Super Genius
Posts: 1,274 
January 12th, 2006, 11:01 AM
note - this appears to be supporting the Liberals, but I do not, it is merely that this discussion is going on between Harper and Martin, not the NDP's Jack Layton, whom I will likely vote for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
There is a fundamental difference emerging in the two major party's view of Canada. Harper is saying "give each family the money and let them spend it as they see fit on child care", where as the Liberals and NDP would fund "day care spaces" that anyone can access if they need them.
Paul Martin made a comparison to describe the difference:
What if Tommy Douglas had said "just give each Canadian a $1 a day to spend on health care as they see fit" - we would not have ever had any universal health care, no medicare.
The idea is that "together, with a pool of money, great things can happen that cannot be done by individuals". These are the things that benefit everyone, and things that make us proud to be Canadian. Social Programs are for society building, not creation of millionaires and Elites. By definition, the majority cannot be Elites.
Now Harper wants to bring up the issue of Property Rights. He wants to protect individuals that own property, sometimes vast holdings of land and buildings.
Socially, this land is our land, not MY land. My title to it is temporary... I have a duty to keep it well and pass it on to the future. Furthering the laws to strengthen Property Rights is the pervue of slavers and Elites.
Property Rights harkens back to an older time when we thought
"Individual private property rights are the bedrock of personal liberty" . We have come a long way since that, at least most of us have. Not American Right Wing Eiltes though, they are worried about their undeserved wealth being reduced to a reasonable sum that relates to a nation that works together, unified country.
Property Rights and the Charter of Rights[1980] -
http://tinyurl.com/8238u
It is the Elites, the wealthy mostly-men of Canada, that are most thrilled with Property Rights. An article in the Globe and Mail today says it is the "rich men" who are fueling the increased support for Harper's CPC. We know why - property rights are a way for them to subjugate the rest of us.
http://tinyurl.com/8m588
[/url]
note - this appears to be supporting the Liberals, but I do not, it is merely that this discussion is going on between Harper and Martin, not the NDP's Jack Layton, whom I will likely vote for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
There is a fundamental difference emerging in the two major party's view of Canada. Harper is saying "give each family the money and let them spend it as they see fit on child care", where as the Liberals and NDP would fund "day care spaces" that anyone can access if they need them.
Paul Martin made a comparison to describe the difference:
What if Tommy Douglas had said "just give each Canadian a $1 a day to spend on health care as they see fit" - we would not have ever had any universal health care, no medicare.
The idea is that "together, with a pool of money, great things can happen that cannot be done by individuals". These are the things that benefit everyone, and things that make us proud to be Canadian. Social Programs are for society building, not creation of millionaires and Elites. By definition, the majority cannot be Elites.
Now Harper wants to bring up the issue of Property Rights. He wants to protect individuals that own property, sometimes vast holdings of land and buildings.
Socially, this land is our land, not MY land. My title to it is temporary... I have a duty to keep it well and pass it on to the future. Furthering the laws to strengthen Property Rights is the pervue of slavers and Elites.
Property Rights harkens back to an older time when we thought
"Individual private property rights are the bedrock of personal liberty" . We have come a long way since that, at least most of us have. Not American Right Wing Eiltes though, they are worried about their undeserved wealth being reduced to a reasonable sum that relates to a nation that works together, unified country.
Property Rights and the Charter of Rights[1980] -
http://tinyurl.com/8238u
It is the Elites, the wealthy mostly-men of Canada, that are most thrilled with Property Rights. An article in the Globe and Mail today says it is the "rich men" who are fueling the increased support for Harper's CPC. We know why - property rights are a way for them to subjugate the rest of us.
http://tinyurl.com/8m588
[/url]
Running out of ranks
Posts: 8,366 
January 12th, 2006, 11:14 AM
"It is the Elites, the wealthy mostly-men of Canada, that are most thrilled with Property Rights."
Where do people come up with this stuff?
I'm not rich and I know lots of women that own their own house and property....
I think there are some people that need to understand that I don't live and work for the state and the wealth I create through my own labour and intellect is mine, not the states.....come on people wake up!!
It is the greedy socialists who don't want to protect property rights, because the reality of it is, they want your wealth, and they feel as if they are entitled to it.
"It is the Elites, the wealthy mostly-men of Canada, that are most thrilled with Property Rights."
Where do people come up with this stuff?
I'm not rich and I know lots of women that own their own house and property....
I think there are some people that need to understand that I don't live and work for the state and the wealth I create through my own labour and intellect is mine, not the states.....come on people wake up!!
It is the greedy socialists who don't want to protect property rights, because the reality of it is, they want your wealth, and they feel as if they are entitled to it.
Member
Posts: 71
Location: Alberta
Location: Alberta
January 12th, 2006, 12:58 PM
The true issue difference here is that the Conservative position will help ALL Canadians who have children, regardless of how they manage their own child care. Even, god forbid, mothers and families who choose to raise their own kids! Only 13% of families choose official day care. What's so terrible about helping all children? No social engineering required.
Isn't universality one of the great Canadian Values?
Of course, the government and the technocrats have less power under such system.
Quoting
Who knows how Paul Martin came up with his $1 quote. Divide 1,200 by 365 and it comes out to a lot more than that. note -
There is a fundamental difference emerging in the two major party's view of Canada. Harper is saying "give each family the money and let them spend it as they see fit on child care", where as the Liberals and NDP would fund "day care spaces" that anyone can access if they need them.
Paul Martin made a comparison to describe the difference:
What if Tommy Douglas had said "just give each Canadian a $1 a day to spend on health care as they see fit" - we would not have ever had any universal health care, no medicare.
There is a fundamental difference emerging in the two major party's view of Canada. Harper is saying "give each family the money and let them spend it as they see fit on child care", where as the Liberals and NDP would fund "day care spaces" that anyone can access if they need them.
Paul Martin made a comparison to describe the difference:
What if Tommy Douglas had said "just give each Canadian a $1 a day to spend on health care as they see fit" - we would not have ever had any universal health care, no medicare.
The true issue difference here is that the Conservative position will help ALL Canadians who have children, regardless of how they manage their own child care. Even, god forbid, mothers and families who choose to raise their own kids! Only 13% of families choose official day care. What's so terrible about helping all children? No social engineering required.
Isn't universality one of the great Canadian Values?
Of course, the government and the technocrats have less power under such system.
