|
Furnaceface posted:The best thing about the Something Awful Forums is that it prevents everyone that posts here from ever running in politics. As a progressive candidate maybe. Unless you're pissing in homeowners' cups though, you're still good to run for the cons.
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:06 |
|
|
Furnaceface posted:Only works if youre white and wealthy. ~Cigar Equity~ won't get our favourite boy too far. School Board at most.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Brock is a poo poo garbage school Just saying
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Furnaceface posted:PT6A its your time to shine. Part of the reason I say the things I do is to preclude myself from a career in politics, in case I suffer some kind of a traumatic brain injury and suddenly consider it a viable or appealing possibility. Y'all should be happy about it, to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The government should really just pass a loving law forbidding universities or other private entities from "investigating" sexual assault. If there's evidence that something may have happened then call the police.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Man it's like we need a higher authority to investigate these cases. Maybe the cf can help out
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The government should really just pass a loving law forbidding universities or other private entities from "investigating" sexual assault. If there's evidence that something may have happened then call the police. Honestly, they probably have a better track record on this than the police
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Man it's like we need a higher authority to investigate these cases. I nominate the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
St. Dogbert posted:I'm a student at Brock, Goondolances if you had the bow-tie muppet as a prof.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:I nominate the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario. To hell with that. I refuse to back any college whose website is purposefully made difficult to navigate to find information on a dentist (such as their reg number). If your doofus members cant even memorize what they need to put on an Rx to make it legal and valid at least make it easy for me to find them so I can yell at them and get the info I need. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
I love that we manage to produce multiple pages of content for this thread every weekday but everything slows to a crawl on weekends when most of us presumably aren't working at our jobs. No wonder we're renowned for being such a productive and innovative country 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I love that we manage to produce multiple pages of content for this thread every weekday but everything slows to a crawl on weekends when most of us presumably aren't working at our jobs. No wonder we're renowned for being such a productive and innovative country It is easy to draw that conclusion, however it could be that people are away from device with actual keyboards during the weekend on purpose, or the fact that news is relatively non existent over the weekend in Canada. That said, I am posting because I am sending a bunch of work emails rn.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I love that we manage to produce multiple pages of content for this thread every weekday but everything slows to a crawl on weekends when most of us presumably aren't working at our jobs. No wonder we're renowned for being such a productive and innovative country There's no point to taking a break during recreational time, but there is an advantage to taking breaks during mentally demanding tasks to keep your concentration.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Here's a story about how CF procurement manages to gently caress up so badly and cost so much, courtesy of a leaked PWC report:quote:Federal government’s ‘perverse’ contract policies encourage industry to gouge taxpayers: leaked report http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...s-leaked-report Wow so if you cut government spending so that less people have to do more work they aren't good at it WHO KNEW oh well guess we'd better cut more of that inefficient government then
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
Hexigrammus posted:Goondolances if you had the bow-tie muppet as a prof. Nah, different program. I've never even seen the guy in person.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
 Right... 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
It is so weird for PWC, a major provider of consulting services, to be the ones who wrote that report.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
See? I told you everyone in the cf is garbage
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:See? I told you everyone in the cf is garbage Which is worse, CF or RCMP?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
both are the nadir of a deep dark pit of garbage
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
.
Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
“As Ontario’s economy grows, the government remains committed to leaving no one behind. Maintaining an effective social safety net is one part of the government’s broader efforts to reduce poverty and ensure inclusion in communities and the economy,” the report explains. “The pilot project will test a growing view at home and abroad that basic income could build on the success of minimum wage policies and increases in child benefits by providing more consistent and predictable support in the context of today’s dynamic labour market.”
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 08:29
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:Brock is a poo poo garbage school If you can walk and talk you'll get into Brock. e: cf procurement - Clothe the Soldier was a junk program at first but eventually started to turn out pretty good kit. The rain coat is a great example. Good material, good cut of fabric but overdesigned (reflective panels everywhere for one thing) and took forever to get issued. Apparently the new new boots and rucksacks are okay but mine all are private purchase. The boot fiasco is great because it gave us this:  
Frosted Flake fucked around with this message at 12:18 on Mar 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 12:07
|
|
|
Knowing that school as well as I do I even call that into question.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 12:13
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Apparently the new new boots and rucksacks are okay but mine all are private purchase. The boot fiasco is great because it gave us this: I have never seen these in the wild, but I love these pictures and very much want to see some poor schlub tromp around in a pair while also wearing the cadpat gloves and firefighter onesie 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
We have a long, proud history of military procurement gently caress-ups in this country. The MacAdam Shield Shovel 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
Oh right i guess I should post this too:quote:Good Monday morning to you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
Hahaha the CADPAT boots what fuckin idiot thought those were a good idea They're so goddamn stupid they almost circle around to being awesome but then you realize nope they still poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Obama's actions in office (like the actions of every post war president) easily pass the bar for exactly the actions that we executed the Nazis for at Nuremburg. What?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
zapplez posted:What? Obama makes him sad ergo war crimes
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
It's too bad that minimum income is already being framed as a program only for 'the most impoverished.' In all likelihood we'll end up with a negative income tax that gives the Liberals the opportunity to cut all sorts of other social safety net programs. In fact that's how it already being framed:quote:Proponents say a guaranteed minimum income, which would see families living below the poverty line topped up to a set level, would be more efficient and less costly than administering the existing series of social programs that help low-income residents. I also really detest arguments based around saving money like: quote:"Poverty costs us all. It expands health-care costs, policing burdens and depresses the economy," Sen. Art Eggleton said last month as he called for a national pilot project of a basic income guarantee. It suggests that we only help people out if we save some money doing it. Never mind the moral/ethical implications of having people living in poverty in the richest society in human history.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
zapplez posted:What? Unprovoked war, or so called "crimes against peace", were one of the principle charges used against high level German officials. The following is taken from the Nuremberg principles that the trials helped to establish: quote:Principle VI[edit] Good luck finding a president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt who hasn't been guilty of the "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances". Keep in mind that the Nazis were also obeying their domestic laws when they invaded other countries so domestic politics are no excuse here from the perspective of the principles used to convict and execute many of them (see principles II and III). I'm honestly surprised that anyone would be surprised to hear that the United States regularly violates international law. I feel like even most defenders of America's international actions don't bother to deny that because its so completely self evident any time you open a history book of the last 50 years or glance in a newspaper. There's not special caveat that says "you can't bomb or invade other countries, unless you're America".
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Duck Rodgers posted:It's too bad that minimum income is already being framed as a program only for 'the most impoverished.' In all likelihood we'll end up with a negative income tax that gives the Liberals the opportunity to cut all sorts of other social safety net programs. In fact that's how it already being framed: I expect it will be exactly like OESP. You need to apply, get a tiny amount and the Liberals talk it up constantly to show how they're ending poverty. Take money from the rich families making more than $20k a year and redistribute it to the actual poor families, who could complain?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
obama also regularly violates american law or at least shirks it in order to arbitrarily kill people overseas https://theintercept.com/2016/03/08...ey-deserved-it/
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
Here's an example of an article where the headline gets you all excited and then you read further and discover that the good thing in the headline is subject to Liberal chicanery before it actually gets implemented.quote:Ontario to green light ‘inclusionary zoning’ So basically the province is considering allowing cities to implement inclusionary zoning, but "subject to consultation with local councils, the development industry, affordable housing advocates and the public" so who knows. And the OHA, naturally, are already complaining that it could impact their condo equity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Duck Rodgers posted:It's too bad that minimum income is already being framed as a program only for 'the most impoverished.' In all likelihood we'll end up with a negative income tax that gives the Liberals the opportunity to cut all sorts of other social safety net programs. In fact that's how it already being framed: Wow people will complain about anything. The added efficiency is a major selling point of a minimum income scheme. It's similar to healthcare: it turns out that the US spends a lot more on administrative overhead compared to UHC countries, because when you have a byzantine patchwork of insurers it takes a lot of bureaucracy to sort out who pays who what. Whereas when everyone is covered by the same system the administration is easy. Done correctly, folding a bunch of (but not all) social safety programs into a single minimum income program should also be much more cost effective. The people receiving should also have less crap to deal with in terms of bureaucracy and forms and waiting periods. Another thing I like about it is that it gives those receiving it more independence. Instead of having assistance with strings attached (this is for drugs, this is for housing, etc) you get your money and you spend it how you want. I find something patronizing about the way a lot of social assistance works, like you're too poor to make your own decisions regarding your finances so the government is going to be calling the shots. It's worse in the US where food stamps have approved lists of purchases (and politicians whine about things like people using stamps to buy soda) but I like anything that moves in the direction of treating people like adults who can make their own choices.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:Wow people will complain about anything. The added efficiency is a major selling point of a minimum income scheme. It's similar to healthcare: it turns out that the US spends a lot more on administrative overhead compared to UHC countries, because when you have a byzantine patchwork of insurers it takes a lot of bureaucracy to sort out who pays who what. Whereas when everyone is covered by the same system the administration is easy. Done correctly, folding a bunch of (but not all) social safety programs into a single minimum income program should also be much more cost effective. The people receiving should also have less crap to deal with in terms of bureaucracy and forms and waiting periods. Another thing I like about it is that it gives those receiving it more independence. Instead of having assistance with strings attached (this is for drugs, this is for housing, etc) you get your money and you spend it how you want. I find something patronizing about the way a lot of social assistance works, like you're too poor to make your own decisions regarding your finances so the government is going to be calling the shots. It's worse in the US where food stamps have approved lists of purchases (and politicians whine about things like people using stamps to buy soda) but I like anything that moves in the direction of treating people like adults who can make their own choices. Except that this isn't a true Minimum Income plan that the Ontario Liberals are introducing. Its a top-up which still pretty much welfare for select people with a ton of bureaucracy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Duck Rodgers posted:It's too bad that minimum income is already being framed as a program only for 'the most impoverished.' In all likelihood we'll end up with a negative income tax that gives the Liberals the opportunity to cut all sorts of other social safety net programs. In fact that's how it already being framed: They're also completely fudging the terminology for minimum income and basic income, which are massively different. The former is nothing groundbreaking, it'd just be consolidating the dozens of redundant social safety nets into one uniform measure that still requires a ton of bureaucracy and paperwork. Wake me up when some party has the balls to put forward the latter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:06 |
|
|
The thing with minimum incomes is, in the immortal words of the philosopher Michael Ironside, "Something given has no value". It would be an inherently unstable political arrangement, especially in today's economically unbalanced society. The old Fordist economy, which delivered relatively high wages and a modicum of economic stability to a broadly based 'middle class', was protected by a strong and politically active labour movement. When a significant degree of the workforce is unionized that has ripple effects on the rest of the economy, one of which is to create a relatively even balance of power between labour and capital. This is why it tooks decades of incremental change and local battles before the labour movement was effectively broken and forced onto an entirely defensive posture. If you just pass a law giving people minimum incomes there's very little to stop the next government from coming in and changing the law again. The minimum income will raise labour costs and it will be a highly visible example of a progressive economic policy, something that most businesses would be opposed to as a matter of principle (few modern businessmen welcome new sources of non-market income for their workers). Any kind of sustainable economic redistribution requires some kind of permanent institutional support system. You can't just pass a law and go home, you need to have some kind of social force that remains permanently in place to protect these policies from the inevitable backlash. I don't believe that arguing for a minimum income based on efficiency is a particularly persuasive pitch. It's the kind of policy that requires (political) force, rather than gentle persuasion, to be enacted and then maintained. Arguing for it on primarily technocratic grounds misunderstands the political dynamic that is necessary to actually redistribute wealth. Social classes and groupings receive payouts from society that are commensurate to whatever they have the strength and organizational capacity to demand from the system.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 17:53
|
|