I am using the same information everyone else is spinning to come to my conclusions. The difference is I am not speculating for personal benefit, or fear mongering in order to defend my position.
Facts of the matter are clear.
The Liberal platform stated that they are committed to capping employment instead of cutting employment and “As part of our review of spending we will ensure that the size of the federal public service meets the needs of Canadians.”, and Government departments have been asked to save 15% over 3 years with no direct orders to cut anything specific.
If you want to play with Occam’s razor be sure not to cut yourself attempting to ground your speculation and assumptions in something real.
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”.
I am using the same information everyone else is spinning to come to my conclusions. The difference is I am not speculating for personal benefit, or fear mongering in order to defend my position.
Facts of the matter are clear.
The Liberal platform stated that they are committed to capping employment instead of cutting employment and “As part of our review of spending we will ensure that the size of the federal public service meets the needs of Canadians.”, and Government departments have been asked to save 15% over 3 years with no direct orders to cut anything specific.
If you want to play with Occam’s razor be sure not to cut yourself attempting to ground your speculation and assumptions in something real.
Hold on - what is the benefit to the PBO here?
And if, as you say, there’s no reason to expect job cuts, then what benefit are the unions getting from “fear mongering”?
Do you have something to add or are we done here?
I asked you to back up your assertion, did you have anything to back it up with? If not then yes, we’re done here
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.