Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsrgv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!mnh
From: mnh@utcsrgv.UUCP (Mark N. Hume)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: re: Liberals...deficit...Canada's future
Message-ID: <5003@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 7-Aug-84 14:52:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.5003
Posted: Tue Aug  7 14:52:09 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 7-Aug-84 15:20:48 EDT
References: <154@utecfa.UUCP>
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Lines: 117

Bare with me for one more reply.  Note that items preceded by > are his
and itmes preceded by >> are mine.
************************************************************************

>The U.S. happens to pay the lions
>share of western defence. What's the Liberal's excuse? It certainly isn't
>defence spending. 
>
>>As for US defense spending.  I read the other day that the cost of *one*
>>MX missile would equal the cost of raising *every* US single mother family
>>above the poverty line. I could go on, and on about the so called US defense
>>spending.
>
>Again I see that Mr. Hume cannot understand plain English. I see no statement
>necessarily supporting increased US defense spending. I merely implied that it 
>was a major cause of their deficit. It would be fantastic if all that money
>helped the needy but the Soviets don't particularly inspire good will. However
>this is another matter altogether. Please note that all the money funneled
>out of the government purse for Liberal patronage appointments could also do
>wonders for the underpriveleged.
 
The term western defence carries with it a certain connotation which perhaps
Mark did not want to convey.  That connotation is that the western defence that
the US is paying for is justified in some way, that is, the west needs to go to
that extent to defend itself.  As for the fact that the US feels it must provide
this defence, I would much rather we looked after ourselves, since the US has
not shown the kind of attitude that would lead to longlasting peace.

>One other thing that irks me. The medicare program. It is not bad but what
>is wrong with user fees to discourage hypochondriac behavior?
>
>>And finally, user fees.  I think Mr Thompson does not grasp the difference
>>between extra billing and user fees.  User fees are charged by the hospitals,
>>extra billing is done by the doctors.  I suppose he thinks that all those
>>hypochondriacs (sp?) are admitting themselves into hospital. And I can't believe
>>that a large percentage of those being charged user fees or being extra billed
>>are hypochondriacs.
>
>Sure I know the difference. I said nothing about extra billing. All I know is
>that health costs are too high. Don't blame the doctors either. A small number
>may have it on easy street but the majority work damn hard for what they earn.
>There job is not an enviable one where they must deal with life and death,
>day in and day out. I am sure extra billing would be much less prevalent if
>doctors incomes had kept pace with inflation.
 
Again Mark does not show he knows the difference between user fees and extra
billing.  Please tell me how someone admitts themself into a hospital.  
Doctors are not stupid, they can tell who is sick and who is not.  Having 
user fees to prevent hypochondriacs from entering hospitals is much too
strong a measure for such a small problem. 

Also I note that the problem of doctors' incomes not keeping pace is a problem
caused not by the Federal government but by the provincial governments.

>>As to the deficit, from which his venom pours, I suppose that he fully 
>>supports the $20 Billion cost of the Conservative election promises.
>
>Typical distortion of the facts as Liberals or their type are prone to do.
>As we all know that figure has underhandedly read off a private document.
>It is not necessarily PC policy as Mr. Mulroney has stated. Besides I don't
>know about you but even if it were true it sure beats the $160 billion
>dollar bill rung up by the Liberals over the last decade. By the way Mr. Hume
>you failed to suggest how to pay off the debt particularly since it is
>increasing at ~$30 billion a year ($20 billion courtesy of interest on
>previously accumulated debt)

The figure of $20 Billion was not conjured up by the Liberals but was
read off a Conservative document carried by John Crosbie by an Ottawa
newspaper reporter.  I still haven't heard a good estimate of the cost
of the Conservatives promises, so until then, I'll have to believe the
PC document or Mr. Crosbie. 
 
>>As for the reason the Liberals were elected last time, perhaps Mr Thompson
>>would consider the statement of The Rt. Hon. Joe Clark, "We are going to 
>>govern as if we had a majority".  Talk about arrogance!  That's really 
>>treating parliament with the dignity and respect it deserves.
>
>Who's arrogant? I thought Pierre defined the word. At least Mr. Clark
>had the guts to stand up for his parties principles instead of coddling with
>the NDP as Trudeau did in 1972.  

When the government is in a minority position it is supposed
to get the support of enough opposition members to sustain the government.
How is one supposed to do this without accepting some of the policies
of these opposition members.  Unfortunately this is a lesson that Joe Clark
learned the hard way.

>Respect and dignity for parliament?
>Who are you kidding?  It is well known that Mr. Trudeau often circumvented
>the peoples representatives by using a process known as Order in Council.
>How do you think metricfication was ordered. Again don't get me wrong I have
>nothing against metrification, just about the way it was rammed down Canadians
>throats.

I am not defending Orders in Council, but without them our system would grind
to a halt.  Parliament is unfortunately far too slow.  If we look at the 
British Parliament we see that bills (even controversial ones) are passed	
through second and third readings often in a day each.  In Canada, we have
weeks (sometimes months) of debate on these stages for controversial bills.
Thus it would be impossible for the government to get Parliament's approval
for all of the meassures it takes.  I certainly don't defend the method of
implementing the metric system. 
 
 
>>Maybe I'm expecting too much.  I thought that users of this news group would 
>>present opinions and observations and back them up with reasoned arguments,
>>not with rhetoric from one party leader or another.  Oh, well.
>
>Well Mr. Hume I don't expect too much. I knew I there would be those who
>would spew out the same old Liberal lies and distortions that we have heard
>even since Mr. Trudeau muddied the then cleaner waters of federal politics
>which prevailed before he became Prime Minister.

Well, I certainly didn't say I was going to vote Liberal, and I didn't tell
anyone else to either.  I merly presented a few observations which I think
contradict some of those that Mark presented.