CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1576
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 8:09 am
 


BeaverFever wrote:

I think it's relevant to remind people what Conservatives did the last time they were in power. Conservatives don't want it brought up because Harris/Eves are so unpopular and history has judged them poorly. And as much as you don't want to make this a conservative/liberal thing, when the complaint is that the liberals did a little of something that the conservatives did a lot of, it's relevant to point that out.


It's not relevant at all.

Any government that's been in power for almost 14 years has no business looking backwards. They've had the time and mandate to get things done.

The complaint is either valid or it's not. It doesn't make it any less valid if a government 14 years ago did a similar thing.


BeaverFever wrote:
Aside from that, it's important to remember how far we've come. It's completely relevant to say since the Liberals took office, they've added 23,000 net new nurses. On that note,I repeat the Liberals didn't cut any jobs, those were local hospital decisions and most of those jobs went through attrition, meaning that as people retired, they didn't replace them. Yeah, you're right they didn't say 100,000 nurses but still that they would intentionally add 100,000 people to the unemployment list in the midst of a struggling economy.


Again, you're being disingenuous. To say that they didn't cut jobs directly is true, but when you reduce the budget into forcing the hospitals to make staff cuts, it's just a cop-out.

What you haven't realized is how many jobs have been lost in the government due to attrition or layoffs because it hasn't been published. Tim Hudak, as misguided as he was, was upfront about his plans.

Union boss Smokey Thomas noted during the last election that similar job losses were imminent under the Liberals due to the cuts that had to be made to balance the budget.

Unfortunately, we have no idea how many jobs were lost during the last couple years while they attempted to get the books in order.

BeaverFever wrote:
Again, there were no cuts. Revenue from the healthcare premium is part of the budget.


In 2016, the Feds gave Ontario 778 million as part of the transfers. That alone would cause a bump of 1.5%. In 2016, Ontario raised spending by only 352 million.

Ontario is being given funds specifically for health care and it's not being applied to that budget.

You, like the Ontario Liberals, say there have been "no cuts" to funding....which is technically true. The real concern is the diversion of money meant for health care, and why it's not being applied to the health care budget.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13750
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 8:58 am
 


Coach85 wrote:

It's not relevant at all.

Any government that's been in power for almost 14 years has no business looking backwards. They've had the time and mandate to get things done.

The complaint is either valid or it's not. It doesn't make it any less valid if a government 14 years ago did a similar thing.


That's true if you're talking about a scandal - whenever a member of one party gets caught doing something improper they often reply "but the other party did it when they were in office". That kind of argument id not relevant.

But when it comes to policy choices I think it's relevant context to ask a critic "why was this ok when you were in power but not when we're in power?"

Also how can you talk about whether any progress has been made in the past 14 years if you're not allowed to talk about what condition things were in when you first started. Imagine your job is to clean out a filthy garage and afterwards you're expected to stand there silently and get a new asshole ripped for every little minute spec of dust that you missed; but you're not allowed to tell anyone how filthy it was when you first started and how much you've done to improve it.



Quote:
Again, you're being disingenuous. To say that they didn't cut jobs directly is true, but when you reduce the budget into forcing the hospitals to make staff cuts, it's just a cop-out.
. I say again: they did not reduce the budget.

Quote:
What you haven't realized is how many jobs have been lost in the government due to attrition or layoffs because it hasn't been published.
oh really so how do you know this then? Do you just take it on faith? How many jobs is it exactly since you seem to have the inside scoop? Sounds like you're just repeating a baseless conservative "unofficial" talking point.

Following your logic, I guess we don't know how many people the Conservative party has murdered since they won't publish the numbers. Also here's a quote from someone saying that logically, conservatives will inevitably murder more people some day in the future, which proves that the other murders happened.

See how that kind of argument works?


Quote:
In 2016, the Feds gave Ontario 778 million as part of the transfers. That alone would cause a bump of 1.5%. In 2016, Ontario raised spending by only 352 million.

Ontario is being given funds specifically for health care and it's not being applied to that budget.
.

You, like the Ontario Liberals, say there have been "no cuts" to funding....which is technically true. The real concern is the diversion of money meant for health care, and why it's not being applied to the health care budget.[/quote]

That's not unusual or uncommon. Provinces are not required to spend the CHT on health care and often reallocate some of it to other budgets. Governments have more spending priorities than they have cash to go around and throwing a bone to the shrieking deficit hawks on the right is one of them for now.

Look I want to be clear here - your latest comments seem to advocate for MORE program spending and MORE public employees and I actually support that. These are all typical NDP positions and I would happily give NDP a try. I honestly don't believe that one party has all the answers and should remain in office indefinitely. The only reason I don't vote for NDP more often is because splitting the vote on the left tends to deliver conservative governments. TBH I don't even care that the budget is balanced this year, I just enjoy rubbing it in conservative faces because I know it's eating them up inside.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1576
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 11:05 am
 


BeaverFever wrote:
But when it comes to policy choices I think it's relevant context to ask a critic "why was this ok when you were in power but not when we're in power?"


There isn't a similar situation with the previous government compared to this current one with respect to health care spending or cuts so your point there has no relevancy.

This current government never had their federal health transfers slashed nor did the previous government have the health care premium. Two very different scenarios.

Both did what they thought was right. Neither situation was considered right in my opinion.

BeaverFever wrote:
oh really so how do you know this then? Do you just take it on faith? How many jobs is it exactly since you seem to have the inside scoop? Sounds like you're just repeating a baseless conservative "unofficial" talking point.


I'm following what Ontario nurses have been telling us for years. That's just nurses. Everything for you is a Liberal vs. Conservative thing. You need to let it go. This is a conversation about actual numbers and doing what's right for Ontario.

Between 2013 and 2015, Ontario reduced their workforce by 19,000.

Image

Feel free to manipulate the data as you see fit: http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a47

BeaverFever wrote:
That's not unusual or uncommon. Provinces are not required to spend the CHT on health care and often reallocate some of it to other budgets. Governments have more spending priorities than they have cash to go around and throwing a bone to the shrieking deficit hawks on the right is one of them for now.


If true, how can you support such action? You can't simply support this practice because you're a partisan Liberal. It's not right. Money for health care, one of our fastest growing portfolios, is where money is needed and needed badly.

Rethink your position.

BeaverFever wrote:
TBH I don't even care that the budget is balanced this year, I just enjoy rubbing it in conservative faces because I know it's eating them up inside.


If I put $10,000 on my credit card and claim my monthly books are balanced and I celebrate it like I've done something miraculous, I'm only kidding myself.

Borrowing money to balance your books is not a true balanced budget. I don't care what party comes up with the scheme.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13750
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 5:26 pm
 


Coach85 wrote:
[

Between 2013 and 2015, Ontario reduced their workforce by 19,000.

Image

Feel free to manipulate the data as you see fit: http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a47


Link doesn't work but even if I take these numbers at face value, we're only discussing this because the accusation was that the Liberals secretly eliminated the same 100,000 jobs that Hudak was open and honest about eliminating on his campaign. Where are the other 81,000?

Quote:
If true, how can you support such action? You can't simply support this practice because you're a partisan Liberal. It's not right. Money for health care, one of our fastest growing portfolios, is where money is needed and needed badly.

Rethink your position.


Like I said, if it were me I would spend more in health and public services generally and run defecits not worry about a balanced budget. But you're being the partisan by choosing naive outrage over this. Why? Because in any party, in any province, THIS IS THE NORM. Despite the name, there is no expectation on the part of anyone including most members of the public that the entire CHT will be used for healthcare.

Again, this wouldn't be my choice necessarily but that doesn't mean its an outrage. Regarding other programs, just because health is #1 doesn't mean you can't spend a penny on any other program until health is fully funded. That's another naive position.


Quote:
If I put $10,000 on my credit card and claim my monthly books are balanced and I celebrate it like I've done something miraculous, I'm only kidding myself.

Borrowing money to balance your books is not a true balanced budget. I don't care what party comes up with the scheme.


Borrowing money to balance the books? I'm not clear on what you're referring to here.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1576
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 6:21 pm
 


BeaverFever wrote:

Link doesn't work but even if I take these numbers at face value, we're only discussing this because the accusation was that the Liberals secretly eliminated the same 100,000 jobs that Hudak was open and honest about eliminating on his campaign. Where are the other 81,000?


I never once stated the Liberals secretly eliminated 100,000 jobs.

I said there were job losses due to the austerity measures that were taken by the government to get the budget in order and those losses weren't made public.

BeaverFever wrote:

Like I said, if it were me I would spend more in health and public services generally and run defecits not worry about a balanced budget. But you're being the partisan by choosing naive outrage over this. Why? Because in any party, in any province, THIS IS THE NORM. Despite the name, there is no expectation on the part of anyone including most members of the public that the entire CHT will be used for healthcare.


Are you able to have a conversation without resorting to partisan attacks?

This isn't a PC vs. Liberal debate. Why do you always go there? Every single post where someone disagrees with your stance on anything political, they're immediately labeled a partisan conservative.

My issue with this announcement, and any one like it, is that the government is playing us for fools. This is politicking at it's finest and I'm insulted by it.

BeaverFever wrote:
Borrowing money to balance the books? I'm not clear on what you're referring to here.


Ontario added 5-10 billion in debt this budget. That's not a balanced book.

If I make $5000 a month and my expenses are $6000 but put $1k on my Visa, my books aren't balanced.

I don't care what party put this budget forward. It's a sham. Anyone with basic accounting knowledge knows this isn't what anyone would refer to as 'balanced'.

And please....leave the partisanship at the door.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13750
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 7:41 pm
 


Coach85 wrote:
I never once stated the Liberals secretly eliminated 100,000 jobs.

I said there were job losses due to the austerity measures that were taken by the government to get the budget in order and those losses weren't made public.

First off here's a MacLeans article that says "Over the 2003-2015 period, public sector employment rose 23 per cent "

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/how-kat ... backwards/

And about this supposed 19,000 over 3 years...or about 6,000 per year..

By your own table, the OPS had over 1.3 million employees in 2013. What you're apparently alleging without any evidence is that there was from the beginning a secret plan to trickle out just these 19000 employees to balance that budget, that thre should've been some kind of formal announcement or a referendum about it or something?

Again we are only talking about this because the accusation is that Wynne had been secretly planning these alleged job cuts but kept it a secret to get elected. I doubt that because it seems to be a relatively small number of jobs in a workforce of 1.3 million , and we don't have any info on the circumstances surrounding these jobs, whether any central decision making was involved at all, or whether these were permanent jobs or simply contract positions to begin with. This whole thing is just a red herring.

BeaverFever wrote:

Like I said, if it were me I would spend more in health and public services generally and run defecits not worry about a balanced budget. But you're being the partisan by choosing naive outrage over this. Why? Because in any party, in any province, THIS IS THE NORM. Despite the name, there is no expectation on the part of anyone including most members of the public that the entire CHT will be used for healthcare.


Quote:
Are you able to have a conversation without resorting to partisan attacks?


ARE YOU??? Call me a partisan Liberal apologist in every post you write then accuse ME of partisan attacks?

[qiote]My issue with this announcement, and any one like it, is that the government is playing us for fools. This is politicking at it's finest and I'm insulted by it.


Politicians politicking? You don't say.

Quote:
Ontario added 5-10 billion in debt this budget. That's not a balanced book.

What are you referring to specifically? There was no borrowing to balance the budget.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1576
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 8:15 pm
 


BeaverFever wrote:
First off here's a MacLeans article that says "Over the 2003-2015 period, public sector employment rose 23 per cent "

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/how-kat ... backwards/

And about this supposed 19,000 over 3 years...or about 6,000 per year..

By your own table, the OPS had over 1.3 million employees in 2013. What you're apparently alleging without any evidence is that there was from the beginning a secret plan to trickle out just these 19000 employees to balance that budget, that thre should've been some kind of formal announcement or a referendum about it or something?


Your tactics are so boring.

Let's be honest here. As many of the long-term members have noted about you already, you'll follow this government blindly into the abyss and will do anything, spin anything, say anything to justify your stance.

If you want to think the government got their books in order without a single job lost and by the mere genius of Mr. Sousa, you're more than welcome to believe that.

I, for one, had the bar set a little higher for you.

BeaverFever wrote:
ARE YOU??? Call me a partisan Liberal apologist in every post you write then accuse ME of partisan attacks?


I've never referred to you as an apologist. Perhaps you have me confused with the other members who've referred to you as such.

BeaverFever wrote:
What are you referring to specifically? There was no borrowing to balance the budget.


I'm referring to the Ontario budget. I suggest you read the budget. Don't just listen to what you've been told. In fact, get someone that doesn't have any political affiliation to read it to you.

Granted, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this topic. I've learned in my short term here that whether a Provincial or Federal Liberal is involved in a topic, you're absolutely unable to view the situation objectively and will defend the indefensible.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13750
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 3:24 pm
 


Coach85 wrote:

Your tactics are so boring.

Let's be honest here. As many of the long-term members have noted about you already, you'll follow this government blindly into the abyss and will do anything, spin anything, say anything to justify your stance.

If you want to think the government got their books in order without a single job lost and by the mere genius of Mr. Sousa, you're more than welcome to believe that.

I, for one, had the bar set a little higher for you.



Yor tactics are dishonest. Nowhere did I say there were no jobs lost.

I SAY AGAIN; The only reason we're talking about jobs is because YOUR allegation that the Liberals budget plans had a secret massive layoff ageda all along, and that they were not being honest with the public about it. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the fact that some jobs were eliminated across 1.3 million positions for various reasons, probably including local budget constraints, BUT for you to claim that :

1) These were was centrally planned by Wynne and Liberal HQ to balance the budget and
2) This was deliberately kept out of the last election campaign

You have FAILED to make a convincing argument. It's that simple.

Here you are making allegations with a weak argument, then accusing me of being a liberal apologist for not capitulating to you, which is the typical tactic of those certain "long tem members" you refer to.

Quote:
I've never referred to you as an apologist. Perhaps you have me confused with the other members who've referred to you as such.


Yeah you have and you just did it again. What do you think comments like this mean:

"you'll follow this government blindly into the abyss and will do anything, spin anything, say anything to justify your stance."

Comments like that are just weak ad-hominem attacks used by those who lack the facts/skills to make a successful argument.


Quote:
I'm referring to the Ontario budget. I suggest you read the budget. Don't just listen to what you've been told. In fact, get someone that doesn't have any political affiliation to read it to you.


Obviously you're talking about the budget, it's amusing that you can't elaborate further. . What's the matter? Perhaps you haven't read it after all? Can't even post a link to some conservative blog? Maybe you're just regurgitating something you've been told and don't even know what you're talking about?

Quote:
Granted, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this topic. I've learned in my short term here that whether a Provincial or Federal Liberal is involved in a topic, you're absolutely unable to view the situation objectively and will defend the indefensible.


I'm actually quoting reasonable. But what you should learn is that people aren't obligated to capitulate to you if you can't make a convincing argument. As the saying goes, just because you see hoof-prints doesn't mean they're from Zebras. Here You're pointing to hoof prints and now throwing a temper tantrum accusing people of bias because they won't agree with your zebra theory.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1576
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 6:55 pm
 


BeaverFever wrote:

Yor tactics are dishonest. Nowhere did I say there were no jobs lost.

I SAY AGAIN; The only reason we're talking about jobs is because YOUR allegation that the Liberals budget plans had a secret massive layoff ageda all along, and that they were not being honest with the public about it. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the fact that some jobs were eliminated across 1.3 million positions for various reasons, probably including local budget constraints, BUT for you to claim that :

1) These were was centrally planned by Wynne and Liberal HQ to balance the budget and
2) This was deliberately kept out of the last election campaign

You have FAILED to make a convincing argument. It's that simple.


Your lack of experience running a business or government shows in this conversation. My tactics aren't dishonest at all. IIRC, you've made numerous comments accusing me of saying things I never have yet haven't followed up with any retraction or apology.

One of the largest expenses for any business or government is labour. When you have to reduce spending by large amounts, labour is going to take a beating. It's the nature of the business.

For you to see to see a multi-billion dollar plan to reduce spending and be naive enough to not think labour would take the brunt of the changes, it's just your lack of experience.

Do I think the Liberal government knew job losses would be necessary to balance the books? Absolutely. Do I think they purposely kept that from their platform? Hell yes!

As I mentioned previously, union boss Smokey Thomas raised the flag on this during the election to little fanfare.


BeaverFever wrote:

"you'll follow this government blindly into the abyss and will do anything, spin anything, say anything to justify your stance."

Comments like that are just weak ad-hominem attacks used by those who lack the facts/skills to make a successful argument.


But it's the truth. I don't need facts or skills to point out the most obvious thing on this forum. Hell, I've been on this forum for a very short time and have already read numerous people make a similar, yet far more blunt assessment of your partisanship.

I tried to converse and debate with you from a neutral POV, without insults, but I can tell that anyone that disagrees with you and the government you support will immediately be labeled a conservative blog reader.

BeaverFever wrote:
Obviously you're talking about the budget, it's amusing that you can't elaborate further. . What's the matter? Perhaps you haven't read it after all? Can't even post a link to some conservative blog? Maybe you're just regurgitating something you've been told and don't even know what you're talking about?


Because everyone who disagrees with your POV must be a conservative that reads conservative blogs? Such a juvenile opinion.

You're defending a budget that you haven't read. I'm not going to hold your hand. Besides, even if you had read the budget, do you think you'd actually point out anything wrong with it?

I have elborated enough and told you exactly what I felt it wrong with the budget. It's a false balance. I really can't present it any slower than that.

BeaverFever wrote:
I'm actually quoting reasonable. But what you should learn is that people aren't obligated to capitulate to you if you can't make a convincing argument. As the saying goes, just because you see hoof-prints doesn't mean they're from Zebras. Here You're pointing to hoof prints and now throwing a temper tantrum accusing people of bias because they won't agree with your zebra theory.


Temper tantrum? :lol: Again with the juvenile arguments.

Pointing out that you're a partisan Liberal isn't an accusation. It's a statement of fact.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13750
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 9:55 am
 


Again, you can't get through a single post without criticizing and name calling me as a "partisan liberal", which is the truest sign of your failing argument. I have nothing to retract or apologize to you for.

Lets just recap what your argument is, shall we? Correct me if I'm missing something:

1) FALSE CLAIM - The liberals promised/claimed to not eliminate any jobs. This is just false at face value, so lets move on to the rest of your argument

2) An argument based on the following logic string:
- Liberals ran some tight budgets
- SOME Ontario jobs (about 1%) were PROBABLY lost or left vacant as a direct or indirect result of those tight budgets (but we don't know for sure)

= Your following FALSE CONCLUSIONS:

a) THEREFORE the Liberal budgets were "based on" eliminating jobs.

This conclusion is wrong because:
- Even if we accept the UNPROVEN allegation that all 19,000 jobs were eliminated due to budget restraints, the number of jobs and dollars in question in any given year are fairly small and insignificant in the overall budget, so to for you to claim that this was a central feature of their fiscal policy is not correct.


b) THEREFORE the Liberal government knew these jobs would be eliminated before their last election campaign and kept it a secret

This conclusion is wrong because:
- Normally the way it works is the campaign is a vague promise on the direction of the budget, then after the election the actual budget is set, then after that the departments find ways of meeting the budget which may or may not include eliminating jobs. It's not likely that Wynne was centrally planning that Joe from the Thunder Bay Service Ontario office will be retiring next year and won't be replaced, or that anyone on her team had it all worked out while on the campaign trail. Especially considering that all of these 19000 jobs added together don't even put much of a dent in the overall budget.

c) (And I'll be fair here and say that it was probably more of the others on this thread who were making this claim rather than you directly):

THEREFORE the Liberal's fiscal policy of running a tight budget which MAY HAVE directly or indirectly contributed to an overall 1% reduction of the workforce is no different than deliberately ordering the elimination of 10% of the workforce as the centrepiece of your fiscal policy.

This conclusion is wrong because:
- Just on face value, it is easy to differentiate between the two


Quote:
You're defending a budget that you haven't read. I'm not going to hold your hand. Besides, even if you had read the budget, do you think you'd actually point out anything wrong with it?

I have elborated enough and told you exactly what I felt it wrong with the budget. It's a false balance. I really can't present it any slower than that.


The fact that can't/refuse to provide any supporting evidence or links to support your allegations is suspicious. A budget document is very long and technical document, I doubt you read it either, probably someone's analysis of it. You obviously came across this claim that it's a "false balance" somewhere, why not share it? I'm supposed to accept that it's a "false balance" simply because you declare in your amateur opinion you judge it to be so but you can't elaborate any further?


Your arguments rely on conclusions that are not ipso facto, even though I'm sure you think they are. Your arguments are like: I CAN'T FIND MY WALLET = THEREFORE YOU STOLE IT and you think that anyone who doesn't follow this same logic string is biased.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1576
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 12:08 pm
 


BeaverFever wrote:
Again, you can't get through a single post without criticizing and name calling me as a "partisan liberal", which is the truest sign of your failing argument.


If you can't take criticism, don't post in a public place. Being a partisan liberal isn't a bad thing nor is it 'name calling'. Clearly, you think it is. If so, you may want to consider your stance on just about everything related to any Liberal government in Canada.

BeaverFever wrote:
The fact that can't/refuse to provide any supporting evidence or links to support your allegations is suspicious. A budget document is very long and technical document, I doubt you read it either, probably someone's analysis of it. You obviously came across this claim that it's a "false balance" somewhere, why not share it? I'm supposed to accept that it's a "false balance" simply because you declare in your amateur opinion you judge it to be so but you can't elaborate any further?


You're a big boy. Put your big boy pants on and read the budget. I don't need to provide you links. You know where to find it and can read it on your own time.

It wouldn't matter how factual or false my claims would be. You're not into debating facts and conversing objectively.

Let's agree to disagree.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13750
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 1:31 pm
 


It's not that I can't take criticism, it's that personal attacks are a sign of weak debater

Funny how you didn't mind pasting links and charts earlier, but can't even provide one shred of evidence for your central claim that the budget isn't actually balanced and has "5 to 10 billion" in deficit. Supposedly the Liberals wrote that in the document somehere? Highly Suspect.

Anyway I agree with you that we've reached a natural end and it's pointless to continue.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1576
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 2:53 pm
 


BeaverFever wrote:
It's not that I can't take criticism, it's that personal attacks are a sign of weak debater

Funny how you didn't mind pasting links and charts earlier, but can't even provide one shred of evidence for your central claim that the budget isn't actually balanced and has "5 to 10 billion" in deficit. Supposedly the Liberals wrote that in the document somehere? Highly Suspect.

Anyway I agree with you that we've reached a natural end and it's pointless to continue.


To be clear...Being a partisan isn't an insult. Partisan, by its very definition, is a 'strong supporter' which you are indeed that of the LPO and LPOC. Nothing wrong with that.

It's not meant to be an insult, it's merely to state an observation. If you find it as an insult, that's something you need to deal with personally.

With respect to the budget, I'm not going to dig through the budget to point you to something you obviously have no interest in reading because if you had interest, you would have done so already. Frankly, I don't have to justify myself to something that's available for public consumption.

Feel free to say that my comments about the budget are "suspect" but your opinion carries no credibility if you haven't read the document.

Thanks for the debate, Beav [B-o]


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13750
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 3:13 pm
 


Cheers!

...but I still call bullshit ;)

[B-o]


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13750
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 9:03 am
 


Quote:
Nursing at top of best job prospect list in Ontario

By Antonella Artuso, Toronto Sun
Saturday, May 6, 2017 7:33:02 EDT PM

An Ontarian hunting for a career with strong prospects for employment in the next few years should take a serious look at nursing, according to an analysis of top job trends in the province by Emsi.

If on the hunt for good job prospects and top dollar, the same analysis found managers are most likely to find themselves in that enviable position.

Joshua Wright, director of marketing, workforce & economic development with the labour market analytics firm, said the numbers show that health fields in general – and nursing in particular – are expected to see the biggest jobs gains between 2017 and 2022 in Ontario.


http://www.lfpress.com/2017/05/06/nursi ... in-ontario


Just sayin......;)


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.