Um no, you claimed that people were “fear mongering” because it is to their “personal benefit” to do so.
I asked what the benefit would be to the critics if they were just inventing a narrative rather than pointing to a genuine problem.
In other words, if it is reasonable to assume that Carney’s government is not going to cut personnel, then what is the benefit to the union to say the opposite? Wouldn’t they simply end up looking foolish and untrustworthy?
On the other hand, if it is reasonable to assume that the PBO and the federal workforce are being genuine, then yes, there would he a benefit to them to not lose their jobs.
But it’s only in the latter case - where the PBO and unions are the ones telling the truth here - that there’s a material benefit to them for speaking out.
Thus, your assertion contains a contradiction. I asked you to explain that contradiction. It seems you’ve declined to do so. Take care.
Economists, including Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux, have said that it could be difficult to achieve Carney’s spending promises without significant cuts.
Notice how it says “could be difficult” and not “absolutely impossible”.
Notice the language: “without significant cuts”. The PBO did not say “without cuts”. This implies that cuts are assumed, it’s just a matter of degree.
Anyway you also still refuse to address the contradiction inherent to your claim about “personal benefit” to unions raising the alarm.
Not saying you’re a bad faith actor whose entire purpose on these forums is to sow doubt and muddy the waters, but I am saying that your actions are virtually indistinguishable from someone who is.
Edit: huh, so another thing about the sentence you quoted is that it’s not even a direct quote from the PBO. Here’s a direct quote:
“To balance or to pay for these types of additional spending there would need to be severe cuts to the public service, significant cuts,” Giroux said.
I already did what you are asking, and I won’t repeat myself again.
Take care.
Um no, you claimed that people were “fear mongering” because it is to their “personal benefit” to do so.
I asked what the benefit would be to the critics if they were just inventing a narrative rather than pointing to a genuine problem.
In other words, if it is reasonable to assume that Carney’s government is not going to cut personnel, then what is the benefit to the union to say the opposite? Wouldn’t they simply end up looking foolish and untrustworthy?
On the other hand, if it is reasonable to assume that the PBO and the federal workforce are being genuine, then yes, there would he a benefit to them to not lose their jobs.
But it’s only in the latter case - where the PBO and unions are the ones telling the truth here - that there’s a material benefit to them for speaking out.
Thus, your assertion contains a contradiction. I asked you to explain that contradiction. It seems you’ve declined to do so. Take care.
When you can provide a single piece of anything to support your point I am all ears.
Read the article.
Unfortunately for you, I did.
Notice how it says “could be difficult” and not “absolutely impossible”.
You have now used up all good faith.
Take care.
Notice the language: “without significant cuts”. The PBO did not say “without cuts”. This implies that cuts are assumed, it’s just a matter of degree.
Anyway you also still refuse to address the contradiction inherent to your claim about “personal benefit” to unions raising the alarm.
Not saying you’re a bad faith actor whose entire purpose on these forums is to sow doubt and muddy the waters, but I am saying that your actions are virtually indistinguishable from someone who is.
Edit: huh, so another thing about the sentence you quoted is that it’s not even a direct quote from the PBO. Here’s a direct quote:
https://ottawacitizen.com/public-service/carney-spending-public-service-cuts-pbo
Yeah, that was in June, they hadn’t updated things yet and the 15% cuts hadn’t been announced either
Again, not saying you’re a bad faith actor, but