vision any government could ever have. Think about what we could do with the ONE THIRD OF ALL TAX DOLLARS being spent just to pay interest on the debt? Just imagine how much infrastructure we could afford?
And for the record ive always supported a combination of modest tax cuts and solid debt reduction. Both will get the economy moving. One in the short term and the other in the long term. And malek, i bet if you recieved the 400 klein bucks youd be loving it. Why do people complain when they take away AND complain when they give back?
As for the court challenges cut. I dont buy that most people fighting the government are poor and disadvantaged. The old stereotype that miniorities are piss poor and cant afford to feed themselves doesnt fly anymore.
some of the richest people i know are either gay, asian or jewish for example.
And for those who need it, we already have the human rights commission. Which i might add is very discriminatory against white people who have legitimate claims! Why should the government finance lawyers for special interest groups? Its insane! |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| For the record, I am against the court program cut, however, if the 'cause' is 'just' enough, there are others (charities, rights groups, etc) with plenty of money to fund court challenges that they can turn to, esp. if it's controversial enough and draws enough media attention. |
|
|
| malek |
massive debt payments is useless and is the easiest way to shed away those kinds of monies... thus why the lack of vision.
say, intrest rates is 5%, if they built a highway/train/whatever to alleviate congestion problem in Toronto, enhance productivity (and GDP), wouldn't that be better?
How about we add to the equation, that salaries and materials paid to build these, will remain for the most part in Canada and that the kicker is the taxation money coming back. 1 billion project, doesn't really cost 1 billion, its less. Why don't we spend the money on needed infrastructures instead of having to borrow the money later when we'll have no choice to build them. Its a good time for Canada right now, but it won't last forever.
Plus you're saying intrested saved could pay alot of stuff later, you're right! Canada already paid 86 billions on its debt, take away that 13 billion, and you have 73 billion already paid, at 5% intrest rates, those savings account to 3.65B$ a year which is a good chunk of that 13 billion. Why aren't those 3.65B$ spent on necessary things then?? it buys alot of subway stations and highway each year.
Finally, most of the intrest saved will be paid to Canadians which are the main debt holders, those intrest revenues are already taxed at 50%......and go back to the govt hehe. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
malek, id hate to see your personal finances.
So your logic is that we keep throwing away 1/3 of all our money. Use the money we get by raising taxes to spend on salaries for people who will then get taxed to pay for the debt that we have to throw 1/3 away on?
The logic escapes me. Why not get rid of the debt now and that way in the future we will have a lot of money to play with? Alberta did it and look at them now! Even if the oil dries up tomorrow they are way ahead of the rest of us.
Its been proven time and time again that you cannot government spend your way into a better economy and it actually has a negative impact later on. The time has come NOW to pay for the errant ways of the 70s to mid 90s when governments spent like it was an unlimited resource. And that means we all have to sacrifice a little to do so.
But, the payoffs will be extraordinary at the end |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
...
As for the court challenges cut. I dont buy that most people fighting the government are poor and disadvantaged. The old stereotype that miniorities are piss poor and cant afford to feed themselves doesnt fly anymore.
some of the richest people i know are either gay, asian or jewish for example.
... |
LMAO
that ranks up there as one of the dumbest things you've ever said on this board.
while this isn't about the 'poor and disadvantaged' fighting the gov't (as the quote from the Bar Assoc. VP indicats), let's even follow your logic, or lack thereof...
so if the status quo has historically been of a white, consevative, Christian flavour...meaning that such people need do nothing but enjoy their current rights and freedoms...anyone challenging that status quo, in order to seek the same benefites, they should have to cough up all the money themselves to realize that equal treatment?
doesn't that strike you as somewhat unrealistic? |
|
|
|
|
