[CDN_PATRIOT]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

It’s just sad that cheap gimmicks like this is what politics has sunk to.

If that's not the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. I take it your breakfast includes a main course of hypocrisy, and a generous slathering of Plan B?

Don't forget to wash it down with a tall glass of Liberal tears (of which, you seem to have plenty)!



-J.

(P.S. Tonight's dessert is a generous slice of humble pie.....)

[BeaverFever]

CDN_PATRIOT CDN_PATRIOT:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

It’s just sad that cheap gimmicks like this is what politics has sunk to.

If that's not the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.

So we agree, you don’t know what is.

[Coach85]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

There has ha a minimum price for alcohol for decades, it goes up nominally once in a while to reflect inflation. It wasn’t an invention of the recent Liberal government Alberta has one too., as just does just about every province.

Also Ford is not “doing away with government dictating the price of beer” he is simply dictating a new price. For no real reason. What problem is he trying to solve? Are there people who currently can’t afford beer who will now have access, and should that be a pressing concern for government?


So you can relax with the Liberal Derangement Syndrome. .

The price isn't raised due to inflation. The price is raised specifically to curb usage. That's why it's there. It also stifles competition.

The reason he's doing that and why people want it is due to 15 years of living in a nanny-state. People are tired of being told what pets they can own and how much they have to pay for something.

It's also an election promise, something you'd be sure to rip him for if he backed off. Instead, you note is as a stupid gimmick.

Following through on what you say is why it's a pressing concern for government. I know we're not used to this sort of thing at any level of government but it's kinda nice to see, even if I don't care or agree with what he's doing.

[Thanos]

Coach85 Coach85:

The price isn't raised due to inflation. The price is raised specifically to curb usage. That's why it's there. It also stifles competition.

The reason he's doing that and why people want it is due to 15 years of living in a nanny-state. People are tired of being told what pets they can own and how much they have to pay for something.

So pretty much like the old Prohibitionists, the McGuinty/Wynne Liberals relied on some tedious "we're doing it for your own good" argument? Why am I not surprised at all by that?

[Coach85]

Thanos Thanos:

Coach85 Coach85:

The price isn't raised due to inflation. The price is raised specifically to curb usage. That's why it's there. It also stifles competition.

The reason he's doing that and why people want it is due to 15 years of living in a nanny-state. People are tired of being told what pets they can own and how much they have to pay for something.

So pretty much like the old Prohibitionists, the McGuinty/Wynne Liberals relied on some tedious "we're doing it for your own good" argument? Why am I not surprised at all by that?

They did it at least twice during their tenure...often backed by heavy lobbying from the likes of MADD and the brewing industry.

Under Premier Dad and Wynne, Ontarians were constantly talked down to. They always knew best.

[BeaverFever]

Coach85 Coach85:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

There has ha a minimum price for alcohol for decades, it goes up nominally once in a while to reflect inflation. It wasn’t an invention of the recent Liberal government Alberta has one too., as just does just about every province.

Also Ford is not “doing away with government dictating the price of beer” he is simply dictating a new price. For no real reason. What problem is he trying to solve? Are there people who currently can’t afford beer who will now have access, and should that be a pressing concern for government?


So you can relax with the Liberal Derangement Syndrome. .

The price isn't raised due to inflation. The price is raised specifically to curb usage. That's why it's there. It also stifles competition.

$1:

No, the price floor itself exists to curb usage. Over time, the floor is increased to reflect inflation in order for the floor to remain relevant. They don’t raise the price in response to changes in usage they raise it in response to inflation. But only periodically for political reasons.

$1:

The reason he's doing that and why people want it is due to 15 years of living in a nanny-state. People are tired of being told what pets they can own and how much they have to pay for something.

. I love how you take things that have been happening for decades under a variety of governments and pretend it’s only happened during the last 15 years of Liberal rule.

And FTR pet ownership rules, where they exist, are municipal bylaws not provincial laws and are even older than the booze laws, much less McGuinty/Wynne creations

$1:

It's also an election promise, something you'd be sure to rip him for if he backed off. Instead, you note is as a stupid gimmick.

. It is stupid gimmick. He shouldn’t have made the stupid promise in the first place it’s a cheap gimmick not based on any facts or need. Like who were the people in dire need of price relief for cheap beer?

$1:

Following through on what you say is why it's a pressing concern for government. I know we're not used to this sort of thing at any level of government but it's kinda nice to see, even if I don't care or agree with what he's doing.

I don’t see why you keep harping on this one point, it’s irrelevant as Ford’s whole idea and promise is dumb in the first place. You speak as if you think the campaign promise was beyond his control like it was ordained by god ir something and he’s just an honest guy with no choice but to see it through. It’s not, it was his idea his decision to make it a campaign promise. I’m criticizing all of it not just the follow through but at the end. . Dumb things aren’t justified just because the person who did the dumb thing had promised to do it ahead of time.

[Coach85]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

No, the price floor itself exists to curb usage. Over time, the floor is increased to reflect inflation in order for the floor to remain relevant. They don’t raise the price in response to changes in usage they raise it in response to inflation. But only periodically for political reasons.

Sure they do. The beer lobbyists have zero say? Sure, let's believe that for now.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I love how you take things that have been happening for decades under a variety of governments and pretend it’s only happened during the last 15 years of Liberal rule.

And FTR pet ownership rules, where they exist, are municipal bylaws not provincial laws and are even older than the booze laws, much less McGuinty/Wynne creations

Few governments before the beloved McGuinty/Wynne combo were so fond of being the leader of the nanny state.

Did you miss the Liberals banning pitbulls? Let me refresh you:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ontario- ... s-1.526147

As you mentioned, pet ownership rules are typically controlled via the Municipality. Why would they overstep? McGuinty knew best!

Edit: In this post, you specifically discussed the Ontario ban. Did you forget that Ontario was behind this or just temporary memory loss to help support your point?

post1918366

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

It is stupid gimmick. He shouldn’t have made the stupid promise in the first place it’s a cheap gimmick not based on any facts or need. Like who were the people in dire need of price relief for cheap beer?

Sure it's a gimmick. Lots of things in campaigns are gimmicks dressed up with pretty words and put inside a campaign document to entice people to vote for them.

The difference is, usually they're floated out there and then nothing happens. This time, something actually happened. You enjoy being lied too. I get it. This is new and uncomfortable territory for Ontario Liberals.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I don’t see why you keep harping on this one point, it’s irrelevant as Ford’s whole idea and promise is dumb in the first place. You speak as if you think the campaign promise was beyond his control like it was ordained by god ir something and he’s just an honest guy with no choice but to see it through. It’s not, it was his idea his decision to make it a campaign promise. I’m criticizing all of it not just the follow through but at the end. . Dumb things aren’t justified just because the person who did the dumb thing had promised to do it ahead of time.

It's dumb to you, but not to everyone. You don't speak for Ontario. While I understand that being a Liberal entitled you to such an opinion, that's not actually how it works. While I don't care for the idea and fully believe it's a gimmick, the man has followed through.

There is something to be said about a politician that follows through on his promises.

[BeaverFever]

Coach85 Coach85:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

No, the price floor itself exists to curb usage. Over time, the floor is increased to reflect inflation in order for the floor to remain relevant. They don’t raise the price in response to changes in usage they raise it in response to inflation. But only periodically for political reasons.

Sure they do. The beer lobbyists have zero say? Sure, let's believe that for now.

. What are you suggesting the beer lobbyists are behind the price increases? I just don’t follow your point.

$1:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I love how you take things that have been happening for decades under a variety of governments and pretend it’s only happened during the last 15 years of Liberal rule.

And FTR pet ownership rules, where they exist, are municipal bylaws not provincial laws and are even older than the booze laws, much less McGuinty/Wynne creations

Few governments before the beloved McGuinty/Wynne combo were so fond of being the leader of the nanny state.

. Nope that’s a feature of Canada, it’s why we have public healthcare for example. And Ford’s buck-a-beer gimmick is government interventionism too, as I’ll explain shortly...

$1:

Did you miss the Liberals banning pitbulls? Let me refresh you:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ontario- ... s-1.526147

As you mentioned, pet ownership rules are typically controlled via the Municipality. Why would they overstep? McGuinty knew best!

Edit: In this post, you specifically discussed the Ontario ban. Did you forget that Ontario was behind this or just temporary memory loss to help support your point?

http://www.canadaka.net/forums/post1918366

I didn’t support the pit bull ban that was cheap pandering to public hysteria but two things that are different: 1) The pitbull ban, ill-informed as it was, was an extant demand among voters that McG acknowledged, he wasn’t the originator of the idea, whereas the demand to lower the price of beer didn’t exist : Ford invented it. 2) The pitbull ban, ill-informed as it was championed by members of the public who thought it would make society safer; they were misguided but had well intentioned goals and thought this would solve a problem, whereas buck-a-beer is both misguided and is not atttempting to solve any problems. What’s next free ice cream on Ford’s birthday?

$1:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

It is stupid gimmick. He shouldn’t have made the stupid promise in the first place it’s a cheap gimmick not based on any facts or need. Like who were the people in dire need of price relief for cheap beer?

Sure it's a gimmick. Lots of things in campaigns are gimmicks dressed up with pretty words and put inside a campaign document to entice people to vote for them.

The difference is, usually they're floated out there and then nothing happens. This time, something actually happened. You enjoy being lied too. I get it. This is new and uncomfortable territory for Ontario Liberals.

No it happens all the time. See: pitbull ban. See: Rx coverage for seniors and children (latter already scaled back by Ford). Eventually Ford will have to back away from an election promise someday too.

$1:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I don’t see why you keep harping on this one point, it’s irrelevant as Ford’s whole idea and promise is dumb in the first place. You speak as if you think the campaign promise was beyond his control like it was ordained by god ir something and he’s just an honest guy with no choice but to see it through. It’s not, it was his idea his decision to make it a campaign promise. I’m criticizing all of it not just the follow through but at the end. . Dumb things aren’t justified just because the person who did the dumb thing had promised to do it ahead of time.

It's dumb to you, but not to everyone. You don't speak for Ontario. While I understand that being a Liberal entitled you to such an opinion, that's not actually how it works. While I don't care for the idea and fully believe it's a gimmick, the man has followed through.

There is something to be said about a politician that follows through on his promises.

Ok now for the big reveal: Breweries have responded by saying that they’re not interested in buck a beer. In 2018 due to inflation, looming aluminum tartfs from Trump, higher ingredient prices, they can no longer produce beer for that price. One dollar in 2018 is the equivalent of 86 cents back 2008; vice versa due to inflation 1 dollar in 2008 is now the equivalent of $1.16 today. Few brewers even sell at the current minimum let alone 20% less than that. .

So what’s Ford to do? He’s not just allowing them the option to sell for less, his government is now actively providing incentives to encourage breweries to sell for less. Isn’t that “social engineering” by an “activist government” ? How is that “less government” or less “red tape”. LCBO stores are being directed to provide any buck-a-beer brewers with free promotion and advertising support, premium store displays and shelf space, special discounts, which taxpayers ultimately pay the price for since LCBO is a government cash cow . He’s micromanaging the LCBO now just for this gimmick that nobody asked for and nobody wants to provide.

So I ask again: What problem is he trying to solve?

[N_Fiddledog]

Wait...so you mean I have to cancel the moving van?

[Coach85]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

What are you suggesting the beer lobbyists are behind the price increases? I just don’t follow your point.

You've argued the price increase was due to inflation when the Ontario Liberals themselves said the price increase, in 2008, was specifically to curb usage as part of its "social responsibility" mandate.

Are we naive enough to think that lobbyists in the beer industry have never attempted to influence pricing?

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I didn’t support the pit bull ban that was cheap pandering to public hysteria but two things that are different: 1) The pitbull ban, ill-informed as it was, was an extant demand among voters that McG acknowledged, he wasn’t the originator of the idea, whereas the demand to lower the price of beer didn’t exist : Ford invented it. 2) The pitbull ban, ill-informed as it was championed by members of the public who thought it would make society safer; they were misguided but had well intentioned goals and thought this would solve a problem, whereas buck-a-beer is both misguided and is not atttempting to solve any problems. What’s next free ice cream on Ford’s birthday?

You're all over the map here. It doesn't matter who's idea it was with respect to beer or pets. You just told us that the pet ban wasn't a Provincial issue, you tried to tell us that the pet ban wasn't something that came from the Ontario Liberals, yet just admitted it was and you opposed it.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I don’t see why you keep harping on this one point, it’s irrelevant as Ford’s whole idea and promise is dumb in the first place. You speak as if you think the campaign promise was beyond his control like it was ordained by god ir something and he’s just an honest guy with no choice but to see it through. It’s not, it was his idea his decision to make it a campaign promise. I’m criticizing all of it not just the follow through but at the end. . Dumb things aren’t justified just because the person who did the dumb thing had promised to do it ahead of time.

You have this smug arrogance about you that you somehow speak for Ontario.

You don't.

Just because you think it's a stupid idea, doesn't mean it is or that people don't care.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Ok now for the big reveal: Breweries have responded by saying that they’re not interested in buck a beer. In 2018 due to inflation, looming aluminum tartfs from Trump, higher ingredient prices, they can no longer produce beer for that price. One dollar in 2018 is the equivalent of 86 cents back 2008; vice versa due to inflation 1 dollar in 2008 is now the equivalent of $1.16 today. Few brewers even sell at the current minimum let alone 20% less than that. .

So what’s Ford to do? He’s not just allowing them the option to sell for less, his government is now actively providing incentives to encourage breweries to sell for less. Isn’t that “social engineering” by an “activist government” ? How is that “less government” or less “red tape”. LCBO stores are being directed to provide any buck-a-beer brewers with free promotion and advertising support, premium store displays and shelf space, special discounts, which taxpayers ultimately pay the price for since LCBO is a government cash cow . He’s micromanaging the LCBO now just for this gimmick that nobody asked for and nobody wants to provide.

So I ask again: What problem is he trying to solve?

Some brewers have said. Don't suggest they've all said they're not interested. There are hundreds of breweries in Ontario, the one they asked on the CBC doesn't speak for them all.

What is Doug trying to solve here? My guess is to bring back some competition in the beer market. The market will set the price. The market will pay what they want to pay. Just like what happened when Laker came into the market with $1 beer and 1% market share and walked away with 11% a few years later.

The beer companies don't need a minimum price to compete. If they have a good product, people will buy it regardless of the price.

BTW, you've been here long enough...the quote feature isn't that hard to master, is it?

[BRAH]

CDN_PATRIOT CDN_PATRIOT:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

It’s just sad that cheap gimmicks like this is what politics has sunk to.

If that's not the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. I take it your breakfast includes a main course of hypocrisy, and a generous slathering of Plan B?

Don't forget to wash it down with a tall glass of Liberal tears (of which, you seem to have plenty)!



-J.

(P.S. Tonight's dessert is a generous slice of humble pie.....)

______________________

[BeaverFever]

Coach85 Coach85:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

What are you suggesting the beer lobbyists are behind the price increases? I just don’t follow your point.

You've argued the price increase was due to inflation when the Ontario Liberals themselves said the price increase, in 2008, was specifically to curb usage as part of its "social responsibility" mandate.

Are we naive enough to think that lobbyists in the beer industry have never attempted to influence pricing?

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I didn’t support the pit bull ban that was cheap pandering to public hysteria but two things that are different: 1) The pitbull ban, ill-informed as it was, was an extant demand among voters that McG acknowledged, he wasn’t the originator of the idea, whereas the demand to lower the price of beer didn’t exist : Ford invented it. 2) The pitbull ban, ill-informed as it was championed by members of the public who thought it would make society safer; they were misguided but had well intentioned goals and thought this would solve a problem, whereas buck-a-beer is both misguided and is not atttempting to solve any problems. What’s next free ice cream on Ford’s birthday?

You're all over the map here. It doesn't matter who's idea it was with respect to beer or pets. You just told us that the pet ban wasn't a Provincial issue, you tried to tell us that the pet ban wasn't something that came from the Ontario Liberals, yet just admitted it was and you opposed it.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I don’t see why you keep harping on this one point, it’s irrelevant as Ford’s whole idea and promise is dumb in the first place. You speak as if you think the campaign promise was beyond his control like it was ordained by god ir something and he’s just an honest guy with no choice but to see it through. It’s not, it was his idea his decision to make it a campaign promise. I’m criticizing all of it not just the follow through but at the end. . Dumb things aren’t justified just because the person who did the dumb thing had promised to do it ahead of time.

You have this smug arrogance about you that you somehow speak for Ontario.

You don't.

Just because you think it's a stupid idea, doesn't mean it is or that people don't care.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Ok now for the big reveal: Breweries have responded by saying that they’re not interested in buck a beer. In 2018 due to inflation, looming aluminum tartfs from Trump, higher ingredient prices, they can no longer produce beer for that price. One dollar in 2018 is the equivalent of 86 cents back 2008; vice versa due to inflation 1 dollar in 2008 is now the equivalent of $1.16 today. Few brewers even sell at the current minimum let alone 20% less than that. .

So what’s Ford to do? He’s not just allowing them the option to sell for less, his government is now actively providing incentives to encourage breweries to sell for less. Isn’t that “social engineering” by an “activist government” ? How is that “less government” or less “red tape”. LCBO stores are being directed to provide any buck-a-beer brewers with free promotion and advertising support, premium store displays and shelf space, special discounts, which taxpayers ultimately pay the price for since LCBO is a government cash cow . He’s micromanaging the LCBO now just for this gimmick that nobody asked for and nobody wants to provide.

So I ask again: What problem is he trying to solve?

Some brewers have said. Don't suggest they've all said they're not interested. There are hundreds of breweries in Ontario, the one they asked on the CBC doesn't speak for them all.

What is Doug trying to solve here? My guess is to bring back some competition in the beer market. The market will set the price. The market will pay what they want to pay. Just like what happened when Laker came into the market with $1 beer and 1% market share and walked away with 11% a few years later.

The beer companies don't need a minimum price to compete. If they have a good product, people will buy it regardless of the price.

BTW, you've been here long enough...the quote feature isn't that hard to master, is it?

On mobile it doesn’t like embedded quotes you have to go back and fix them sometimes

Back to the point:

1) So far ONE brewery, not multiple, has sait they will give buck a beer a go the spokesman for the brewing industry said no others are planning to.

2) The market is not setting the price here, Doug Ford is setting the price. He is not doing away with minimum price he is simply changing it to a number more to his liking. What are you not understanding here?

3) The market already sells above the current minimum price so how will lowering the floor change anything?

4) I REPEAT Ford is already offering a host of government incentives to encourage brewers to sell for buck-a-beer, how is that letting the market set the price”? He’s not letting the chips fall where they may, he’s micromanaging the market.

[BeaverFever]

Fact check time pay attention fellas

1) Minimum price Law came into effect in 1993 under the NDP: NOT a Liberal government

2) The increases were due to inflation:

$1:

...the Liquor Control Board of Ontario sets minimum prices as part of its "social responsibility" mandate established in 1993. Translation: If alcohol is too cheap, you may abuse it.

But documents obtained under Ontario's freedom-of-information law show that the Ministry of Finance, not the LCBO, pressed for higher beer prices – raising questions about the arm's-length relationship between the two bodies.

...Hapak said the increase was primarily to catch up with three years of inflation.

https://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/20 ... _beer.html

[BeaverFever]

Thanos Thanos:

Coach85 Coach85:

The price isn't raised due to inflation. The price is raised specifically to curb usage. That's why it's there. It also stifles competition.

The reason he's doing that and why people want it is due to 15 years of living in a nanny-state. People are tired of being told what pets they can own and how much they have to pay for something.

So pretty much like the old Prohibitionists, the McGuinty/Wynne Liberals relied on some tedious "we're doing it for your own good" argument? Why am I not surprised at all by that?

As I already told you every province including yours has socially respiratory pricing and it predates McGuinty-Wynne and the Liberals. What do you have to say about that?

[Coach85]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

1) So far ONE brewery, not multiple, has sait they will give buck a beer a go the spokesman for the brewing industry said no others are planning to.

It's the first day. Give the other 300+ breweries to respond.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

2) The market is not setting the price here, Doug Ford is setting the price. He is not doing away with minimum price he is simply changing it to a number more to his liking. What are you not understanding here?

I understand that. The point is, companies may be able to sell the product for less but are being forced to sell for more due to the price floor.

The price floor should be scrapped.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

3) The market already sells above the current minimum price so how will lowering the floor change anything?

That may be true, I haven't examined the prices at the Beer Store lately. I suspect some will drop the price or enter the market like Laker did and try to capture more of the market. Only time will tell.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

4) I REPEAT Ford is already offering a host of government incentives to encourage brewers to sell for buck-a-beer, how is that letting the market set the price”? He’s not letting the chips fall where they may, he’s micromanaging the market.

He probably thinks this is going to fuel competition. As I said, my answers are guesses.

While the floor doesn't completely allow a free market, a lower price does provide a window for those companies that want to make a splash and look to make a name for themselves.

It's a gimmick. No doubt. It's politicking at it's worst. I personally don't care for it, just trying to understand where his head is at. Granted, he's not the brightest guy on Earth, so....who knows.