[andyt]

FOG said how Canadians feel, not think, about the cuts. You know, truthiness. You don't need qualifications for that.

As people are pointing out, including the federal budget watchdog, you can't keep cutting taxes and not expect programs that you support not to be cut. There just isn't that much gravy in the system, despite what people want to believe, so you wind up cutting out the meat as well. Or, the gravy cutters like some of the gravy and refuse to cut it, while happy to cut the meat of people they don't think will vote for them anyway. That includes all those eggheady, elitist, collitch graduates.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

FOG said how Canadians feel, not think, about the cuts. You know, truthiness. You don't need qualifications for that.

How can you feel about something about which you do not know? And if you ask how they 'feel', what would that accomplish?

[andyt]

It's how politics is done. And pretty well all of us do it - none of us are well informed about everything. Maybe to FOG, and probably many Canadians, science is probably not that important and is seen with a degree of suspicion.

But it's also how you ask the question. In the pipeline and other AGW debates, both sides have polls that they claim support their position. The greenies will ask "how do you feel about the environmental impact of this project," the brownies "how about all those jobs this project will create." Hell, could be the same people polled both times and still get different results. Most of us don't hold the whole picture in mind when responding, again, because we're not experts in the area, so we only respond to where the question leads us.

[Freakinoldguy]

So, if you don't ask the people paying the bills what they feel, or should I say think, then you only get the people who stand to lose their jobs point of view on the topic which isn't scientific in the least and renders the poll pretty much meaningless.

I wonder how well a poll with parameters like this one had would go over with a certain group of people if we only asked the anti drug crowd about legalization?

Would people accept that as a valid poll or would they sit back and think it was complete and utter bullshit, because the people who were polled had a vested interest in the outcome?

You can't have it both ways especially considering that these scientists are payed by the taxpayers of Canada. So, if they want to make their point they have to commission a poll that involves all the stakeholders not just those with something to lose.

BTW I didn't say science wasn't important and I don't agree with the Conservatives stance on it but by the same token I don't like people attempting to manipulating me to get what they want and that includes the Gov't or it's scientists.

[andyt]

Fair point.

[DrCaleb]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

:roll:

So, if you don't ask the people paying the bills what they feel, or should I say think, then you only get the people who stand to lose their jobs point of view on the topic which isn't scientific in the least and renders the poll pretty much meaningless.

It's not meaningless. I agree that stakeholder opinion is important, but the poll is using people who's job it it to present unbiased facts for mass consumption. The public's opinion is important but they aren't going to be aware, for example, the implications of cutting the monitoring of tanker traffic on waterways, when there is expected to be a huge increase in dangerous goods being shipped by tankers. (which happened!)

It would be nice to get someone who would do a public 'unbiased' poll on this, but let's face it; no one pays for polls that aren't going to show their viewpoint in the best way possible. (Statscan tries to, but their funding is reduced too) I think that polling scientists who do the research and know what the implications are of cutting research are the best people to ask. If there's going to be any bias here, it's because the guys who didn't get axed are the ones who get to divvy up what's left. Just my 2 cents.

[bootlegga]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Looks like eliminating the deficit is overriding all other priorities.

Chretien part deux?

With this lot, it might be Christian fundamentalism trumping that overblown "science" thing.

It isn't just the science types facing cutbacks.

You're right about that, but I wonder if their cuts are steeper than other departments the Conservatives typically support.

Defence has to deal with a 10% cut (roughly) - I wonder what the cuts are like in the science area - 5%? 10%? 15%? 20%?

That might be the only way to potentially see if the cuts are ideologically driven or fiscally driven.

It's great to get our financial house in order, just so long as the cuts are relatively equal across government.

[andyt]

No, the cuts should not be equal. That's the mistake govts make, across the board cuts that harm some depts more than others. I may not agree with the priorities of the Cons, but cutting based on the value of the dept and how much waste there is to cut in it makes more sense.

[Freakinoldguy]

andyt andyt:

No, the cuts should not be equal. That's the mistake govts make, across the board cuts that harm some depts more than others. I ay not agree with the priorities of the Cons, but cutting based on the value of the dept and how much waste there is to cut in it makes more sense.

You're right. Cuts shouldn't be based on pain equality but, should be based on redundancy in the area that is under question which means the Gov't should be able to defend its position on cuts with facts and not just a boorish attitude towards those people affected.

But, by the same token those affected shouldn't continually play the martyr and should be able to defend their position with facts like we expect the Gov't to. Then people could make an informed decision on the subject which, even if they couldn't do anything about it now, could express their agreement or disagreement during the next election.

[ShepherdsDog]

uh oh you`ve injected a dose of fiscal reality into the argument.

[bootlegga]

andyt andyt:

No, the cuts should not be equal. That's the mistake govts make, across the board cuts that harm some depts more than others. I may not agree with the priorities of the Cons, but cutting based on the value of the dept and how much waste there is to cut in it makes more sense.

How do you assign "value"? That's where your idea falls apart IMHO.

Based on your argument, theoretically almost nothing would ever get cut, because everything has value for groups of Canadians. Personally, I don't have much day-to-day interaction with DND or the Forestry Service (or a dozen others), but there are lots of Canadians who do.

Agree to disagree, but the cuts wouldn't really be equal in anything but percentage - if every dep't cuts 5%, the cut to the defence budget will be much larger than the cut to many smaller ministries (like say Forestry).

[Zipperfish]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

You're right. Cuts shouldn't be based on pain equality but, should be based on redundancy in the area that is under question which means the Gov't should be able to defend its position on cuts with facts and not just a boorish attitude towards those people affected.

But, by the same token those affected shouldn't continually play the martyr and should be able to defend their position with facts like we expect the Gov't to. Then people could make an informed decision on the subject which, even if they couldn't do anything about it now, could express their agreement or disagreement during the next election.

The government isn't shy about its actions, and uses its own methods to manipulate public opinion. Why should those opposed to government actions do the same?

[Xort]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Isn't the whole point of capitalism for them to do their own research, and the Government to research things that industry won't; like fire extinguisher chemicals in breast milk and heavy metals in waterways so that the protection of people is protected?

I don't think the economic theory of capital centralization has anything to say on government research.

Not that I care about capitalism very much.

$1:

What's the point of researching industry inefficiencies if everyone is too sick to work to earn money to pay for things?

Not making it a focus of research isn't going to cripple the working population don't be your normal self.

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

I ran surveys for a living at one time, and all I can say is your assumptions are incorrect. That is not how sampling or error margins work.

Agreed, the sample was 100% government scientists employed in some way by the government, but it was also the only group of people in the world qualified to answer the survey. That said, both angry and happy people have the same predisposition to filling out surveys, many studies have shown that. It’s apathetic people who tend to ignore them. A 24% response rate is INCREDIBLE in the survey world.

A survey commissioned by their own union in order to advance the union's political goals.

And wow what do you know they got back the just the answer they wanted.

A survey only gives the answer the group conducting the survey wants. If you do this for a living then I'm sure you know all about how you can form a question to get the answer you want.

[Freakinoldguy]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

uh oh you`ve injected a dose of fiscal reality into the argument.

Is that wrong.

[Freakinoldguy]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

You're right. Cuts shouldn't be based on pain equality but, should be based on redundancy in the area that is under question which means the Gov't should be able to defend its position on cuts with facts and not just a boorish attitude towards those people affected.

But, by the same token those affected shouldn't continually play the martyr and should be able to defend their position with facts like we expect the Gov't to. Then people could make an informed decision on the subject which, even if they couldn't do anything about it now, could express their agreement or disagreement during the next election.

The government isn't shy about its actions, and uses its own methods to manipulate public opinion. Why should those opposed to government actions do the same?

The point I was making was that neither side should be doing that and we as the public should be given the truth so we can make an informed decision. One which isn't based on rhetoric and partisan positions.