Skip to content
0
  • Home
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
  • Home
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Sketchy)
  • No Skin
Collapse

Wandering Adventure Party

  1. Home
  2. Canada
  3. Union claims prime minister broke promise to 'cap, not cut' public service

Union claims prime minister broke promise to 'cap, not cut' public service

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Canada
canada
51 Posts 9 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • P patatas@sh.itjust.works

    Hold on - what is the benefit to the PBO here?

    And if, as you say, there’s no reason to expect job cuts, then what benefit are the unions getting from “fear mongering”?

    A This user is from outside of this forum
    A This user is from outside of this forum
    arkouda@lemmy.ca
    wrote on last edited by
    #27

    Do you have something to add or are we done here?

    P 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • A arkouda@lemmy.ca

      Do you have something to add or are we done here?

      P This user is from outside of this forum
      P This user is from outside of this forum
      patatas@sh.itjust.works
      wrote on last edited by
      #28

      I asked you to back up your assertion, did you have anything to back it up with? If not then yes, we’re done here

      A 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • P patatas@sh.itjust.works

        I asked you to back up your assertion, did you have anything to back it up with? If not then yes, we’re done here

        A This user is from outside of this forum
        A This user is from outside of this forum
        arkouda@lemmy.ca
        wrote on last edited by
        #29

        I already did what you are asking, and I won’t repeat myself again.

        Take care.

        P 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • A arkouda@lemmy.ca

          I already did what you are asking, and I won’t repeat myself again.

          Take care.

          P This user is from outside of this forum
          P This user is from outside of this forum
          patatas@sh.itjust.works
          wrote on last edited by
          #30

          Um no, you claimed that people were “fear mongering” because it is to their “personal benefit” to do so.

          I asked what the benefit would be to the critics if they were just inventing a narrative rather than pointing to a genuine problem.

          In other words, if it is reasonable to assume that Carney’s government is not going to cut personnel, then what is the benefit to the union to say the opposite? Wouldn’t they simply end up looking foolish and untrustworthy?

          On the other hand, if it is reasonable to assume that the PBO and the federal workforce are being genuine, then yes, there would he a benefit to them to not lose their jobs.

          But it’s only in the latter case - where the PBO and unions are the ones telling the truth here - that there’s a material benefit to them for speaking out.

          Thus, your assertion contains a contradiction. I asked you to explain that contradiction. It seems you’ve declined to do so. Take care.

          A 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • P patatas@sh.itjust.works

            Um no, you claimed that people were “fear mongering” because it is to their “personal benefit” to do so.

            I asked what the benefit would be to the critics if they were just inventing a narrative rather than pointing to a genuine problem.

            In other words, if it is reasonable to assume that Carney’s government is not going to cut personnel, then what is the benefit to the union to say the opposite? Wouldn’t they simply end up looking foolish and untrustworthy?

            On the other hand, if it is reasonable to assume that the PBO and the federal workforce are being genuine, then yes, there would he a benefit to them to not lose their jobs.

            But it’s only in the latter case - where the PBO and unions are the ones telling the truth here - that there’s a material benefit to them for speaking out.

            Thus, your assertion contains a contradiction. I asked you to explain that contradiction. It seems you’ve declined to do so. Take care.

            A This user is from outside of this forum
            A This user is from outside of this forum
            arkouda@lemmy.ca
            wrote on last edited by
            #31

            When you can provide a single piece of anything to support your point I am all ears.

            P 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • A arkouda@lemmy.ca

              When you can provide a single piece of anything to support your point I am all ears.

              P This user is from outside of this forum
              P This user is from outside of this forum
              patatas@sh.itjust.works
              wrote on last edited by
              #32

              Read the article.

              A 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • P patatas@sh.itjust.works

                Read the article.

                A This user is from outside of this forum
                A This user is from outside of this forum
                arkouda@lemmy.ca
                wrote on last edited by arkouda@lemmy.ca
                #33

                Unfortunately for you, I did.

                Economists, including Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux, have said that it could be difficult to achieve Carney’s spending promises without significant cuts.

                Notice how it says “could be difficult” and not “absolutely impossible”.

                You have now used up all good faith.

                Take care.

                P 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • A arkouda@lemmy.ca

                  Unfortunately for you, I did.

                  Economists, including Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux, have said that it could be difficult to achieve Carney’s spending promises without significant cuts.

                  Notice how it says “could be difficult” and not “absolutely impossible”.

                  You have now used up all good faith.

                  Take care.

                  P This user is from outside of this forum
                  P This user is from outside of this forum
                  patatas@sh.itjust.works
                  wrote on last edited by patatas@sh.itjust.works
                  #34

                  Notice the language: “without significant cuts”. The PBO did not say “without cuts”. This implies that cuts are assumed, it’s just a matter of degree.

                  Anyway you also still refuse to address the contradiction inherent to your claim about “personal benefit” to unions raising the alarm.

                  Not saying you’re a bad faith actor whose entire purpose on these forums is to sow doubt and muddy the waters, but I am saying that your actions are virtually indistinguishable from someone who is.

                  Edit: huh, so another thing about the sentence you quoted is that it’s not even a direct quote from the PBO. Here’s a direct quote:

                  “To balance or to pay for these types of additional spending there would need to be severe cuts to the public service, significant cuts,” Giroux said.

                  403 Forbidden

                  favicon

                  (ottawacitizen.com)

                  A 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • P patatas@sh.itjust.works

                    Notice the language: “without significant cuts”. The PBO did not say “without cuts”. This implies that cuts are assumed, it’s just a matter of degree.

                    Anyway you also still refuse to address the contradiction inherent to your claim about “personal benefit” to unions raising the alarm.

                    Not saying you’re a bad faith actor whose entire purpose on these forums is to sow doubt and muddy the waters, but I am saying that your actions are virtually indistinguishable from someone who is.

                    Edit: huh, so another thing about the sentence you quoted is that it’s not even a direct quote from the PBO. Here’s a direct quote:

                    “To balance or to pay for these types of additional spending there would need to be severe cuts to the public service, significant cuts,” Giroux said.

                    403 Forbidden

                    favicon

                    (ottawacitizen.com)

                    A This user is from outside of this forum
                    A This user is from outside of this forum
                    arkouda@lemmy.ca
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #35

                    Currently, the main estimates don’t suggest major cuts to the public service, Giroux said.

                    P 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • A arkouda@lemmy.ca

                      I do not remember a single part of the Liberal election platform that said “We won’t cut funding in public services”. The only thing I can remember being exclusively off the table were cuts to Provincial transfers.

                      It would be nice if the article cited those promises, but that is the Ottawa Citizen (Post media) for you.

                      P This user is from outside of this forum
                      P This user is from outside of this forum
                      patatas@sh.itjust.works
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #36

                      Here’s a direct quote from the PBO on June 5th when asked about the Carney Liberals’ planned tripling of the defense budget and simultaneous tax cuts:

                      “To balance or to pay for these types of additional spending there would need to be severe cuts to the public service, significant cuts,” Giroux said.

                      403 Forbidden

                      favicon

                      (ottawacitizen.com)

                      The Liberals’ platform explicitly talked about capping the size of the public service, not cutting it. It’s frankly ridiculous to pretend they never said this.

                      A 1 Reply Last reply
                      3
                      • A arkouda@lemmy.ca

                        Currently, the main estimates don’t suggest major cuts to the public service, Giroux said.

                        P This user is from outside of this forum
                        P This user is from outside of this forum
                        patatas@sh.itjust.works
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #37

                        Yeah, that was in June, they hadn’t updated things yet and the 15% cuts hadn’t been announced either

                        Again, not saying you’re a bad faith actor, but

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • P patatas@sh.itjust.works

                          Here’s a direct quote from the PBO on June 5th when asked about the Carney Liberals’ planned tripling of the defense budget and simultaneous tax cuts:

                          “To balance or to pay for these types of additional spending there would need to be severe cuts to the public service, significant cuts,” Giroux said.

                          403 Forbidden

                          favicon

                          (ottawacitizen.com)

                          The Liberals’ platform explicitly talked about capping the size of the public service, not cutting it. It’s frankly ridiculous to pretend they never said this.

                          A This user is from outside of this forum
                          A This user is from outside of this forum
                          arkouda@lemmy.ca
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #38

                          From your source. Again.

                          Currently, the main estimates don’t suggest major cuts to the public service, Giroux said.

                          P 1 Reply Last reply
                          1
                          • A arkouda@lemmy.ca

                            From your source. Again.

                            Currently, the main estimates don’t suggest major cuts to the public service, Giroux said.

                            P This user is from outside of this forum
                            P This user is from outside of this forum
                            patatas@sh.itjust.works
                            wrote on last edited by patatas@sh.itjust.works
                            #39

                            Uh huh, and here’s what he meant by that, in case anyone else is inclined to trust your framing of the article:

                            Giroux said he expected that the main estimates, which are a breakdown of what the government expects to spend this fiscal year, would be different. The estimates were more in line with the level of spending by the government of former prime minister Justin Trudeau than expected, he said.

                            “Given that we were told that it would be a different set of priorities for the government, it’s not reflected in the main estimates,” he said.

                            You’re not arguing I’m good faith here, or frankly anywhere else I have seen in this community. What makes you want to defend this government so badly that you’re willing to continually distort reality to do so? See rule 2.

                            A P 2 Replies Last reply
                            0
                            • P patatas@sh.itjust.works

                              Uh huh, and here’s what he meant by that, in case anyone else is inclined to trust your framing of the article:

                              Giroux said he expected that the main estimates, which are a breakdown of what the government expects to spend this fiscal year, would be different. The estimates were more in line with the level of spending by the government of former prime minister Justin Trudeau than expected, he said.

                              “Given that we were told that it would be a different set of priorities for the government, it’s not reflected in the main estimates,” he said.

                              You’re not arguing I’m good faith here, or frankly anywhere else I have seen in this community. What makes you want to defend this government so badly that you’re willing to continually distort reality to do so? See rule 2.

                              A This user is from outside of this forum
                              A This user is from outside of this forum
                              arkouda@lemmy.ca
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #40

                              Why are you continuing to cite an article that you yourself said is outdated, and are stating I am operating in bad faith by citing the conclusion of the article?

                              Yeah, that was in June, they hadn’t updated things yet and the 15% cuts hadn’t been announced either

                              Again, not saying you’re a bad faith actor, but

                              Link Preview Image
                              Union claims prime minister broke promise to 'cap, not cut' public service - Lemmy.ca

                              Lemmy

                              favicon

                              (lemmy.ca)

                              P 1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • A arkouda@lemmy.ca

                                Why are you continuing to cite an article that you yourself said is outdated, and are stating I am operating in bad faith by citing the conclusion of the article?

                                Yeah, that was in June, they hadn’t updated things yet and the 15% cuts hadn’t been announced either

                                Again, not saying you’re a bad faith actor, but

                                Link Preview Image
                                Union claims prime minister broke promise to 'cap, not cut' public service - Lemmy.ca

                                Lemmy

                                favicon

                                (lemmy.ca)

                                P This user is from outside of this forum
                                P This user is from outside of this forum
                                patatas@sh.itjust.works
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #41

                                If you are actually trying to understand my argument here:

                                I am not saying the article is outdated, I am saying that the article itself has the PBO saying that the main estimates became outdated when Carney announced the defense spending increases. This is why the sentence you picked actually means the exact opposite of what you were trying to claim it means.

                                That is textbook mis-/dis-information on your part.

                                P 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • P patatas@sh.itjust.works

                                  If you are actually trying to understand my argument here:

                                  I am not saying the article is outdated, I am saying that the article itself has the PBO saying that the main estimates became outdated when Carney announced the defense spending increases. This is why the sentence you picked actually means the exact opposite of what you were trying to claim it means.

                                  That is textbook mis-/dis-information on your part.

                                  P This user is from outside of this forum
                                  P This user is from outside of this forum
                                  patatas@sh.itjust.works
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #42

                                  @otter@lemmy.ca if it is “uncivil” to call out deliberate attempts at misinformation, then why have a rule against misinformation?

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  1
                                  • P patatas@sh.itjust.works

                                    Uh huh, and here’s what he meant by that, in case anyone else is inclined to trust your framing of the article:

                                    Giroux said he expected that the main estimates, which are a breakdown of what the government expects to spend this fiscal year, would be different. The estimates were more in line with the level of spending by the government of former prime minister Justin Trudeau than expected, he said.

                                    “Given that we were told that it would be a different set of priorities for the government, it’s not reflected in the main estimates,” he said.

                                    You’re not arguing I’m good faith here, or frankly anywhere else I have seen in this community. What makes you want to defend this government so badly that you’re willing to continually distort reality to do so? See rule 2.

                                    P This user is from outside of this forum
                                    P This user is from outside of this forum
                                    patatas@sh.itjust.works
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #43

                                    @otter@otter@lemmy.ca the above (removed) reply calls out the comment above it for taking a single sentence out of context in a way that doesn’t just distort its meaning, but actually reverses it.

                                    That constitutes deliberate misinformation.

                                    If this community allows misinfo, then please remove the rule against it to avoid confusion. Otherwise, it should not be an issue of “civility” for someone to call out deliberate distortion of facts.

                                    OtterO 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • P patatas@sh.itjust.works

                                      @otter@otter@lemmy.ca the above (removed) reply calls out the comment above it for taking a single sentence out of context in a way that doesn’t just distort its meaning, but actually reverses it.

                                      That constitutes deliberate misinformation.

                                      If this community allows misinfo, then please remove the rule against it to avoid confusion. Otherwise, it should not be an issue of “civility” for someone to call out deliberate distortion of facts.

                                      OtterO This user is from outside of this forum
                                      OtterO This user is from outside of this forum
                                      Otter
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #44

                                      Hi, we’re discussing this one with the other admins and someone will get back to you soon. I’ve reapproved the comments in the meantime.

                                      P 1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • OtterO Otter

                                        Hi, we’re discussing this one with the other admins and someone will get back to you soon. I’ve reapproved the comments in the meantime.

                                        P This user is from outside of this forum
                                        P This user is from outside of this forum
                                        patatas@sh.itjust.works
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #45

                                        Appreciate the update, thanks

                                        OtterO 1 Reply Last reply
                                        1
                                        • P patatas@sh.itjust.works

                                          OK so you’re saying the quotes from the unions and PBO are fake news?

                                          I ask because some people seem to think that “media literacy” means uncritically discarding all information from a particular outlet, rather than recognising the ways in which bias can affect what, and how, events are portrayed in media, and using that as a lens with which to interpret the mix of fact and framing that all reporting invariably has

                                          A This user is from outside of this forum
                                          A This user is from outside of this forum
                                          alloi@lemmy.world
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #46

                                          I JUST LEARNED HOW TO WRITE BIG THANKS TO THIS POST.

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          2

                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                                          • First post
                                            Last post