Raise the Hammer

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.