Kate is at a dog show today and said to post this;
Apparently The Economist is holding a poll as to whether you want socialism or capitalism. Of course it only seems leftist faux intellectuals have taken part and normal, everyday Joe’s have not been consulted. That may be changed.
Standard south of the border economic analysis found here.
Ok, so let’s assume the world carries on as it is and the lyrics of the old Ten Years After song “I’d Love to Change the World” are finally realized.
Tax the rich
Feed the poor
Until there are no
Rich no more
Now what?
I understand the the underlying logic is largely lost on the socialist mind – or lack thereof but when we’re all in the same boat who is going to pay for the things that we take for granted like medical care and the blasphemous social safety net? Who will supply the funds to bail out industries and pension plans – let alone the entitlement oriented twits that feed off the government teat?
Joe:
Glad we agree. A ‘State Mandate’? Marx would be proud.
Are our armed forces a private company? Firefighters? Police? RCMP? No? Who pays for them? Oh yeah, everyone.
Let me repeat, Socialist Capitalism. Get used to it, it’s not going anywhere. It leans left or right at times, but there is nothing that can replace it.
Herb, step back from the keyboard and THINK when was there ever not police, fire, and public education services not provided under capitalism in the last hundred years here in the US or Canada?
Take all of the time you need. You will not be given a letter grade.
Herb: I’m a Christian not a Marxist and as such I recognize that Jesus said render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. St Paul also wrote in Romans 13: 1 – 7 Let everyone put himself under the authority of the higher powers, because there is no power which is not of God, and all powers are ordered by God. For which reason everyone who puts himself against the authority puts himself against the order of God: and those who are against it will get punishment for themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear to the good work but to the evil. If you would have no fear of the authority, do good and you will have praise; For he is the servant of God to you for good. But if you do evil, have fear; for the sword is not in his hand for nothing: he is God’s servant, making God’s punishment come on the evil-doer. So put yourselves under the authority, not for fear of wrath, but because you have the knowledge of what is right. For the same reason, make payment of taxes; because the authority is God’s servant, to take care of such things at all times. Give to all what is their right: taxes to him whose they are, payment to him whose right it is, fear to whom fear, honour to whom honour is to be given.
Now I realize that your history horizon isn’t much farther than breakfast this morning and that your understanding of government isn’t much broader than a primary school text book but please try get with the program.
Penny:
My point exactly. There has never been a pure form of capitalism practiced here (Laissez-faire capitalism). Ever.
It is a socialist form of capitalism, a “capitalist mixed economy”. The state provides some services, and intervenes in the market when required.
I know it’s hard to stomach, but it’s the truth. Run for office on the platform of putting in place pure capitalism. I’m sure you’d get plenty of votes. I mean, when a person’s house is on fire, they should provide proof of payment before the fire fighters put it out. Am I right or what?
Joe:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I will try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Americans. Can you clarify?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?
Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
Penny, good response above 8:57pm, but don’t get sucked into herb’s straw man argument.
For the likes of herb et al, the straw man is always the same: conservatives cannot support taxpayer-funded services like the military police, fire, etc. Nobody has said that, here or anyplace else. In fact, it’s the conservatives among us who tend to demand MORE money spent on the military, and the social liberals who want to cut military spending.
It’s the herbs of the world that give a false dichotomy: either raise taxes, or reduce the military, or fire/police forces. Nothing else in-between; how many times did cretin say “if you don’t want to pay more taxes, then you must support reduced healthcare”. Pure bait & switch.
The herbs out there don’t talk about better ways of spending on socially-required services. I don’t hear herb debating why government workers get better pay & benefits than their private sector counterparts; that is just plain wrong, and anybody who needs an explanation of why isn’t worth the effort to debate.
Conservatives rage that there are better ways to spend the tax dollars on these services. Public education? Yeah, that’s a great success; our international test scores reflect how well that’s faring. But introduce topics like merit pay, or the ability to fire teachers for poor performance, or – horrors – education tax credits (or even vouchers) & choice of schools, and liberals (unionists, most of them) recoil in horror.
Healthcare? Another great government enterprise. Try getting admitted to emerg in Ontario sometime, unless you’ve arterial bleeding. Or try to find a specialist, if you need one. Under McGuinty’s rule, Ontarions are paying hundreds or thousands more a year in combined taxes and “premiums”, and have seen reduced services, longer wait times, more difficulties in seeing doctors. Oh, but the healthcare workers get raises, though, so the unions are happy. Again – mention some form of competitive system, any kind of privatization, and the liberals/unions scream in faux outrage.
The solution to herb & pals to the government shortcomings is always the same: spend more. Poor education? Obviously the teachers aren’t making enough ($94K for top Ontario teachers, based on tenure & not merit). Wait times too long at emerg? Better hire more analysts to “study” the problem, or give the unionized floor sweepers a raise. Problems with law enforcement? Make sure the cops get their raises, because that’s Job 1.
And before anybody calls me out for not sympathizing with the plight of cops, stow it. Yes, a cop’s job is potentially hazardous, and they occasionally die in the line of duty. But other workers die at work, too, and nobody is clamoring for them to make the kind of wages the police do. And what are you getting for your cash? The RCMP… er, “Tasers-R-Us”? The OPP who stand around & watch newsies and townspeople get beat up in caledonia? I’ll tell you the job on toronto streets where more employees die every year than the police, for a pittance in wages, and that’s cab drivers. And those poor devils couldn’t even petition toronto city hall to put in mandatory passenger barriers, because it didn’t have the “right” image for toronto taxis.
It’s high time “public” employees quit getting fat off the public teat, especially in times when the producers who pay their wages aren’t getting the nice 3% yearly increases the public staff are. Or maybe we should all quit our jobs in the private sector & go work for the government, eh? That’d make the socialists happy, because then the government would be sure to “fairly” control everyone’s income, and we’d have harmony across the land.
Don’t know for certain who’d pay for it, but – hey! Look at how well those eastern bloc countries did behind the iron curtain, you know, with no private sector and everyone “working” for the government. Nothing but success, there.
mhb
Herb did I ever say this was God’s law? No I was using it to show you that the state and the state’s mandate predated Marx by several millenia. Too bad you were too thick to pick up on that point. However if you really want to sacrifice a bull I’m sure there is some free enterpriser here who would sell you one. I personally don’t sacrifice animals since the supreme sacrifice has already been made. Oh and by the way that self same ultimate sacrifice took away all the legal requirements of the old testament replacing it with a New Nature. Would you like one since the old one you have is looking a little moth bitten at the moment. I know Someone who will give you one should you ask.
MHB:
Are we talking politics or economic systems? I don’t think I mentioned any politics what-so-ever. If I did, could you point it out?
If we are not practicing a ‘Capitalist Mixed Economy’, what are we practicing?
And talk about straw men … labeling me a ‘social liberal’? How do you even know what way I lean politically? I’m actually a conservative … just one who knows the difference between capitalism, and what we practice in Canada.
Well, well, well
I see that my last comment has sparked off another succession of barf-ups and ad hominems, with the usual suspects weighing in calling me a “loser” and a “whiner”. Happy Easter, guys!
Again I congratulate you on your tireless crusade to have the rich keep their wealth and die with fortunes in the bank that they couldn’t spend in ten lifetimes, while children die of starvation and families go homeless. Bravo, guys!
It takes a lot of courage to stand up for the wealthy, privileged and powerful, and you should all be commended!
Now I realize that none of you have the capacity to think for yourselves and your only ability is to parrot the prevailing philosophy of our time, which has been fed to you by your corporate overlords for their protection; I understand that.
You should note, though, that Warren Buffet, in the article I referenced earlier disagrees: “Those who are in the luckiest one percent of humanity owe it to humanity to think of the other ninety-nine percent,” he said.
(What an ingrate! He doesn’t appreciate your strenuous efforts on his behalf, guys!)
There’s also a fellow named Jesus Christ, who noted:
“Give all you have to the poor and follow me.”
and
“It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to Heaven.”
Admittedly, I am less of a radical than Christ, and of course His words may not mean much to many of you, since judging by the philosophies expressed here, it seems many of you are avowed satanists.
However, it might be instructive to consider that while many of the rich create their wealth through hard work, ingenuity, and risk-taking, there are many people who work just as hard or harder, who are just as ingenious, who take just as many risks – but owing to chance, circumstance, or the simple fact that the mores of society favour a certain gift at a certain time, and doen’t favour others – never strike it rich.
In view of that, a thoughtful person would appreciate that that no wealthy person owes his/her wealth to him/herself alone, and that it might be ethical – or even prudent – to consider that with great blessings come great responsibilities.
Warren Buffet seems to have a handle on this idea.
But he must be another loser and a whiner, huh?
Actually bleet what I oppose is theft and extortion especially when conducted by a government. Whenever a society engages in such behaviour regardless of how noble the intent behind the theft and extortion the society as a whole loses its moral basis and in short order becomes a have not state in which only the powerful elites hold sway while the rest of the population is reduced to serfdom. Personally I don’t want to be a serf.
mhb, too bad Herb is too obtuse to see how he was set up. He never noticed that I never made his “point exactly”. Far from it. A sharper knife in the drawer would have cut their loses, but, Herb’s visited us as a Church-of-Herb missionary, here to instruct us until we fall into a coma during his sermon.
ZZZZZ……………
bleet, trying to wrap my mind around your being “less radical than Christ” and some bizarre whine about the unfairness of others just as gifted as Buffett not getting their just reward, no offense, but, it’s really sophomoric.
If I was grading your paper it wouldn’t be a good grade in originality, composition and logic.
You can do better than that.
bleet:
Buffett: Not the very best exemplar of free markets: he is one of the biggest beneficiaries of the TARP bail-out money.
Also a very poor judge on the political front. He was a supporter of Obama who is no fan of free markets.
I agree with Buffett that the most fortunate should think about and help the less fortunate; it’s even in their long term self-interest to do so. HOWEVER, voluntarily, eh? Not through government looting and re-distribution.
Now bleet, given your druthers you’d like to have cut Bill Gates off at the knees decades ago, right? Now, considering Gates huge charitable foundation, do you think your looting and re-distribution to the unfortunates would have beneficted society as much? That’s a rhetorical question, btw, the answer is self evident.
And BTW, there’s a load of empirical evidence proving that conservatives tend to be more generous than liberals.
bleet,
Still can’t answer anyone’s questions huh?
Funny how you put in some Bible passages too. I didn’t realize that letting the government take more money from you to spend on whatever it likes (not necessarily the poor), was a measure of your generosity. Maybe you should go back and re-read those sections of the Bible.
“However, it might be instructive to consider that while many of the rich create their wealth through hard work, ingenuity, and risk-taking, there are many people who work just as hard or harder, who are just as ingenious, who take just as many risks – but owing to chance, circumstance, or the simple fact that the mores of society favour a certain gift at a certain time, and doen’t favour others – never strike it rich.”
So. Some people have more luck than others. And if someone produces a product/service at a time when it’s needed, of course they will succeed over someone who has a product/service that is not needed, no matter how great it is. So why should the successful person share his wealth with the unsuccessful person who produced something no one had a need for?
Herb, why do Christian-baiters always feel the need to quote the Old Testament? We’ve just finished Easter, and – amazingly – not once during Palm Sunday, Good Friday or Easter Sunday masses did I hear our parish priest mention the Old Testament. Not once! That’s puzzling, eh?
I wonder if that’s because the Catholic Church – and other Christian churches – tend to focus on the New Testament: Christ’s life and teachings, and (especially, now) the Crucifixion, the Resurrection and Ascension. You know, that dull old “Salvation of Mankind” stuff.
I recognize that boring subjects like those make for much less drama and effect as those you noted above, when one goes about ridiculing Christians. Here’s a useful tidbit for you, however: the word “Christian”, if you’ve not noticed, contains the word “Christ”. That may infer that Christians – by definition – concentrate on the New Testament that focuses on Christ and His life. We don’t spend excessive time pondering the Exodus, Old Testament Rules of Hygiene & Food Preparation, or how to sell our children into slavery. Although I confess I am somewhat concerned that my two older boys are becoming slaves to their XBox, and perhaps there is a funny Christian slander in that that you could employ.
Hope your Easter was a happy one, and one free from locusts, pestilence, extinction-level floods, pillars of fire, and shellfish.
mhb
“Herb, why do Christian-baiters always feel the need to quote the Old Testament? ”
Maybe it’s their assumption that everything that appears in the Bible is a law from God that His followers must obey for all time.
Herb:
Those versus you cited from Leviticus were the laws and priestly duties of the Levites, the Hebrew tribe that was responsible for most of the religious duties of the Hebrews after the Exodus. Much of those barbaric laws and traditions were common place back then. Fortunately, society has changed since then for much of the world and those crazy laws and rituals are no longer practiced by the Jews.
There’s also a fellow named Jesus Christ, who noted:
“Give all you have to the poor and follow me.”
Not trying to be trite or self righteous here bleet but I have given all I have and followed Him. However I gave it to the poor not the government. Had I given it to the government I would have been giving to the rich not the poor.
BTW I have spent decades working with the poor and I have yet to see any government program that actually helped the poor stop being poor. The government just gave them money and thus became little more than an enabler. On the other hand I have seen many individuals stop looking at the world through the bottom of a glass or through a wafting cloud of smoke and becoming moderate successes after they heard and accepted the Christian Gospel.
Posted by: bleet>
“……..while children die of starvation and families go homeless………”
And where would that be, downtown Toronto? No you must mean some third world ghetto, where the mortality rates of children hasn’t changed in 5000 years.
Homeless? Why that wouldn’t include the sub prime “I have an American Dream” house of cards ideologists? You know like Acorn with Obamba’s participation when suing City Bank so that people unable to afford a home could buy into an illusory dream and collapse a world economy.
The world is not equal or fair. From before the first kings and pharos’s the stronger “elite” have led the sheeple from tribal ground scratching to today’s comfortable lifestyles of the first world. Capitalism and free market economy has been the most successful society builder with individual freedom to date. The rest is built on tyranny and the whim of the ruling elite, usually bad.
One way or another capitalist initiative and innovation has paved the way for the first “real” time in history the common citizens to excel and make their mark in life. The rest of the world follows and envies………… enjoy the ride.
Well, penny
My claim that I am “less radical than Christ” means that I find His exhortation to “give all you have to the poor” to be a pretty far-out idea for me. Can you wrap your mind around that?
But you weren’t really making a sincere comment anyway, were you? You were just trying to assume a ‘sophisticated’, world-weary air with which to dismiss my comments without dealing with what I actually said.
Try again! I’m sure you can fish around for a few fresh phrases with which to spruce up your tone of wry, unearned condescension!
BTW I have spent decades working with the poor and I have yet to see any government program that actually helped the poor stop being poor
Too right, Joe. That’s because it’s not in the government’s interest to help people out of poverty, but to keep them there with handouts and “social assistance”. The old adage, “The best way to fight poverty is a job” is so very true, but many people don’t want to believe it. Not only does a job give people the means to help themselves, but it also gives them back their self-respect, which is just as important. And a “job”, BTW, needs to be sustainable in order to remain; government “make-work” jobs are only a stop-gap as they simply aren’t sustainable. When you’ve built the last bridge-to-nowhere, re-roofed the last school with “green” roofing, or any of a hundred other make-work projects that don’t add value, then what? Tear them down, and rebuild them? Why not just have the government pay $30 an hour for half of all the unemployed people out there to dig holes, and then pay the other half $30/hour to fill ’em in? Presto! Instant employment.
How sustainable would that be? The rich capitalists that we’re instructed to hate and punish are the ones starting up businesses and employing people. Those are the jobs we need to keep, as they don’t require taxpayer assistance to sustain. Those are the jobs that have given us the standard of life we’ve enjoyed to this very day, not those jobs provided by the government. The more those with capital to invest and provide jobs are penalized, then everyone suffers. Think of it as “trickle-down poverty”. As somebody (Friedman, perhaps) once said, “capitalism isn’t perfect, but it’s far better than the alternatives”.
Keeping people poor means guaranteed social assistance, and that means governments are guaranteed votes by those they support. That’s why the real danger is that when more than 50% of the voting public are on some form of government assistance, they may indeed shape the politics and economics to guarantee institutionalized public handouts, thereby punishing the producers and worsening things for themselves. They’ll actually vote against their self-interest, which is individual freedom and liberty, and deny the system that offers them – with reduced government taxation/spending and interference, of course – their best shot at supporting themselves with pride & dignity.
That’s one reason why leftists hate Walmart so much. Walmart does what the government cannot: it gives people on limited budgets (or even those of us who simply want to save money) a place to make their dollar go the farthest. Thomas Sowell hit it when he said, “Walmart has done more for the poor than any ten liberals, nine of which are almost guaranteed to hate Walmart”.
Socialists often mistake – either unconsciously or on purpose – equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. I believe everyone deserves a fair shake at being the best they can be and trying to go as far as they can, and the free enterprise system is the best way to permit it. However, with more regulation, bureaucracy and red-tape it becomes harder for people to realize their potential. You can’t guarantee equality of outcome, because people ARE different. There are those among us who strive for advanced degrees in the sciences or medicine and those pay more than advanced degrees in the humanities or sociology. That’s not “unfair”; that’s just a market-driven fact. But everyone has the choice what to study, or to even study beyond highschool, if that’s their choice. I had friends who were working full-time and buying new cars & toys when I was scrimping & living on kraft dinner in engineering school, but I didn’t complain as it was MY choice to stay in school. Now, years later when my hourly wage is twice theirs (or more), is that “unfair”? Have I taken advantage of them, and do I deserve to be penalized for that? And should somebody who did their PhD in engineering and who’s making bigger bucks than I be penalized because I decided to work full-time after graduation, rather than continue my studies? Does some Bay Street lawyer working 70 or 80 hours a week deserve to be punished for his “high” wages because he’s making far more than a guy working on the line who doesn’t want to work a bit of overtime at the expense of his free time?
No, no and no. True freedom in life means you have the God-given right as a freeborn individual to make your OWN decisions as you see fit, and then live by the consequences. It’s not the government’s job, as somebody said above, to make sure everyone has a shot at a 50″ plasma screen. The most important thing the government can do, and fails miserably at, is to convince it’s citizens they THEY are responsible for their own lives and success, and not the government. Yes: a government can provide a safety net to tide people over in the case of emergencies or bad turns (I’ve paid 23 years into UI without ever receiving a penny, and don’t begrudge unemployed folks getting a a lift), but when the social net becomes a social hammock, we truly do have a problem.
mhb
Postscript – I’d forgot to add to the previous post regarding Christian bashers that the only bit of the Old Testament they refuse to discuss is the Ten Commandments, and they actually go out of their way to remove these from courthouse walls. Wonder if that’s because the original laws of God had no time for liberal moral relativism, and set non-negotiable standards for people to live by?
Alexander Tyler said this about the fall of the Athenian Republic: A republic is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A republic will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every republic will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, and is always ultimately followed by a dictatorship.” “The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:1. From bondage to spiritual faith;2. From spiritual faith to great courage;3. From courage to liberty;4. From liberty to abundance;5. From abundance to complacency;6. From complacency to apathy;7. From apathy to dependence;8. From dependence back into bondage .”
USA is just past the 200 year mark, and it’s believed they are now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of a republic–and sliding downhill.
RHTT – that’s a fascinating, if depressing summary by Alexander Tyler. I’d love to follow a link or links, if you have them, and thanks.
I’d be tempted to argue we’re almost into Stage 7 with the obama government in place. It appears the people are indeed ready to disown those qualities that made their nation the most powerful and advanced on earth (freedom, liberty, personal accountability and initiative) in favour of voting themselves gifts from the public treasury.
It’s saddening, and a huge loss for the earth if it follows Tyler’s stages, above. The question is, do Americans have it within themselves to rouse themselves and pull out of the tailspin?
I truly hope they do. The world needs a strong and prosperous United States.
mhb
You mean #10, “You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
Envy, the motivator of the left.
Contrary to herb’s and bleet’s rants, basic government services are required such as has been mentioned, fire, roads, police, education, etc. Where we diverge in this, is where we see the empire building of our current levels of government, building bureacracy for no purpose other than to build walls of obfuscation of departments, trying to justify their existence.
It’s where we see three levels of government all have departments of environment, or forestry, for example. Overkill anybody?
It’s where we see a public education system that self-serving teachers do not have to stand up to a competency or scrutiny test, yet foist their propaganda on our kids. Is it any wonder that the private school system is growing? The public school system is dysfunctional, thanks to the rabid unionism in the teachers ranks.
It’s where we see levels of government not only competing, but putting private operators out of business. Do we really need health club/spas/weight rooms at municipal rec centers, when private operators do the same, but are taking risks to support themselves?
It’s where we see the socialists and unionists putting up their straw men in regards to P3’s and ‘keeping services public’, when they don’t really care about the greater good, only their own selfish needs, and the most expensive option, theirs. You know they are desperate when they troll out their favourite demon, “PROFIT”.
That is the socialism/taxation that I oppose. That which is full of half-truths and deception, and preys on peoples emotions with their slanted stories, enabled by the MSM, and used to fool the naive that the left require to propagate the politics of envy.
“It’s where we see levels of government not only competing, but putting private operators out of business. Do we really need health club/spas/weight rooms at municipal rec centers, when private operators do the same, but are taking risks to support themselves?”
*slaps open hand into forehead*
Thanks, DanBC: that was my big “gotcha!” revelation for today. Although I’ve regretted seeing private wine stores in my area close because an ontario LCBO store is in the same mall, I’d never thought about the health club angle. Ever. But you are undeniably correct!
And the more government competition that puts private enterprise out of business, the more we all have to pay for it through increased taxes, when the same services would be run more effectively and cheaper by the private sector. Plus, only the users would pay for them, and not everyone else via taxes. A small example: at the nearby rink, when I take my 3-yr old skating, I shake my head at the city’s hiring a person to sell admission stamps, and another person sitting bleary-eyed 15 feet away at the rink entrance to make sure everyone has a stamp on their hands. The private operator would have ONE person do both jobs, and possibly part of a third job as well. But it’s the City running things, and therefore tax dollar funding, and therefore… who cares?
Thanks for opening my eyes a little bit, today.
mhb
This has been an interesting, yet ultimately futile, conversation as it’s of the apples/oranges variety. On the one hand, many of us are proponents of “equality of opportunity” while other, notably uzi and bleet, are proponents of “equality of outcome”. The two ideas are so completely opposite that there can never be any middle ground.
However, I would be curious to find out from uzi, bleet or any else desirous of equal outcomes just whose outcome would make them happy and how we could make it happen.
Would it be Buffet or Gates, so fabulously wealthy they couldn’t spend that wealth in 10 lifetimes? Would it be mine – a comfortable standard of living but nothing spectacular? Or would it be the above-mentioned homeless family, with or without starving children? Whose outcome and how?
Ummmm … aren’t Buffet and Gates giving away most of their wealth? The problem with the tax code as that it’s not voluntary. When given a choice, the rich (especially entrepreneurs) are the most generous of individuals. They do give back to the community. Of course, when you tax the crap out of them … they don’t. Bleet and company want altruism and charity to be enforced by the government when no such enforcement is required.
mhb
When it comes to things like areans, for example, I understand that this is a kind of infrastructure that would be difficult for the private sector to build and operate profitably. The overhead would simply be too much, or the fees to use the rink too high for users to justify.
Having said that, I do know that many of these operators rent out the ice for around $120/hr, seemingly cheap, given that arenas run at annual operating losses, dependent upon many factors. They do not make money….
But I wouldn’t be against a public arena, run by a contractor.
Here’s a funny little story from this years youth hockey season. One of my kids’ hockey practices was interrupted midway through, by the unionized maintenance guy, to clean the ice. So, all the kids sat for the 10 minutes it took, then resumed practiced. When asked why he did this, he said he had a printed schedule to clean the ice at designated times, and couldn’t change that.
Stupid is as stupid does……couldn’t think for himself when there was an obvious error in scheduling….
Buisness helps themselves. Tax cuts benefit the rich not anyone with a T4.
Umm… yes, well, that’s a thought.
I guess.
mhb