Raise the Hammer

Sean, this was a great sight. I was at Sam Lawrence Park on the brow on the weekend and view of the trains from up there was awesome too. Day and night. I want to snap a pic of the night view from up there. It was wicked. Hopefully all-day service can start up sooner than later.

How pathetic that you get excited about receiving more government handouts. Don't you have any pride at all? Whatever happened to the Hamilton that was built on hard work and free enterprise? Now the city's only claim to fame is being a successful beggar. So sad.

I have an idea A Smith...MOVE!!! You're as annoying as crap in the pants! The reason it's exciting, you one horse show is because it's a sign of slowly improving transit.

Frank, we're trying to establish a wildlife preserve here in the comments, and thank you not to feed the wildlife.

When you feed the trolls, however well-intentioned you may be, this causes some harmful effects, chiefly you cause them to reproduce with much more fecundity than the natural state of affairs.

As a result we end up with far more trolls than the environment can naturally sustain, which strains the environment and crowds out other indigenous species.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

The problem with ASmith is that it doesn't require feeding to spring up. It produces it's own food of sorts. Perhaps extermination is in order...

Perhaps extermination is in order...

Uh, in the interest of civility, I think the word you were looking for is extirpation.

lol, perhaps, however I was relating to zookeeper's comment. But we're off topic...sorry guys. Any clue what's going on with LRT?

blah blah free enterprise blah blah blah the almighty market

I noticed the train on Sunday as I was heading back up to University. It's great!

I also can't wait for better Go train service. We currently have two main methods of getting to downtown TO:
1) All day express bus service.
2) Rush hour partial-express train service.

I would love to see the train service expanded, but I'd hope it's not at the expense of the express service. I think they provide two different yet complimentary routes and methods of transportation. Not everyone wants to get to Toronto as fast as they can (there are other stops along lakeshore, including Toronto stops that are not downtown), while not everyone wants to take an extra 10 or 15 minutes along the lakeshore line during the middle of the day to get to downtown toronto. There are good reasons to have both systems running in my opinion. Although I realize I may be alone in my opinion.

A Smith, This is exciting because better transportation options make our downtown a more desirable place to live. You should understand that this could make your property value go up. But maybe this is too much of a stretch for your economics 101 knowledge limit.

Rush Limbaugh has nothing on some of you people who just castigate ASmith for stating his/her opinion...get over it. Not everyone agrees with your point of view!!!

Oh Ariel...blood bound supporter of AIdiot... It's not that he states his opinion, it's that he states the same thing in every freakin post. Sean hit it on the head. It's like a body turning from blue to red - a sign of life.

More to the point, Smith's comment was a) mean spirited and b) doesn't even make sense. Dozens of trains stay in Toronto overnight, so I guess they're the all time king of beggars. They're just moving the 7:30 train in Aldershot to start 15 minutes earlier from Hamilton to accommodate increased demand. Never mind that it makes more sense and saves GO transit money to store the trains at the end of the line. It also anticipates further growth of the GO system into the Niagara region.

Seancb, >> This is exciting because better transportation options make our downtown a more desirable place to live. You should understand that this could make your property value go up.

There is nothing free in life, every good thing must be earned, so while this new train service appears to help Hamilton, over the long run it will drive us further into dependency. Hamilton is like a drug addict that needs some tough love and not more poison.

Frank, >> Perhaps extermination is in order

Amazing, I argue that it is wrong to take money from other taxpayers (those who will not benefit from this new service) and you reply with these words. Once again, don't you feel bad knowing that this new train service will be subsidized by people that won't benefit from its use? Any moral qualms at all? No?

End all public subsidies! Trains? Buses? Roads? Shut 'em down! Hospitals? Shut 'em down! Schools? Shut 'em down! Sewers? Drinking water? Only for the elite! You want it? You pay for it.

The blind free market has worked SO well for the USA, they aren't in ANY trouble at all! And even more importantly, the free market totally doesn't funnel money from the many to the very few. Only government does that! Abolish government! Down with public good, up with funding private billionaires instead!

"There is nothing free in life, every good thing must be earned"

Good things happen constantly in everyday life. That you feel this way explains some of your more peculiar outlooks.

Out of curiosity, just how much additional tax payer dollars were 'stolen' to extend the service by one stop? And while we're at it, what is the additional projected income? How much less fuel will the train burn by staying at the end of the line? How does this fit into GO's long-term planning (particularly route extensions)? I already know that you have no idea what those figures are and are arguing ideology instead of fact, I just thought that I'd ask.

Personally, I think having the train parked there is more physiologically beneficial than anything.

A-Idiot's hyperbole aside, the fact of the matter is, there was a demand in this city for expanded commuter service to Toronto which the private sector (Greyhound, VIA, etc.) did not step up to satisfy and now the government has. Between this and the fact that our usually ineffectual city council was partly responsible for it I can see why A Smith's fur is up since his usual mantra of private industry good, government bad does not apply here.

However, to me this is more about better service through increased efficiency. Rather than have the trains stored in Mimico and brought here (empty!) to start their daily runs, they're stored here overnight (creating a few new security and maintenance related jobs) so they can start earlier and get an extra trip into Toronto. I would imagine if all 3 levels of government conducted rigorous audits for their spending habits millions, maybe even billions of dollars could be saved solely through eliminating pork spending and increasing efficiencies.

Getting back to the actual topic of this post however, kudos to Counselor Bratina and Metrolinx. What I'd love to see next is better bus service from Hamilton along the 407 to Mississauga and Toronto's north end. Currently all we have is the express service from Hamilton/Guelph to York University.

Qualms? Nope. I'm actually one of the people who wouldn't directly benefit from extending the go train service into Hamilton because I don't use it. (I've only used it once in my life but I liked it) I see it exactly as I stated - a sign of life.

Reading in the Spec today it was kind of disheartening to hear that this is the first new train enhancement in Hamilton since 2000. Let's hope we can ramp up our train service improvements beyond one new train every 10 years.

Idiot, >> The blind free market has worked SO well for the USA, they aren't in ANY trouble at all!

Here are some numbers from the U.S. that may help you...

Year Total government % GDP growth
spending as % of GDP
1993 34.43 2.67
1994 33.38 4.02
1995 33.32 2.50
1996 32.88 3.70
1997 31.85 4.50
1998 31.08 4.18
1999 30.78 4.45
2000 30.59 3.66
2001 31.48 0.75
2002 32.36 1.60
2003 32.78 2.51
2004 32.46 3.64
2005 32.65 2.94
2006 32.57 2.78
2007 33.38 2.03
2008 35.03 1.12

As you can see, from 1993 until 2000, government involvement in the economy shrank and the larger private sector economy produced excellent growth numbers. From 2000 until now, government has undertaken a much bigger role, increasing spending on new drug benefits, bailouts for mismanaged banks, etc, and the result has been a SMALLER private sector, and much lower rates of economic growth. Those are the facts, jack.

>> the free market totally doesn't funnel money from the many to the very few

The free market rewards those who actually produce things that people want, whereas government gives money to people for doing nothing.

>> Down with public good, up with funding private billionaires instead!

Public good comes from hard work, not from taking other people's money. Just to be clear, in 2006, the top 1% of income earners in the U.S. paid 39.89% of total income taxes, whereas the bottom 50% paid only 2.99%. Therefore, the notion that the poor are supporting the rich is incorrect. In fact, since 1980, when the top 1% only paid 19.05% of income taxes and the bottom 50% paid 7.05%, the income disparity has widened considerably. Therefore, having the rich carry a larger share of the tax burden has only made the average person fall behind, not better off as the government is attempting to do.

The same thing is true for Hamilton. If the residents of Hamilton would stop looking to other taxpayers to subsidize this city, we would actually get richer and not poorer. Hamilton used to pride itself on hard work, now all we seem to want to do is get more handouts. Every city in the world that is successful is a net contributor to the nation where it resides and not a net recipient. Therefore, if we want to be taken seriously and build our own domestic economy, we need to start giving more to the country, not take more.

JonC, >> Good things happen constantly in everyday life.

I don't disagree, but which ones don't require some hard work or suffering to achieve? The idea that you can get something for free is why millions of people are now losing their homes in the U.S., they thought they could just keep borrowing more money and never have to actually work to pay off their debts. Same goes for Hamilton, we think we can "borrow" other people's hard earned tax dollars to make us better off, it's not going to work.

UrbanRenaissance, >> there was a demand in this city for expanded commuter service to Toronto which the private sector (Greyhound, VIA, etc.) did not step up to satisfy and now the government has

First of all, VIA is owned by the government, nevertheless, if there truly was profit potential for commuter travel services in Hamilton, why didn't someone provide it? Is there something unique about Hamilton, does our money smell bad? Either way, I am not arguing so much against having the Go service come to Hamilton, but with the idea that we are allowing others to pay for it. If I hear about the city kicking in more money to the province to help underwrite this new service, rather than let the richer GTA communities cover most of the cost, then I might agree that it's a good idea. I just don't think getting more free stuff from other people helps us.

Frank >> I see it exactly as I stated - a sign of life.

A true sign of life is a private business coming to Hamilton, one which lives and dies from making profits and selling goods and services that real people want, not a service that relies on stealing other people's money. Judging by your recent comments, it's not surprising that you fail to see the difference.

A Smith >> "In fact, since 1980, when the top 1% only paid 19.05% of income taxes and the bottom 50% paid 7.05%, the income disparity has widened considerably. Therefore, having the rich carry a larger share of the tax burden has only made the average person fall behind, not better off as the government is attempting to do."

you see A Smith, you continually twist statistics to fit your causational statements. the above statement could easily be flipped, saying that the tax rates change BECAUSE the income gap increased. the facts as presented do not state that one caused the other.

A Smith >> "As you can see, from 1993 until 2000, government involvement in the economy shrank and the larger private sector economy produced excellent growth numbers. From 2000 until now, government has undertaken a much bigger role, increasing spending on new drug benefits, bailouts for mismanaged banks, etc, and the result has been a SMALLER private sector, and much lower rates of economic growth. Those are the facts, jack."

as i see it, government involvement in the economy grew at the same time the private sector shrank -- but one did not cause the other. there are just way too many other factors involved to draw such a quick and easy conclusion by cherry picking facts and linking them together.

however, this has been pointed out to you before, but i do not believe you have ever presented more stats and facts that prove a causation.

It sure was wierd, in a good way to see the trains there on the weekend. I walked through the corktown area to check it out and it is an awesome sight. The trains stretch all the way back to Ferguson and you can see them over the Walnut and Catharine Street bridges as well.

It sure was wierd, in a good way to see the trains there on the weekend. I walked through the corktown area to check it out and it is an awesome sight. The trains stretch all the way back to Ferguson and you can see them over the Walnut and Catharine Street bridges as well.

Jonathan, how sad that you thought the trains in Hamilton were good, you needy freeloader!

Of course none of ASmith's blathering has to do with the GO train, just his ideology. Thanks again.

I can't believe you have the nerve to disparage the poor for not contributing to society and then immediately go to how much larger the income gap is. If the same number of people account for an increasing share of an area's total income then of course they're going to be paying more taxes you cut-and-paste economist.

Oh, and the main reason that government expenditures as a percentage of GDP in the states rose in 2001 was that some guys drove a few planes into a few buildings causing direct military expenditures to rise 50% as well as outsourcing of the military, creating whole new departments dedicated to eavesdropping and whatever else they think they think stopped people from flying planes into buildings. Unless of course you think the private sector should start forming their own militias (don't say yes to that, you're already despicable enough).

And most importantly, the good things that I referenced don't cost me or anyone else a cent, and I've had hundreds if not thousands already today.

Reuben >> as i see it, government involvement in the economy grew at the same time the private sector shrank -- but one did not cause the other.

Whenever government increases spending FASTER than the overall economy grows, it reduces the role of the private sector. This has to be the case, because the economy EITHER spends money in the private sector or the government sector, there is not a third sector. Furthermore, nobody forces the government to spend faster than the economy, it is a choice and a bad one at that.

>> the above statement could easily be flipped, saying that the tax rates change BECAUSE the income gap increased.

Tax rates are set by congress, but that is not the point. The point is that rich people are paying for poor people now more than they used to. The result has been an increase in lifestyles for the wealthy and stagnant wages for poor people. That's why I argue Hamilton needs less support from our rich neighbours and more of a "do it ourselves" attitude. Apparently this makes people angry, the idea of actually working for what we get/use, which ultimately makes the description of Hamilton as a BEGGAR ("a person who lives by asking for gifts") quite accurate. We want things that others work for. Tell me how this statement is incorrect.

>> If the same number of people account for an increasing share of an area's total income then of course they're going to be paying more taxes you cut-and-paste economist.

Why does this have to be the case? Is it a universal law that rich people have to subsidize less successful people's health programs, pensions, etc?

>> the main reason that government expenditures as a percentage of GDP in the states rose in 2001 was that some guys drove a few planes into a few buildings causing direct military expenditures to rise 50%

Non military spending as a percentage of GDP went up from 26.81% in 2000, to 29.88% at the end of 2008. This resulted in a smaller private sector and a slower economy. If Bill Clinton could decrease non military spending from 29.16 (Papa Bush, who also messed the economy up by increasing non military spending from 26.26% to 29.16%) in 1992 to 26.18% in 2000, there is no reason Bush II couldn't have held the line. He choose to increase government, just like his father and both of them ended up with lousy approval ratings, while Bill Clinton, who spent less on the people, ended up with high approval ratings, figure that out.

Why does this have to be the case? Is it a universal law that rich people have to subsidize less successful people's health programs, pensions, etc?

We live in a society. What you talk about is closer to serfdom. The rich start off by owning everything and dole out the spoils as they see fit.

If you don't want a society where the billionaires foot more than the working poor, that expect a full out revolution and the rich ending up with nothing. The only reason the system works as is, is that a high enough percentage of the population is comfortable. If you realistically think a society can exist where all citizens pay $X in taxes you are mistaken.

And of course you still haven't addressed why you think the addition of an extra train to Hamilton is a huge suck on tax payers. Mainly, because it isn't and you have no idea what you're talking about. Feel free to expand if I'm wrong.

More government equals less private sector. Thanks for the memories Stelco/U.S. Steel.

I rest my case.

So extending the GO train forced the shut down of Stelco. The best causation yet.

"I rest my case."

You've lost your mind.

Lol....once again, a derailed thread thanks to the troll. Is it the GO Train's fault that Bethlehem Steel shut down in Pittsburgh too??

First of all A Smith...if you think that somehow having more GO train service means that Hamilton is a "beggar", there's no other explanation other than that you are high on crack. Would you say the same of Ajax or Burlington?

Furthermore, transit has enormous value. Think about the alternative for many of Hamilton's commuters to get to jobs in Toronto, all around the same time each day. The added vehicles on our roadway system would make that commute far mor eof a nightmare than it is today. In your ideal "business is everything" world, those who drive the QEW would be more than willing to pay extra tolls just to divert some of the traffic off of the road and onto transit.

It's important to note that many of the people who earn a living in Toronto's downtown business district have chosen to make their home in Hamilton. Convenient transit is one thing that makes Hamilton livable for those individuals. This convenience is what drives up market prices for homes in the city. GO Transit and LRT will do far more to boost property values in the city than even a zero property tax rate could. Look at Portland for an example - one of the US cities that has suffered least from the real estate / credit crisis.

The foundation of real estate value - Location, Location, Location - is nearly 100% driven by access to services which are provided and paid for by the public. Not by begging, but by pooling their resources together to build and maintain what is needed for the community.

JonC, >> So extending the GO train forced the shut down of Stelco. The best causation yet.

This is what I said..."Whenever government increases spending FASTER than the overall economy grows, it reduces the role of the private sector."

What has transpired...Go train comes to town (increased government spending), Stelco/U.S Steel shuts down (less private sector).

Believe me or not, I am just telling the truth as I see it.

you are off your rocker, brother.

What you said was "More government equals less private sector. Thanks for the memories Stelco/U.S. Steel. I rest my case." If that is the truth as you see, I recommend you stimulate some growth in the psychiatric private sector.

JonC >> I recommend you stimulate some growth in the psychiatric private sector.

That's pretty funny and also quite appropriate, seeing as the government outlaws private medical delivery in Ontario.

Beside the hail staggers the image. The fork disappears around this spit! The heritage chops the postscript inside a duplicate psychologist. The variant rests! The offset forgets a retaining havoc against a postscript. The invited bookshop brains a bounce next to a freeing conflict.

A toe refines free market economy behind a universal. The emotional chairman walks within a diesel. Free market economy attends around an imperative. After each structural nature rots the patched amplifier. Free market economy splits a container past the bog.

The heat smiles across the nest. Smaller government waits behind an expanding god. The lecturer rears an addressed poet. Smaller government sugars the choral. Smaller government bores!

The bird returns outside the routed constitutional. The winner constrains too much crack lately outside a man. Too much crack lately disconnects an acid turnround. Why won't every electorate beg too much crack lately?

Then thank goodness your ship has come in. You can finally get your share that you've been cheated of for so long.

@A-Idiot - I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, but that's f'in poetry, man!

I read it as a modern Revelations.

ASmith - I would think that besides Toronto, Hamilton is probably one of the biggest tax providers to this province. And lets face it Toronto has gotten a helluva lot of our tax dollars the past 50 years or so.

Let's leave aside the shooting-fish-in-a-barrel exercise involving A. Smith's Randroid belief system for one sec and go back to the initial question that started it all.

"Whatever happened to the Hamilton that was built on hard work and free enterprise?

That Hamilton never existed. Hamilton was built on the back of a government-financed canal and a government-financed railway, and settled by aristocratic Family Compact sorts living on land granted to them by the government.

You just described all of Canada and pretty much all of the Americas (possibly minus canals, depending on where you are). I hope you didn't think you were insulting Hamilton specifically there.

Tom >> Hamilton was built on the back of a government-financed canal and a government-financed railway, and settled by aristocratic Family Compact sorts living on land granted to them by the government.

Where did the government get their money from?

You're right, it is an excellent example of the government pooling citizens' resources to undertake immensely successful infrastructure projects (or in this case a combination of buying up failed public enterprise and building new connecting infrastructure) that allowed the prospering of Canada as a whole.

JonC >> You're right, it is an excellent example of the government pooling citizens' resources to undertake immensely successful infrastructure projects

Did I say it was an excellent way to spend people's money? Where's that quote? All I was pointing out was that any money the government spent, ultimately came from people's hard work and free enterprise, not out of thin air.

Tom doesn't believe that hard work or free enterprise had anything to do with Hamilton becoming one of the most important economic centres in Canada and I disagree. I understand that wikipedia isn't the most reliable source, but read this...( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Hamilton,_Ontario ) and then tell me that the private sector wasn't the driving force behind this city's success.

Hard work and free enterprise most certainly were important, but they were built on a foundation of a canal which was the first public work undertaken with the backing of the provincial government and a railroad that was only built after garnering government guarantees. From your time line presented on wikipedia, those appear to be pretty pivotal points leading to the future prosperity of the city. Agree or disagree?

Yes, the the government built the canal and helped back the Great Western Railroad Company, which eventually ran out of money before it became operational and was reorganized in to the Great Western Railway Company.

Did the government help kick start some economic activity? Well, it appears that the canal was extremely important, however the railway investment doesn't seem to have been that effective, considering that the company went bankrupt.

Furthermore, at the time the canal and the railway were being built, the government accounted for no more than 7-8% of economic activity, if that. Moreover, during the period of time when big industry came to Hamilton (early 1900's), there was no income tax or sales tax.

So yes, the government did kick start things with setting up basic infrastructure, but most of the economic activity was in private hands. If you would like to go back to those days, where government spending accounted for no more than 10% of the economy, I would gladly accept that as a way to help turn this economy around.

I believe Great Western actually merged with Grand Trunk and was eventually bought by the government in the early 20th century when the national rail system was set up. Also, that the tracks are still in use today (although the system was sold back to the private sector), so I'd argue it was actually an exceptional choice of investment, but poorly run by businessmen that failed to accommodate a changing marketplace.

Apparently the only reason for something going bankrupt is the economy... That explains why, when the economy is cruising along, companies still go bankrupt. :S

Apparently the only reason for something going bankrupt is the economy... That explains why, when the economy is cruising along, companies still go bankrupt. :S