2007 Budget

[djmelbatoast]

I seem to remember WilliamS/Smoothshredder was defending the Neo-cons a while back.

[Birdy]

Yah, William and I buddied up together in defending another side to the argument. I was referring to entire threads.

Oh well.. whatevers.

[ollie]

ollie, i'm done. my post in here wasn't meant to cause an argument and obviously has been taken slightly out of context.

Way to avoid the argument. Again.

If you weren't interested in causing an argument then why did you originally say:

I'm interested to say what the naysayers will have to say about it though.

Only to reply with this after only TWO people offered MILD criticism:

i'm inclined to believe the naysayers naysaying is just more of the same old shell game.

Don't be coy Birdy!

[Birdy]

I'd venture to say i'm one of the least COY people here OLLIE.

If we were arguing over the BUDGET than I wouldn't have a problem sitting here and getting into it with you. For some reason you're into giving my words new meaning today (meaning that is completely far-fetched and definitely not my intention) and i'm soooooo sorry if i'm not cool with repeatedly telling you "that's not what i meant".

What else would you like me to say?

geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh.

[SmoothedShredder]

"Neo-con"... geez... no wonder I find it useless to post in this forum. Sorry guys and gals, it's just too many threads end up as 'black and white', and get too personal, no constructive/co-operative/progressive thought; rather it seems most threads end, kicking and screaming: defeatest; impossibilist; good vs. evil points of view.

That being said, I feel much more comfortable in the Cavern, and I don't get nailed for grammer as much; or worse yet, supporting a JayDawg show as when I first joined the board, so I don't think my contributions to this forum have come to naught.

Also there got a time where over 50% of the posts in here were religous in nature... that bores me.

[Birdy]

hahah!! I overlooked the neo-con thing!!

i feel like i've wasted soooooooo many words.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

"Neo-con" is so 90s. "Neo-liberal" is where the right shifted since then, with Tony Blair and all those folks. I don't get what you guys are talking about.

[timouse]

hahah!! I overlooked the neo-con thing!!

i feel like i've wasted soooooooo many words.

look here.

and please keep up the lively debate.

[Birdy]

aww! thanks timouse. that's nice.

[d_rawk]

Birdy, I'll be sad if you go. You frustrate me to tears, sometimes, I'll be honest about that. But that's probably a good thing.

You removed part of your post and replaced it with "er, nothing" .. surprised to see it, because I thought it was a good point that you were making and it did give me pause.

This thread has gone really far in a strange direction since I last read it. Wowza.

Budget: I don't hate it at all. It's a lot of the type of things I would have hoped to see from the Liberals. A bit disorienting to see it coming from Flaherty and co., but I understand the political reasons why they might want to float something like this out at the moment. That's fine. Politics are politics. The budget doesn't suck.

Also there got a time where over 50% of the posts in here were religous in nature... that bores me.

Point taken. I'd still be happy to see a religion forum, even if it were only DEM, KanadaKev, djmelbatoast and I participating. The topics are tied closely enough to my mind that they are a better fit here than in the Cavern, but I am sympathetic to the fact that a lot (most?) couldn't be less interested one way or the other. Not sure what to do with all that. Sometimems there is just more action happening in the one realm than the other ...

Glad to see you back around.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

[last digression from me in this thread which ought to be about the budget]

May contrary opinions forever be posted and argued, please!

Also there got a time where over 50% of the posts in here were religous in nature... that bores me.

:blush: - admission of a mea culpa - though I've been trying to keep those in a limited couple of threads recently. I think it's an occupational hazard of the Religious Studies thing: eventually all the distinctions break down and everything becomes religious (e.g. as "ultimate concern").

I've been having to get into this in my classes now, the distinctions between facts (givens that you can point to and anyone with good working senses and basic human rationality can see for themselves), opinions (positions on controversial topics against which you can imagine any reasonable person being able to produce intelligible counterarguments), and preferences (inclinations, likes, distastes, etc., which are non-negotiable). Politics and religion alike are all about the latter two, meaning either there's a chance a person can be persuaded to accept those contrary arguments, or there's no chance of that because they "just like it that way, dammit." So any discussion here (or arguably anywhere) is bound to teeter between those two. Fwiw, I know I'd like to stay rooted in the world of "opinion"; I'm certainly glad whenever someone points out to me that I've fallen into just going on about some preference.

In other words, my sense is that when feelings of getting entrenched and frustrated come up, we're getting caught up in what we just happen to like (which may be taking us into the world of identity, and away from open, progressive argument, which is threatening to identity).

Sorry if I'm being abstract; I'm trying to figure that out myself.

Maybe we need a Methodology thread.

[/last digression from me in this thread which ought to be about the budget]

[Birdy]

Birdy, I'll be sad if you go. You frustrate me to tears, sometimes, I'll be honest about that. But that's probably a good thing.

You removed part of your post and replaced it with "er, nothing" .. surprised to see it, because I thought it was a good point that you were making and it did give me pause.

er.... thanks drawk! I took out that part because after rereading the article, I realized I had taken it out of context. Dion was saying that the spending the Conservatives are about to embark on wouldn't accomplish much. I disagree with him, but it made my response pretty much null and void.

[SmoothedShredder]

Hey I don't mind that people talk about religon... it's just not really a debate for me... I've already marginalized them in my reality... and it's much better than having all this talk in the cavern where threads would be like: Local Band Plays at 11:00... America Sucks... So who likes Bob Dylan?... Kill Conservatives...

My point is more... people don't want to talk about politics so much around here anymore. And it's the same old pundits arguing each side which makes me feel that what's being said isn't particularly attrative to a new audience.

The worst for me, and it's been confirmed with a solid use of language in this thread, is when someone comes in with ideas a little right of centre... we get accused of being Neo-Cons... fuck just cause you don't want to spend money you don't have doesn't mean you want to drop bombs on every corner of the globe. I'm tired of the prejudice that exists in this forum.

[SevenSeasJim]

Hey I don't mind that people talk about religon... it's just not really a debate for me... I've already marginalized them in my reality... and it's much better than having all this talk in the cavern where threads would be like: Local Band Plays at 11:00... America Sucks... So who likes Bob Dylan?... Kill Conservatives...

My point is more... people don't want to talk about politics so much around here anymore. And it's the same old pundits arguing each side which makes me feel that what's being said isn't particularly attrative to a new audience.

The worst for me, and it's been confirmed with a solid use of language in this thread, is when someone comes in with ideas a little right of centre... we get accused of being Neo-Cons... fuck just cause you don't want to spend money you don't have doesn't mean you want to drop bombs on every corner of the globe. I'm tired of the prejudice that exists in this forum.

Blame it on the Refs. :wink:

[ollie]

The worst for me, and it's been confirmed with a solid use of language in this thread, is when someone comes in with ideas a little right of centre... we get accused of being Neo-Cons... fuck just cause you don't want to spend money you don't have doesn't mean you want to drop bombs on every corner of the globe. I'm tired of the prejudice that exists in this forum.

I hate the way Neo-Con gets thrown around this forum because it's a loaded word that only serves to derail discussion.

Can you please ignore the individuals that continually use the word and just reply to the other ideas in the thread? Because I'm tired of being painted with the broad brush of prejudice as well.

P.S. Sorry for taking this thread off topic myself.

[djmelbatoast]

I seem to remember WilliamS/Smoothshredder was defending the Neo-cons a while back.

Alright William I said the above. I didn't call you a Neo-Con I said that you were defending their policies. My post wasn't meant to insult anyone, rather to make Birdy feel that she isn't the only one in here with right leaning views that is always being picked on.

That being said this budget frustrates me. Most of the spending is to programs just like ones this government has recently cut. Out and out bribes to fairly well off suburbanites who are breeding and to Quebec.

Plus their 'green' nature over the last month I think is complete bullshit. In the two elections prior to this either Greenpeace or the Sierra Club put out a survey to each of the political parties asking about their stances on different enviromental issues and the policies they would put in place to address said problems. The they rated them. The Conservatives didn't even fill out the form.

This budget to me looks like the first step to a majority government, which scares the hell out of me.

[SmoothedShredder]

Fair point Ollie... I apologize.

This forum definately needs some balance though if it is ever going to be useful again at something other than comforting fear mongers... unless everyone is content with it being a Haper Hate fest... which I have a feeling people (the vast majority of participants in this forum) would rather have. Cause he's not evil.. and has done more good things for this country in a year than the other party did in it's 12 years in office. Atleast that's what the masses and the momentum suggest at this point.

Majority? It's not even required at this point. The cons are imposing their will even in a minority.

Sure it's easy to run a surplus when you don't do anything as a governemnt, and you top up your coffers by robbing the provinces (Liberals)... lets see what a fisically responsible party is going to do with less than a $1 Billion dollar surplus... the major thing real conservatives are watching at this point after the budget (and probably the only way Harper will lose support if he proves he can't handle this upcoming high wire act). Do what you can and say, spend what you have, and don't spend what you don't have. Common sense.

I wouldn't be surprised if Harper plays out a full term of 4 years before the other parties finally decide to 'bring em down'... Fack Harper is bating Dion around like a pinata!

It's great with a minority, cause it forced the conservatives to play the spending card early... that's what they should really be doing... spending, and spending responsibly.

[Booche]

I am no longer afraid.

[Birdy]

The worst for me, and it's been confirmed with a solid use of language in this thread, is when someone comes in with ideas a little right of centre... we get accused of being Neo-Cons... fuÇk just cause you don't want to spend money you don't have doesn't mean you want to drop bombs on every corner of the globe. I'm tired of the prejudice that exists in this forum.

Well put!

I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out the political leanings of this forum. When I said yesterday "there's sooooooo much of one opinion here", i truly meant it. Not in a way that makes others opinions invalid, not in a way that condescends, rather in a way that simply acknowledges that the majority of contributers to this forum would find themselves on the left side of the political spectrum. Not surprising at all, as this is jambands.ca and not offending at all, as such is life. This isn't prejudice, it's a sociological observation. I'm not pointing fingers, naming names, just simply stating the obvious, however tedious that may be.

What I do find annoying is being labelled as "the right". People can have political thought without adapting to the model of the political spectrum. William said it best in the quote above and that should be read and reread and reread again.

I too am sorry for taking budget talk off topic. I blame Ann Coulter and Michael Moore!

[nibbler]

[color:green]I read this on another website examining the budget's green car rebate incentive. Good intentions? Or strategic smoke and mirrors?:

-----------------------------------------------------

Specifically I am looking at the Honda Civic Hybrid. Now the cost of the Hybrid (with no additional options) is as follows:

31492.50 total (includes taxes; freight; NO OPTIONS; etc)

-2000.00 from the feds (straight up VEI rebate )

-2000.00 from the prov (sales tax rebate)

------------

$27492.50 plus financing costs etc; now I like the savings but the car is still out of my league right now.

I was looking at fuel efficiency; the civic hybrid gets 4.5L/100km; I did the math and my 1995 Toyota Tercel (with 360,00km on it) gets 6.5L/100km (approx).

Hyrbrid more efficient on gas by far (2.0L/100 Km) using 69.2% of the gas that my Tercel uses to go the same distance. So I can assume to re-coop some of the cost of the car in savings on gas (albeit much less then someone who switches from a ‘guzzler’)

Note how fuel efficient my car is compared to other vehicles and it’s a 1995; the ‘Green Levy’ only starts at fuel inefficiencies over 13L/100km. That brings me to my point which is that the part of the budget that outlines the strategy to get 'older cars' off the road misses the mark.

I would rather see my '95 Toyota Tercel on the road then say a 2007 Ford Crown Vic.

Crown Vic gets 12.6L/100km – which is less fuel efficient then my Tercel; and would not be subject to the Green Levy despite the fact that it uses over twice the amount of gasoline to go the same distance.

Then there is the question of emissions (I used www.terrapass.com to determine them) I punched in my car and driving habits and a Crown Vic with the same driving pattern and the emission results were as follows:

1995 Toyota Tercel 8158 lbs of CO2/year

2007 Crown Vic 13969 lbs of CO2/year

The difference of 5811 lbs/year; I emit 58.5% of the emissions that the dude with the brand new Crown Vic does ...

So why not offer me an incentive for keeping my more fuel efficient lower emitting vehicle? I would even take a tax break on its upkeep.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

the majority of contributers to this forum would find themselves on the left side of the political spectrum. Not surprising at all, as this is jambands.ca and not offending at all, as such is life. This isn't prejudice, it's a sociological observation. I'm not pointing fingers, naming names, just simply stating the obvious, however tedious that may be.

What I do find annoying is being labelled as "the right". People can have political thought without adapting to the model of the political spectrum.

Here I was thinking people were trying to resist labels like this.

I think people read into those terms, Left and Right, more of their own feelings about what they should entail than what they typically do entail. I've reached the point where I'm not going to identify myself as either, because I've seen so many of the stupidities involved in each camp. And Birdy, I thought you resisted being clustered into the Right because of your libertarianism, which is something germane to the left wing of it all, inasmuch as it is decidedly progressive.

I'm honestly curious to hear why you think that a designation like jambands.ca would necessarily entail that people be clustered on the "left". It's not a facetious question, either. Do you see it as a "property is theft" kind of thing? An "all hippies are Maoists" kind of thing?

I'm forced to return to the point, at least in my own mind, that identify is fuckery.

[StaggerLee]

[color:green]I read this on another website examining the budget's green car rebate incentive. Good intentions? Or strategic smoke and mirrors?:

I thought these incentives looked like a pretty good idea at first, but the more I read about them the more cynical I become. As you point out, the rebates/penalties are applied only to brand new vehicles, which may encourage people to buy new rather than used cars. Reduce, reuse, recycle?

While a rebate incentive may encourage some folks to buy fuel efficient cars, I'm unconvinced that the penalties for gas guzzlers will deter many folks who have their heart set on a Hummer. An extra couple grand isn't much to someone who can afford to buy and gas up a $50-80,000 vehicle that burns more than 13L/100km.

According to this article, the penalties and incentives combined will affect only 5% of new vehicles. That sucks. Why not impose California-style efficiency and emissions standards? Or, dare I say it, increase gasoline taxes? These are measures that would affect every car and driver on the road, and might lead to some significant changes in drivers' attitudes and emissions.

[Hux]

....but that might not lead to a Conservative Majority which is the overwhelming focus of this Budget - the next election.