Conflating your own personal standpoint to the only one that makes rational sense is not balanced, objective, enlightened or, well 'rational'.
Except I'm not saying rational = my opinion at all. Perhaps my standpoint is irrational...but we won't know until we examine it in a rational way. All I'm saying is let's be rational...and you are countering that with telling me that I'm being irrational for suggesting it. I'm limiting what I'm calling "irrational" to that which can be seen as irrational....nothing else. There's no "dogma" involved.
some good may actually come from the shake-up and the political/ideological tension.
You keep saying this. Again, you are advocating "shake-up" for the sheer sake of it. Explain to me why this is a rational tactic. Sounds more like gambling rather than logical, rational process.
In other words pounding your shoe on the table that there is absolutely no gravy to be found is just as silly as Ford's saying we don't have a revenue problem. Polarized, dogmatic posturings that are dismissive of others are not constructive in any way.
Please stop putting words in my mouth. And please don't make accusations unless you plan to back them up with something resembling a fact, rather than crude characterizations.
You see, the wonderful thing about being rational, is you need to rely on little things like FACTS and EVIDENCE.
Let's be rational shall we?
Why does a Rob Ford (or anyone who thinks like a Rob Ford)
"THINK" we should get rid of streetcars?
Because their knowledge of the subject begins and ends with what is happening a few feet in front of their bumpers. "Hey...that streetcar is slowing "me" down. So, in their logic, if we removed that streetcar, "they" would move faster. Rather simple isn't it? Except when we are logical and rational about it, we KNOW this is not the case, based on facts and evidence obtained in a logical, rational manner.
So...I think I'm fairly justified in saying that anyone who thinks we are better off getting rid of streetcars are being irrational about it.
I never said there was no "gravy" to be found (whatever gravy is). I said Rob Ford's gravy was not to be found....based on the FACT he did not produce any. Rob Ford did not "theorize" this gravy...he apparently had evidence of its existence, and knew how much it was...otherwise he would not have told us in his
Financial Impact Statement outlined in his electoral campaign.
Since he told us he would reduce spending in 2011 by $525.6 million without increasing taxes or cutting services, without asking the province for funds, as well as illuminating the VRT and LTT (worth approx $290 million in revenue in 2011), all the while producing a projected 2011 budget surplus of $22.6 million (based on a projected 2011 deficit of $503 million). The whole "gravy" thing is wonky from the start, but some simple math puts 2011 gravy reduction at about $800 million. How much of this is "savings" in "wasted tax dollars" is not known, since he intends to sell city assets as part of the plan. He does say it would be "at least" $125 million in each of 2011 & 2012, which leaves us with about $675 million in pure wasted taxpayers gravy. Now...did he intend to blow the entire $345 million in surpluses and reserves to balance the 2011 budget? Well, some of it he wouldn't have even been aware of...but he did not mention anything about this in his fiscal plan, so who the hell knows.
Now...let's look at the FACTS.
He INCREASED spending by about $100 million.
He did NOT illuminate the LTT
He INCREASED water and garbage fees and cut transit service
Since he did not produce the numbers he said he would, and his numbers were based on said gravy, then it is rational to conclude he is not able to produce gravy. This does not prove there cannot
be gravy mind you...just his ability to produce it. But if the "gravy man" cannot produce gravy, then there's a good chance gravy isn't as easy to come by as some like to think.