[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by darklord700

That's exactly my point. It is easy to say we want to help everybody so no one is left behind. But at what costs? My point is right now these benefits are not being costed in by the taxpayers when they vote or support a party.

Say Redford gave hundreds of millions in her first few days as the premier to the teachers, firefighters and the disabled. I'm OK if you support that. But if I break out the cost to you of Redford's largeness to be a night out with your date at a restaurant. Are you still going to support that? Maybe or maybe not.

Okay I will break this down for you a bit - AISH used to be (and still is at the current time), $1,188 per month, plus 400 dollars of earning potential on top of that before it was clawed back. How much does an apartment cost in the cities of Calgary and Edmonton where people on AISH are centralized because that is where community services exist? I would estimate that a one bedroom apartment costs anywhere between 700-800 dollars per month as a pretty conservative estimate. Then factor in that people also need to pay utilities, food, recreation, clothing and other basic amenities that are required to live and it just isn't possible with the prior levels of funding. Just because something costs money doesn't mean it is a bad thing. I am sure that if one of your children was born with a lifelong, chronic illness, which prevented them from working/being able to thrive, you wouldn't see the problem with raising the amount of money.

I never heard about increasing the amount of money for firefighters, which is odd because that is funded by the municipalities.

I agree in part with your asssessment with education, it was done in a hasty manner, that being said investing in the education system isn't a bad thing. Having a well educated population is essential for further growth. I know I am not going to convince you of anything, but it are those people who you are supporting through your tax dollars later who are going to support you in the future as you age and require the health care system more as well as other services which are funded at least partially by all levels of government.

My point is most voters don't know or care much how much every political decision cost at this moment.

And your answer is to give the uninformed masses even more sway?

Most people would like to help every homeless people on the street, that's a very easy decision to make. But would I give up my cable TV to help pay for my unemployed neighbor's heating bill? That's a much tougher decision to make because there's a price tag associated with it.

If everyone gives up part of their cable package then they can offer support programs to help unemployed neighbor get a job so he can pay his own heating bill and is able to live a healthier life. It isn't about starving yourself for your fellow man it is about small sacrifices which are beneficial for the common good.

Lets say you decide to keep your cable bill, the guy doesn't get heating, he develops frostbite as a result, consequently he has to get a foot amputated due to a lack of resources. This costs the health care system more, your neighbor more and you as a member of society more in the long run.