Fraser Institute must repent and ask forgiveness
- Thread starter BitWhys
- Start date
After I read the executive summary I went straight for it. Figured I'd wait for one of the pros to confirm the data source for CPP used the standard methods for estimating unfunded liability since it involved looking up another report. After that I'd know it was just the usual corporate lackey alarmism. and it is.
Yeah, you are.
I wasn't stepping around the accusations. In fact, I was taking the accusations fairly seriously.
Until the end when the uber-biased CUPE economist wrote that trite drivel you recommended.
In court?
lol
Is that so, Matlock Did you see the calculations from the Fraser Institute report? Did read the CUPE economist's math?Or are you just following what that uber-biased CUPE shrill was saying?
Maybe the CUPE guy is right, I don't know. But to accuse the Fraser Institute of political bias based on what CUPE says without analyzing the underlying methodology is the ultimate pot calling kettle black.
Oh my- poor stupid LIE-berals along with their civil service union Hog allies are trying to muddy the waters in desperate hope of keeping their Cdn gravy train running just a little longer!
They blame Fraser Institute for any and all harsh and uncomplimentary reports on how badly we are being ruined by the LIE-beral gravy train!
And isnt it really funny that a LIE-beral will mock you for repeating facts from sources they do not like- asking you "do you believe everything you read in the papers" as if you are some gormless twit? And then they turn around and DEMAND that you believe EVERYTHING they read in THEIR Hog friendly papers!
The LIE-berla hypocrisy us absolutely AMAZING!
A while back I put out a post: `re high taxes` which scorned Lie-beral business policy and some Lie-beral proved my point about how figures don’t lie....but LIARS figure! The LIE-beral said:
`` Corporate tax cuts are not a good way to create jobs``
But of course he has no alternative proposal for creating jobs except for spending money on infrastructure projects......Lord knows WE NEED roads repaired and subways built and water mains replaced.....but he utterly ignores the DEBT levels this country is working with.....we cannot AFFORD to replace aging infrastructure while also paying for Lie-beral hogs (and their army of friends) at the government trough......my entire argument is BASED on the ugly reality that the economy of Canada cannot supply enough money to keep infrastructure running smoothly while also giving Lie-beral hogs enough CASH to shut them up!
The Lie-beral also says
2. Business owners know tax cuts alone aren't a good reason to hire someone.
Sounds like out of context Lie-beral horse s++t to me- cherry picking through and quoting comments made by business people who are getting nice government handouts and thus don’t want to embarrass the hand that feeds them! Anybody remember the Durham Region headlines from last year when that Oshawa call centre with 500 employees suddenly closed down.....500 people out of work on one hours notice and the company migrated to ATLANTA GEORGIA and sucked up a PILE of US business grants....WHILE KEEPING two weeks pay from each of their 500 Cdn employees...and no doubt leaving Ontari-owe in the lurch for unpaid rent, hydro, assorted taxes and who knows what all they stuck in their pockets instead of paying fairly before they sneaked off in the night! Who says (other than a Lie-beral) that taxes don’t buy company attention?
What of the people I worked for who moved their software business to Arizona ( from Toronto) SPECIFICALLY because taxes were low, start up costs cheaper, no Ontari-owe health levy and less payroll taxes etc.....and if government imposed costs were not important then WHY is the McWynnty government offering major incentives to new companies to come to Ontari-owe to offset HIGH Ontari-owe costs? McWynnty offers incentives such as massive electricity rebates and assorted grants? If taxes play such a small part in business location choices then WHY is McWynnty government forgiving so many corporate costs in order to lure companies here? And is McWynnty being taken to the cleaners with the MARS real estate business deal-why did McWynnty get involved unless it was to reduce business costs and lure Mars to stay with extra profits?
The LIE-beral also said: 3. Our last "tax cut" for businesses will cost half a billion dollars and create only 800 jobs:
This is more Lie-beral bulls s++t.....lets ask the alternate question HOW MANY JOBS would be LOST if we didn`t reduce costs? Taxes represent over FIFTY PERCENT of costs for any Cdn citizen so it clearly has a major influence.....only a Lie-beral (doing that `figuring thing`) could dismiss such a MAJOR cost with a straight face! Lie-berals have NO true answer to this. Cutting costs cannot hurt.....unless you are a Lie-beral and resent anybody else having more control over money than you? And of course if govt has less revenue then the Hog gravy train will not be fully stocked with ENTITLEMENTS!
We should also quote the other guy who supported me by pointing out: To the Lie-beral knob who uses Europe as an example of how taxing businesses works so well. HELLO, EUROPE IS BROKE YOU `FCUKING` IDIOT.
I say; Well said!
And the final point: Conservative policy tends towards setting low government costs and making it clear these costs will remain in place for the long term thus encouraging long term investment by reliable companies committed to Canada...while Lie-berals offer grants and sneaky backroom deals (ORNGE, E-health, MARS, solar and wind power crap) that may be revoked when convenient for government and such temporary offers lure in fly by night operations liike the Oshawa call centre- the one that disappaered in the night- leaving a pile of unpaid bills- including TWO WEEKS PAY they failed to supply to their workers! Conservatives want to set up a business climate that will END the shameless ripoff that is Lie-beral sponsored corporate welfare being offered ONLY to friends of LIE-beral party!
And one has only to think of the grand LIE-beral green energy mess in which LIE-berals lured foreign companies here with massive grants in exchange for assorted benefits- including specified minimum inverstments and specified minimum hiring and job creation! And of course those companies were more interested in LIE-beral gravy than they were in our private business climate and failed to supply the specified minimums- so LIE-beeals charged them a SMALL PENALTY- and left billions of doallsr on the table for corporations- and we all know that a LIE-beeal would NEVER admit their mouldy green energy lan was a total disgrace- hence LIE-beral reluctance to punish corporations that fial to deliver!
And speaking of “fail to deliver” - do you suppose that Bombardier- the company that has received over a billion dollars in Cdn tax grants will ever deliver all the street cars and LRT machins that TTC has ordered? Or will they need another billion dollars in LIE-beral business “support” ?
LIE-berals do not want to admit that Cdns pay the highest aggregate total of taxes of any G-7 nation- but LIE-berals are delighted for the chance to pick through and select certain taxes that ARE lower so as to paint a FALSE PICTURE by selective editing!
The (LIE-beral) DEVIL truly is in the details!
What are you claiming Canada's version of the National Enquirer actually has credibility?
OH pity the poor LIE-berals! WE have heard ALL their tired propaganda and we have seen how foolish and muddled and grossly selfish it is! LIE-beral policy is demonstrated daily to be unworkable in the long term! LIE-berals are reduced tov sneering at the messenger as they have no other options remaining!
Here is an older article illustrating civil service union Hog greed. With some comments of my own in brackets):
Hubert Lacroix, the president of the CBC, recently placed the future of the Canada’s national public broadcaster on the electoral map with comments aimed at sparking a renewed debate on future funding models. Lacroix disputed claims that low ratings are to blame for the CBC’s financial struggles, instead pointing to the need to consider alternative fee schemes, including new levies on Internet providers or supplementary charges on television purchases.
(So greedy CBC Hogs want to pick the pockets of other businesses in order to salvage their own suddenly shaky place on the LIE-beral gravy train! Why should internet providers be made to pay because their viewers and users have chosen to TURN OFF CBC tv and radio?)
While disagreement over CBC funding is as old as the broadcaster itself, the more uncomfortable discussion for the CBC is its coverage of the current election campaign — particularly its approach to national debates and political party advertising — which raises troubling questions about its relevance in the current media environment.
(Meaning the 2015 federal election that brought Our idiot Boy Justin to power.)
Most would agree that the CBC features an excellent group of reporters and boasts insightful analysts for its panel discussions. However, rather than working to make itself an invaluable resource for the election, the CBC has been unnecessarily restrictive in its broadcasting choices and in the use of its content.
The most puzzling decision has been its refusal to broadcast debates hosted by other organizations. The CBC may be disappointed with the debate approach adopted by the political parties in this campaign, but that does not change the sense that if the national public broadcaster does not air programs in the national public interest, it calls into question the very need for a public broadcaster. Indeed, the CBC seems to have cut its nose off to spite its face by doing its best to prove its critics right.
(CBC is being typically Hoggish in refusing to accept debate programing that it did not produce and does not approve of! CBC recognizes- as all Hogs do- that LIE-beral victory is also a win for CBC- thus CBC DOES NOT WANT any critical examination of LIE-beral policy- for fear of discovering the ROT at its heart!)
The CBC’s odd coverage choices are not limited to the missing debates. Its use of video clips from the debates has also been unnecessarily restrictive. For example, before analyzing the recent Munk debates on the “At Issue” panel, host Peter Mansbridge warned viewers that “we are limited with the excerpts with the amount we are allowed to show.” A similar warning preceded the discussion at other debates.
Yet the reality is that there was no need to be restrictive in the use of video clips. Canadian copyright law permits the use of copyrighted works without permission as part of the fair dealing clause. News reporting is one of the enumerated purposes and even expanded clips would easily qualify under a fair dealing analysis.
(So CBC lied about its policy of deliberately limiting public debate!)
All news organizations are free to use as much of the video from debates as necessary to highlight key moments and positions of each leader. To suggest that the law creates significant limits on the ability to show debate clips is inaccurate.
In fact, the CBC’s misreading of the law is not limited to the use of clips within its news broadcasts.
Just prior to the election call, it asked YouTube and Facebook to remove a Conservative campaign advertisement that used clips from a CBC interview with Liberal leader Justin Trudeau. To support its take down claim, the CBC argued that “no one – no individual candidate or political party, and no government, corporation or NGO – may re-use our creative and copyrighted property without our permission. This includes our brands, our talent and our content.”
That too is wrong.
(OH? MORE CBC censorship and deliberate miss-representation of law and facts?)
The law features important limitations on the rights of all copyright holders and all media organizations regularly rely on them in their reporting. The limits of copyright extend to campaign commercials and there is little that the CBC- or anyone else- can do about it.
With its rejection of the national debates, its limited use of debate clips and its attempts to limit re-use of its broadcast content, Canada’s national public broadcaster has marginalized itself during the election campaign at the very time that it could be demonstrating its relevance to the national political coverage.
(Worse- CBC has been caught deliberately trying to stack voter choice!)
Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law.
(Geist has done us a favour by illustrating the ugly bias that CBC is trying to hide!)
Irrelevant shit? HAHAHAHAHA!!!!! That is the only response you LIE-berals have to a careful and detailed analysis of CBC bigotry and slanted news in favour of your beloved idiot Boy Justin?
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! The fortunes of LIE-berals are withering like snow in hell!
Here is an article detailing how willingly LIE-beral politicians will sell us out to radical Muslims in exchange for votes. With some comments of my own in brackets):
18 councillors shamefully MIA on Islamophobia vote
By Sue-Ann Levy. Published: February 3, 2018. Updated: February 3, 2018 2:15 PM EST
Filed Under: Toronto SUN/ News/ Toronto & GTA
Demonstrators protesting against Islamophobia and for free speech clashed at City Hall in Toronto on Saturday, March 4, 2017. Craig Robertson/Toronto Sun/Postmedia Network
If there’s anything I find more shameful at City Hall than the self-serving pet agendas of many councillors, it’s their habit of deliberately walking away from a controversial vote.
That’s what appears to have happened Thursday evening when the anti-Islamaphobia motion crafted by council’s newest social justice warrior, Neethan Shan, was approved by a mere 24 of 45 councillors — with a disgraceful 18 missing in action.
(And this is how Sharia Law will one day be imposed in Canada- by a cabal of shameless bigots standing unopposed by craven cowards who are hiding their heads in the sand! They will know its wrong but will lack the courage to act!)
The motion, which proposes declaring Jan. 29 a Day of Remembrance and Action on Islamophobia, came up for a vote at 6:37 p.m. — right after the 30-minute dinner break.
(The cowards among us dared to make an Islamophobia “day of action” - but set it to start AFTER the October 2018 municipal election- to cover their backsides from possible immediate voter backlash! The “Islamophobia day” will then have 4 years to be forgiven- so the cowards hope- before another election!)
That motion very selectively commemorates the tragic shooting one year ago at the Islamic Cultural Centre in Quebec City — ignoring of course many other acts of hate that have occurred towards so many others, including the LGBTQ and Jewish communities.
In fact, according to Stats Canada, hate crimes against Muslims were way down in 2016 but there was a spike in the same crimes against the Canadian Jewish community- never let the facts get in the way of a good social agenda.
I would not be the least bit surprised if Shan — who ran eight times politically- and mostly lost- before acquiring his council seat a year ago — pushed the vote at that hour knowing full well few people would be paying attention- and indeed I was on my way to a fundraiser until a reader brought the vote to my attention.
It’s ridiculous enough that 24 council sheep- the mayor included- would be spineless enough to back such a divisive and offensive motion — which by the way has nothing to do with the job of a councillor. Still, when has the idea of treading into waters far beyond their mandate ever stopped this mostly leftist council?
(Any group of Toronto politicians willing to reward a pack of snarling bigots such as Black Lives Matter with an award for promoting racial harmony, are capable of any sort of madness in hope of buying votes and clinging to power at any price!)
But the fact that 18 councillors were MIA is beyond cowardly. We don’t pay them $111,985 to take time away from council unless they’re ill- as was Jaye Robinson. We also don’t pay or elect them to duck votes.
It is interesting to note that councillors Jon Burnside, John Campbell, Paula Fletcher, Kristyn Wong-Tam and James Pasternak were all seen immediately after on video asking questions about the next items — The Vision Zero Road Safety Plan, Parks Ambassadors and Inclusionary Zoning.
So it’s clear they were there.
Here’s a message to those who were MIA: If you can’t stomach the hard, uncomfortable decisions perhaps you should step aside in the next election to make way for someone who can.
ANTI-ISLAMOPHOBIA VOTE
Yes supporters: Paul Ainslie, Maria Augimeri, Ana Bailao, Shelley Carroll, Joe Cressy, Vince Crisanti, Janet Davis, Glenn De Baeremaeker, Justin Di Ciano, Sarah Doucette, John Filion, Jim Hart, Jim Karygiannis, Norm Kelly, Mike Layton, Josh Matlow, Mary-Margaret McMahon, Joe Mihevc, Frances Nunziata, Gord Perks, Anthony Perruzza, Neethan Shan, JOHN TORY, Lucy Troisi
No opposition: Michael Ford, Stephen Holyday, Cesar Palacio
MIA: Jon Burnside, John Campbell, Christin Carmichael Greb, Josh Colle, Gary Crawford, Frank Di Giorgio, Paula Fletcher, Mary Fragedakis, Mark Grimes, Michelle Holland, Chin Lee, Giorgio Mammoliti, Denzil Minnan-Wong, James Pasternak, Jaye Robinson, David Shiner, Michael Thompson, Kristyn Wong-Tam.
Slevy at postmedia.
(Frankly I think it is the one sided bigotry of LIE-beral politicians who are bringing out the lunatic fringe and encouraging violence! To be dismissed as a “systemic bigot” and an “Islamophobe” merely because of opposition to scatter brained and damaging LIE-beral policy implemented by cowards whose greed is bankrupting the country is an infuriating insult! And the reality is that our economy is so bad for many that furious rage is a frequent reaction to begin with!)