Mark H.
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Mark H.
-
-
2 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:
All that being said, I know a few doctors and they say there's lot that could be fixed with our current system, if the political will was there to do it. Unfortunately, anybody who even mentions changing our current system is pilloried immediately, and so it's just politically safer to do nothing, and just keep the spending taps open. I lived in Australia for a year, and I definitely think their private/public hybrid system is better than ours, in terms of wait times and quality. But that's just my observation. People there seem pretty happy with their system.
I think health care has seen plenty of cuts over the past two decades. For example, provincial health budgets were cut in the 90's as a consequence of Chretien / Martin slashing federal transfer payments. Even in Manitoba under the NDP, nurses had to take a wage freeze a few years ago.
-
IMO, NFL interest should bump a player like Muamba further down.
There are several players who would have been far better value for the Bombers.
-
4 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:
Truly, who cares about Hernandez? The guy was a dirt bag. Is he really worth even a page here on this topic? If he really cared about his daughter & the rest of his family he'd have used his God given talents to give them the financial freedom & happiness they deserved. Instead, in the end he gave them nothing but sadness & suffering.
Truth be told, there are probably things y'all don't know about every single person mentioned in this thread.
-
14 hours ago, rebusrankin said:
Oh I know, nobody is going to give up benefits, I just suspect it will be suggested. Ie give up X or you could lose Y # of positions.
That could only work if our agreements had class size & composition clauses - at this point they don't. They can't bargain something that's beyond the scope of collective agreements and controlled only by legislation. The K - 3 class size cap is an example of that - one government put it in place, the other removed it; in both cases it was at their discretion.
-
4 hours ago, rebusrankin said:
Agreed but I think you see wage freezes to start and perhaps you try to take away benefits in future agreements?
Yes, wage freezes have already been legislated. Next round 0%, 0%, 0.75%, & 1%
As for taking away benefits, some of our most important benefits as teachers were negotiated when the Filmon Tories were in power
No one will settle an agreement where they lose existing benefits, strikes and interest arbitration will happen first
-
On 14/04/2017 at 9:27 AM, kcin94 said:
In the meantime, U of M will be cancelling some classes starting in the fall because the University will claim they can't give money to the departments to hire teachers to run them.
This is where the cuts will happen. When you have salaries set to increase by 2%, with funding only increasing by 1%, something has to give.
After the precedence set by the Supreme Court when the BC government stripped clauses from negotiated collective agreements, the Manitoba government will be very hesitant to touch existing collective agreements in this province.
Considering most of the expenses in public sector are salaries (where else would they be?), expect further cuts to employees and staffing.
-
On 11/04/2017 at 3:40 PM, Atomic said:
Is this the place to ***** about Manitoba politics? Pallister keeps ramming me in the ass!!
Concur. Balanced budgets and cuts sound great - until they land on your doorstep.
In our case, it was cut backs at Manitoba Housing affecting the cabinet work we do for them.
-
7 hours ago, bearpants said:
What's that saying about how all stats are 100% accurate and tell the complete story?...
There are lies, damn lies and statistics
-
10 hours ago, Noeller said:
I remember MOS talking last year about how he hates the term "turnover" and the team uses "Take Away", because he feels like turnover undervalues the work of the defense on those defensive plays. Somehow it's always looked at as the offense made a mistake and that's the only reason it happened, rather than giving the defense any credit at all for it, which some would argue is more often the case...
Well, if you extend that further it becomes rather awkward. Hypothetically speaking, if a QB or a receiver gets rocked, resulting in an interception, maybe that shouldn't count against the QB's TD to interception ratio.
-
3 minutes ago, wbbfan said:
I think its 100% chance auclair will be in an nfl camp. Will he be in the cfl part way through this year or next year? Cant say for sure.
If they were both gonna be in the cfl id take auclair. The difference between him and vandervoort/jfg blocking on run plays, pinching an end, and blocking on pass plays away from him is massive. Add in his miss match lining up against any defender especially in the redzone and you have a dream package guy. I think both would produce similarly at catching and yards.
All of which could easily land him an NFL job. Depth at the tight end position and perhaps an extra body for jumbo packages.
-
On 2017-03-24 at 5:40 PM, mbrg said:
It's not a comeback, just something interesting to note. Since that last win in 1990, both Toronto and Winnipeg have been to the Grey Cup 5 times. Toronto is 5-0. Winnipeg is 0-5.
Toronto isn't a significantly better football program over that time period but they have hit a grand slam off the crossbar every time they're at the free throw line from the hack.
Indeed. 5 Grey Cups for the boatmen seems bloody unlikely - but true
-
-
-
On 17/03/2017 at 10:45 AM, Wideleft said:
As someone who grew up on a farm (and has followed food production with interest), I can tell you this much: The nature of agricultural production and food supply pits various ag sectors against each other. When grain prices are high, that hurts ranchers and other livestock/milk/egg production. Grain price spikes usually occur in times of global shortages (usually weather-related), so as long as you're in a part of Canada that had good growing (and harvest) conditions, you might have a very good year. If you are a buyer of feed grain, you'll still feel the pinch.
Every sector seems to hate dairy farmers because they have a sustainable program that manages supply (and therefore guarantees reasonable income). It's a system that has worked, but has also shown that if marketing boards are taken over by the biggest farmers, they can make the small ones go away (the same thing happened when Filmon removed the single desk sales mechanism for hog production, but to a greater extent-there are no small hog farmers anymore). The Trump team has already said they will be going after Canada to end Supply Management (as most American governments have).
Anyway, since farmers are divided by natural market forces, the have seemingly lost their ability to cooperate and form any kind of unified voice to advocate for themselves. All the successful lobbying in the Ag sector is done by the processors now and producers are left on their own. This forced independence has reinforced an almost Libertarian viewpoint (and I know there are exceptions). Farmers really hate taxes, even though they have some of the most generous tax breaks available. Since most farmers are now over 50, they are also very set in whatever ideology they have already had.
So to make a long story short, the ones in favour of disbanding the Wheat Board will tell you it was a great move regardless of how it has actually effected them (another farmer trait). They won't mention that they are happy paying for private companies operating expenses as well as their profit margins instead of only covering the CWB's operating expenses.
The farmers against the disbanding of the CWB are either fighting for a return or have likely moved on to other crops and are saying "I told you so" (another farmer trait).
It's hard to find published statistics on wheat production since 2012 (Wikipedia can get you up to 2014), it's also really hard to say how prices (more importantly, income) have been effected, because it's now up to individual farmers to market their crop. Wheat prices are a commodity, so the prices are set. How it grades at the elevator and what each farmer has negotiated in his contract is a whole other unquantifiable (at least based on the info I have tried to find) answer.
Don't think I even came close to answering the question...
Eggs, broiler chickens, turkeys, and milk are all under the supply management system. They all turn a profit regardless of feed prices, it's not just true of dairy. Example: an efficient egg producer can currently produce eggs for $0.64 per dozen. He will receive $1.90 - $2.50 per dozen for his eggs under the Canadian supply management system. A U.S. producer will receive less than a dollar per dozen for his eggs. When corn prices rise, he will make pennies on the dozen or even lose money.
There is really no comparison to be made between hogs and dairy. Hogs were sold through a single desk but they were never supply managed. Small hog farmers were phased out partly because of the single desk, but also because they were producing poor quality hogs. Today's consumer demands lean meat. If you're going to raise hogs in the barnyard, they will be fat, it's their protection against the elements. If you feed them food scraps and garbage, they will put on even more fat. The modern hog industry has reached the point where some producers are able to raise hogs without antibiotics, due to stringent hygiene and biosecurity standards.
As for the CWB - they did a great job marketing hard spring wheat, got good prices for farmers, and helped the small farmers stay competitive. However, in the ever diversifying agricultural landscape of the prairies, they remained stagnant. Farmers were growing winter wheat, malting barley, soybeans, and corn, just to name a few of the newer crops. The CWB continued to market only hard spring wheat. Had they been more diversified and consequently more relevant, it would have been much harder to remove them.
- Wanna-B-Fanboy and Wideleft
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, bearpants said:
If Mitch McConnell is defending Obama... there's problems in the GOP!
"word for word" is a bit of a stretch.... but in all honesty... I don't really have a problem with what Ben Carson said (I only heard the quote out of context so I can't really comment on his intentions but it sounded like he was defending immigration)... you are correct that the media overreacted on this one...
Plenty of immigrants who came weren't much better off than the African slaves - coffin ships anyone? Many Irish immigrants came as indentured servants. While that's a far cry from being a slave for life, it's still a pretty crappy hand to get dealt. The gap between people who came as slaves and people who came as immigrants is not that far apart in many cases.
-
-
-
24 minutes ago, Atomic said:
So illegal immigrants with criminal records did not sneak in and commit crimes? Read the post you quoted.
“What we are going to do is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers, where a lot of these people, probably 2 million, it could be even 3 million, we are getting them out of our country or we are going to incarcerate,” Trump told "60 Minutes” correspondent Lesley Stahl, according to a preview of the interview released by CBS. “But we’re getting them out of our country. They’re here illegally.”
How did they get in, if not illegally? How do they have criminal records, if they have not committed crimes? You're going to compare their crimes to being an escaped slave? What a joke. That's an embarrassment and offensive to the history of black Americans.
In the mid 19th century context, escaped slaves were considered criminals by the US government. Agreeing with the rhetoric of that post and implying that refugees are criminals is an insult to refugees who come here and earn an honest living. Do you really believe 2 - 3 million criminals will be moving into Canada and Mexico? That the people who came to Manitoba this past week seeking asylum are criminals?
-
10 minutes ago, Atomic said:
Really? You're comparing the history of Black Americans, who were kidnapped from their homeland or born into slavery, with illegal immigrants who willingly sneak into America and then have the audacity to commit crimes?
Oh sure. They all snuck in, all committed crimes, and now they're all seeking asylum in Canada.
And yes, it was illegal to be an escaped slave; they came to Canada as refugees.
History repeating itself...
-
18 hours ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:
Trump is continuing to ramp up the rhetoric, threatening to deport any undocumented immigrant that has a criminal record. Inevitably the increasing level of threats directed towards specific immigrant populations will turn the current trickle of refugees seeking asylum in Canada into a flood by early summer. Couldn't imagine a worse neighbour, they know the collateral effect of their policies and they don't give a damn. Our problem, is part of their convenient solution. It's akin to running a sewer pipe onto your neighbours property to dispose of your fecal matter.
I hope Trudeau has the balls to stuff a billion dollar invoice into Trump's cake hole and kick him in the nuts after this all plays out, cause you, I, and KBF are going to be the ones paying the bill.
“What we are going to do is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers, where a lot of these people, probably 2 million, it could be even 3 million, we are getting them out of our country or we are going to incarcerate,” Trump told "60 Minutes” correspondent Lesley Stahl, according to a preview of the interview released by CBS. “But we’re getting them out of our country. They’re here illegally.”
May as well make it retroactive. Send refugee bills to Obama and Bush as well.
This is like the Underground Railroad all over again.
-
-
43 minutes ago, Mark F said:
pay higher salaries, and provide better working conditions. Canadians will do the job.
and try to make Mexicans' and other Latin American's lives in their own countries better;
for instance, don't dump Big Ag American corn into mexico, thereby throwing small Mexican famers off the land and driving them to the United states and up here looking for temporary migrant jobs thousands of miles from their home and family.
The meat packers had no trouble getting canadians to work in the factories in Winnipeg, till they broke the unions, and drove wages down to half of what they were. Now they have to bring people in from Latin America. Surprised? I'm not.
Actually, they were having trouble hiring butchers even with better wages. That's why places like Burns & Jack Forgan went out of business.
Higher wages = higher food prices. We've become addicted to food that's cheaper than it should be, especially meat.
-
9 hours ago, Mark F said:
There is a tendency to look for simple explanations for things.
For instance being opposed to illegal immigration, could be a result of A. being a racist, or
B. not being a racist at all, but realizing that there aren't enough jobs for the people already in the your country, let alone another several million, who will drive down wages;
But if you say you oppose illegal immigration, you will be called racist, by some people.
I know you were just giving an example - but who's picking their tomatoes now? No one - many are rotting in the fields. The truth is, Hispanics take jobs that no one else wants. They do the same thing right here in Manitoba - for Peak of the Market.
The Health Thread
in General Discussion
It takes 2 - 3 years for a grass fed beef cow to reach market weight vs. 18 months in a feedlot. Also, you need about 15 - 20 acres of pasture to feed one cow for one year, 20 - 30 acres if it's a cow - calf pair. There's a reason why cows are raised in feed lots - it's cheaper and more efficient.
You mostly all know I'm a Hutterite. We raise about 10 beef cattle per year for our own use. They're on pasture with one feeding of barley or oats per day and hay in the winter, plus a mineral supplement. We typically buy newly weaned calves (6 - 8 months old) and feed them for about another 1.5 to 2 years.
We know farmers who raise grass fed beef on a larger scale and have a great deal of respect for them - it's a healthy and sustainable way to raise food, but it is very expensive. Delivering a large grass fed steak to your door for $9.99 is highly unlikely, and they would tell you that too.