tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post7990414816854764027..comments2024-03-28T00:54:34.206-04:00Comments on BigCityLib Strikes Back: Macleans Magazine As Corporate Welfare Bum, Part IIIbigcitylibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05081538803991095825noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-7130700905067672432008-05-31T16:48:00.000-04:002008-05-31T16:48:00.000-04:00He knows that. He's just pretending he doesn't.He'...He knows that. He's just pretending he doesn't.<BR/><BR/>He's not as stupid as I first thought. He's more manipulative and deceptive.<BR/><BR/>Examine these assertions:<BR/><BR/>Offensive is not nearly good enough to warrant censorship.<BR/><BR/>Offense is something that remains undefinable and is only resolved through mediation.<BR/><BR/>Canadian artists demand the right to be provocative and offensive and receive tax credits.<BR/><BR/>This is a lie. Industrial incentives are part of the operations of the state. Artists and other innovators are simply availing themselves of the incentives we have determined, collectively, are worth state support, for a variety of reasons.<BR/><BR/>If tax credits are good enough for layabout Canadian artists, it should be good enough for Macleans.<BR/><BR/>"Layabout Canadian artists." Such as Sarah Polley, Atom Egoyan, David Cronenberg, I imagine. Not to mention all those involved in the development of cultural products that "conservatives" approve of<BR/><BR/>If we are going to go down the petty and anal retentive road of spurious censorship, we might as well be consistent and hobble Canadian artists with censoring too.<BR/><BR/>This confuses censorship with withdrawal of support. And deliberately.<BR/><BR/>Paul S. will, of course, simply respond as if he knows nothing or that words have no meaning. That would be a charitable interpretation of what he writes.<BR/><BR/>But I've seen enough to conclude that he's simply a manipulative and disruptive liar, whether he realises that or not.Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-16729394118167821322008-05-31T16:25:00.000-04:002008-05-31T16:25:00.000-04:00Hyperbole aside, Macleans is not a corporate welfa...Hyperbole aside, Macleans is not a corporate welfare bum. The postal subsidy is like public health care . . . every Canadian publisher receives it. <BR/><BR/>If only Macleans received this benefit, he might have a point (might). <BR/><BR/>And par for the course, ti-guy is grumping about the taxes HE has to pay. A bit of a broken record on that topic he is. ;)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00640844117742326726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-91562245398345706872008-05-31T10:53:00.000-04:002008-05-31T10:53:00.000-04:00Gawd, I hate blogs.Gawd, I hate blogs.Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-9409053320561719152008-05-31T10:47:00.000-04:002008-05-31T10:47:00.000-04:00WHO IS REALLY COMMITTING THE FRAUD AROUND HEREThe ...WHO IS REALLY COMMITTING THE FRAUD AROUND HERE<BR/><BR/>The general public has no idea what the system is really like. They think fraud is ramped in Ontario Works and ODSP. Here is something to think about and it is just the tip of the iceberg according to our research.<BR/>The provincial government says welfare fraud is around 2%.<BR/>Who is really committing the fraud around here?<BR/>The federal government says income tax fraud is 13%<BR/><BR/>Ontario Works staff charged in $1.3million Fraud<BR/>By Sarah Elizabeth Brown Tuesday March 4,2008<BR/>Chronicle Journal http://tbay.ok.bc.ca/stories.php?id=95704<BR/><BR/>Budget cuts allow more Ontario Works staff fraud. <BR/>http://www.toronto.ca/budget2005/pdf/cns_shortfallservicelost.pdf<BR/><BR/>Government ODSP worker charged in $585,000 fraud case.<BR/>By SooToday.com Staff Wednesday, November 14, 2007<BR/>SooToday <BR/>http://www.sootoday.com/content/news/full_story.asp?StoryNumber=28485<BR/>http://odsp.blogspot.com/2007/11/former-government-worker-charged-in.html<BR/><BR/>93.7 million dollars in corporate welfare<BR/>Linda Leatherdale March 7,2008<BR/>http://money.canoe.ca/Columnists/Leatherdale/2008/03/07/4938021-sun.html<BR/>http://theoldcraftsman.com/blog/?p=387#comment-174<BR/>Premier Dalton McGuity is handing over a 9.7 million dollar corporate welfare cheque to Kellogg. Kellogg’s profit was $1 billion. Also Ford got a $55 million cheque and is now cutting shifts, while GM got $29million and is also cutting shifts.<BR/><BR/>$150 million called corporate welfare for a profitable industry.<BR/>Rob Ferguson January 10, 2008<BR/>Queens Park Bureau http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/292631<BR/>The Ontario Government has earmarked $150 million to encourage pharmaceutical companies to do more drug research and manufacturing in the province.<BR/> <BR/>Ontario government coughs up about $940 million a year on grants like this one.<BR/>Health Canada has been advised that Tic Tacs are being voluntarily recalled. Premier McGuinty should demand taxpayers get back the $5.5 million the government gave to this corporate welfare failure.<BR/>http://www.taxpayerblog.com/2008/04/health-canada-advisory-recalling-tic.html<BR/><BR/> ******************<BR/>An internal audit in Hamilton, Ontario showed that Ontario Works staff were taking the city’s credit card out and enjoying a nice lunch privately.<BR/><BR/>The same audit showed that the Ontario Works workers had uninterrupted access to the main computer that issues their clients checks and admit missing cheque signatures.<BR/>http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/EB0B3640-1762-4BB2-AA41-479304DB9381/0/Dec05CM07029OntarioWorksOperationsofDataCentre200707.pdf<BR/><BR/><BR/>Isn’t that a recipe for disaster?<BR/><BR/>Ron Payne<BR/>Welfare Legal<BR/>Hamilton, Ontario<BR/>E-mail welfarelegal2004@hotmail.comAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09182740926362646710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-90829160531905788232008-05-31T07:21:00.000-04:002008-05-31T07:21:00.000-04:00As well, it could also be argued that, in light of...<I>As well, it could also be argued that, in light of the fact the government took large amounts of money from us in the form of taxes, accepting the Heritage money was simply a matter of getting back some of the money that was ours to start with.</I><BR/><BR/>So my money goes to a rag that I would never read to save my life and that's fair? While funding for the CBC isn't?<BR/><BR/>Like I said over at RedTory's, the "conservative* can construct an argument to support or refute a proprosition, often (always?) with regard to the same proposition.<BR/><BR/>If tax money is used to fund something they like, it's *our* money. When it's something they don't like, it's *my* money.<BR/><BR/>These people are <I>hopeless</I>. Utterly hopeless. Intern them.Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.com