It's A Great Day For the West

[earth_as_one]

I wouldn't get too mesmerized over the N.D.P. - they'll probably do alright for awhile but over time they will prove to be just as inept as the Liberals and Conservatives. I don't think any of the parties understands how money works, except to get they have to tax the hell out of you.

I agree, eventually all people demonstrate weakness. Power corrupts. Socialists are no different than anyone else. Some are fiscally responsible, like Tommy Douglas and some aren't. If they aren't fiscally responsible then they should be tossed out of office.

Its a myth that Socialists overspend. What they do is shift the tax burden toward the wealthy and away from the poor. In the end the poor have a minimum standard of living. They have a the ability to improve themselves and make themselves more productive, increasing overall wealth of society. As most people live relatively well, the poor have little incentive to commit crimes or rob wealthy people.

Its a myth that capitalists are fiscally responsible. Take a good look at what's going on around us. Our current problems aren't caused by socialist policies but unregulated capitalist greed. The people responsible should be held accountable. In some cases some people should be charged with fraud, theft and breach of trust.

Capitalists shift the tax burden away from the wealthy and toward the poor and cut socialist programs not used by the wealthy. In the end, the living standard of the poor is so low, they survive from day to day, and lack the time, resources or energy to improve themselves, decreasing the overall wealth of society, but making a few individuals wealthy beyond the point of having a purpose or meaning. Desperate people commit crimes and wealthy people respond by putting up walls around their communities the isolating the "Haves" from the "Have Nots".

I'm in favor of capitalism, getting rich and living the Canadian dream... As long as its properly regulated to avoid problems like the ones we are seeing now. Banks should not be allowed to take on unreasonable risks. Asset backed stocks need to be properly regulated so that criminals can't pass off $hit as Shinola. CEO's and other senior execs should not be allowed to siphon off corporate profits and drain a corporate assets. Performance bonuses should be based on performance. Stockholders should have more say in who runs the company and how the company is run....

 

[JLM]

I agree, eventually all people demonstrate weakness. Power corrupts. Socialists are no different than anyone else. Some are fiscally responsible, like Tommy Douglas and some aren't. If they aren't fiscally responsible then they should be tossed out of office.

Its a myth that Socialists overspend. What they do is shift the tax burden toward the wealthy and away from the poor. In the end the poor have a minimum standard of living. They have a the ability to improve themselves and make themselves more productive, increasing overall wealth of society. As most people live relatively well, the poor have little incentive to commit crimes or rob wealthy people.

Its a myth that capitalists are fiscally responsible. Take a good look at what's going on around us. Our current problems aren't caused by socialist policies but unregulated capitalist greed. The people responsible should be held accountable. In some cases some people should be charged with fraud, theft and breach of trust.

Capitalists shift the tax burden away from the wealthy and toward the poor and cut socialist programs not used by the wealthy. In the end, the living standard of the poor is so low, they survive from day to day, and lack the time, resources or energy to improve themselves, decreasing the overall wealth of society, but making a few individuals wealthy beyond the point of having a purpose or meaning. Desperate people commit crimes and wealthy people respond by putting up walls around their communities the isolating the "Haves" from the "Have Nots".

I'm in favor of capitalism, getting rich and living the Canadian dream... As long as its properly regulated to avoid problems like the ones we are seeing now. Banks should not be allowed to take on unreasonable risks. Asset backed stocks need to be properly regulated so that criminals can't pass off $hit as Shinola. CEO's and other senior execs should not be allowed to siphon off corporate profits and drain a corporate assets. Performance bonuses should be based on performance. Stockholders should have more say in who runs the company and how the company is run....

I mostly agree with what you say except the line shown in red. On any system the tax schedule is always top heavy- the higher the tax bracket the higher the percentage paid. People making over $75,000 pay more in taxes than the poor spend in a year. As far as political parties goes I have very little use for any of them.

 

[Cannuck]

You and I must have read different versions of the New Testament.

In my version, he lived communally, sharing all that he had to offer. Jesus died a poor man, but rich in wisdom and admiration.

Yes he did. What he didn't do is lobby the government to get them to look after people. Jesus didn't abdicate his personal responsibility to the poor and dump that responsibility on the government. As well, socialism seeks to place the control of production and distribution in the hands of the community at large (the government). Jesus did not concern himself with that. One does not need to control production/distribution to help the poor. As I said, your view of Jesus' teachings is overly simplistic.

Oh, and BTW, because he wasn't a socialist, doesn't automatically mean he was a capitalist. The real world isn't so black and white.

 

[earth_as_one]

Cannuck, you are misinformed. I think you are referring to central planning which is used in only extreme forms of socialism.

In Canada we already have limited government control of production and distribution even under the Conservatives. Trying selling alcohal or running a butcher store from your home.

Moderate forms of socialism use the same system of free market regulation, rather than central planning to control production and distribution. The goal is to create stability, fairness, and deal with issues like public safety and legal responsibility. What's going on in the US is an example of the results of market deregulation.

The central theme of moderate socialism is manging society's wealth for the benefit of everyone. The objective is to create a fair and just society, where the poor have enough resources to rise above survival mode.

The basic principle is the more wealth you have, the greater % of your wealth you share with society. Overdone, progressive taxation stunts wealth creation. Overdone to the point of communism, kills wealth creation and society has less wealth overall to share. Done at moderate levels it results in net wealth creation as well as a fair and just society. Insufficient wealth sharing leads to an unfair, unjust and unstable society and ultimately revolution.

In moderate socialism, the poor are supported to a minimum living standard which includes basic food, clothing, shelter, education, health care... until you can support yourself and start supporting others. If you are wealthy you support the poor. The more wealth you have, the more wealth you share, but a class structure still exists.

In Jesus's time, social welfare didn't exist. The extremely poor were still supported by the extremely wealthy voluntary, so it was called charity. Today that form of socialist wealth transfer is called taxation and it isn't optional. Everyone including the wealthy benefit from social welfare.

If Jesus was so fond of captialists, then explain Jesus's anger with money changers and animal sellers in the Temple. Sounds like a negative attitude regarding capitalism to me. How do you think he'd react to Church bingo?

How about this reference:

Jesus: It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven.

Sounds like wealth accumulation isn't conducive toward redemption to me in Jesus's opinion.

Exactly what did Jesus do for a living? There are no references to Jesus getting appearance fees or selling tickets. Sounds to me like he was living on the charity of others (handouts). If Jesus were living in Canada today, he'd probably qualify for social assistance which capitalists would like to cut.

By the way, I'm a self employed consultant in the IT industry. I've done pretty well the last couple of years. I have no problems paying my fair share of taxes. My problem is with how they are spent. If I was an American, I'd be pissed the some of their wealthiest citizens are getting obscenely huge bailout packages while about 100,000,000 live in abject poverty. Canada's fiscally conservative banking regulations created during the depression is what saved our collective @sses, not venture capitalist wisdom.

I'm a socialist, but I also believe in moderately free market which is regulated for stability, only. Otherwise, let the free market forces reign. Bad decisions by wealthy people have to have bad consequences for wealthy people. Free market regulation should only protect society, not individuals. When high flying risk takers go broke, they can apply for welfare like the rest of us.

 

[earth_as_one]

I mostly agree with what you say except the line shown in red. On any system the tax schedule is always top heavy- the higher the tax bracket the higher the percentage paid. People making over $75,000 pay more in taxes than the poor spend in a year. As far as political parties goes I have very little use for any of them.

That's a socialist principle, not a capitalist one.

Who do you think is pushing for flat taxes? Bush's tax cuts only affected about 5 million Americans in any significant way. The top 5 million. The poor and middle class kept paying the same amount. Trickle down economics is about reducing the tax burder of the wealthy. These are all examples of the capitalists attempting to shift the tax burden away from the wealthy. During the Bush years, he cut taxes for the wealthy and increased spending, mostly on the military. Who is going to pay for that eventually?

Even if they don't increase taxes, rampant inflation is coming. In a way, that's also a form of taxation. That wealth transfers to who ever prints the money. In the US, that's privately owned, not state owned.

 

[Cannuck]

Cannuck, you are misinformed. I think you are referring to central planning....

No, I wasn't

In Canada we already have limited government control of production and distribution even under the Conservatives. Trying selling alcohal or running a butcher store from your home.

That's right, the Conservatives in Canada lean towards socialism. Publicly funded health care is another example.

Moderate forms of socialism use the same system of free market regulation, rather than central planning to control production and distribution. The goal is to create stability, fairness, and deal with issues like public safety and legal responsibility. What's going on in the US is an example of the results of market deregulation.

The central theme of moderate socialism is manging society's wealth for the benefit of everyone. The objective is to create a fair and just society, where the poor have enough resources to rise above survival mode.

You don't have to explain socialism to me. I know what it is. The point is that Jesus was not a political animal. He did not want or expect governments to take responsibility for helping the poor. He wanted individuals to do so. Simply put, Jesus had a bottom up approach while you and other 21st century socialists have a top down approach. Don't compare your views and attitudes with Jesus'.

If Jesus was so fond of captialists, then explain Jesus's anger with money changers and animal sellers in the Temple. Sounds like a negative attitude regarding capitalism to me. How do you think he'd react to Church bingo?

Who said he was a capitalist? Jesus was apolitical. Besides, he was angry because they were cheating people and using a holy place as a market place. He probably would have been just as angry if they set up nets and used the temple to play B-Ball.

You seem to believe that because Jesus wanted people to help the poor, his preferred way was through government action. You are wrong.

 

[JLM]

That's a socialist principle, not a capitalist one.

Who do you think is pushing for flat taxes? Bush's tax cuts only affected about 5 million Americans in any significant way. The top 5 million. The poor and middle class kept paying the same amount. Trickle down economics is about reducing the tax burder of the wealthy. These are all examples of the capitalists attempting to shift the tax burden away from the wealthy. During the Bush years, he cut taxes for the wealthy and increased spending, mostly on the military. Who is going to pay for that eventually?

Even if they don't increase taxes, rampant inflation is coming. In a way, that's also a form of taxation. That wealth transfers to who ever prints the money. In the US, that's privately owned, not state owned.

I kind of think the high income people (who are honest workers, not scam artists) pay more than their share of taxes and I'm not in that category. They are the ones who invest in the education, give up years of earning to go to school, take financials risks. I know it's not unreasonable for guy to forfeit a $1/4 million to become a doctor- should he still be burdened with a heavy tax load?

 

[earth_as_one]

No way Cannuck, Jesus was about as socialist as anyone was in those days. His lifestyle was all about sharing. He lived a communal lifestyle and shared everything. He never accumulated or desired wealth. The word communion or sharing is used extensively throughout the New Testament.

Moderate socialism would make university education free. Doctors would graduate debt free. I'm ok with that as long as they make an equivalent contribution to Canada's health care system and pay their taxes. As university tuitition becomes ever more expensive, only the wealthy can afford to send their children to university. Evectively that's where we are now.

 

[Cannuck]

His lifestyle was all about sharing. He lived a communal lifestyle and shared everything. He never accumulated or desired wealth. The word communion or sharing is used extensively throughout the New Testament.

I don't disagree but sharing and socialism are not synonymous.

Moderate socialism would make university education free.

No it wouldn't. It would just make everybody pay a portion of the cost. That's not free.

Doctors would graduate debt free. I'm ok with that as long as they make an equivalent contribution to Canada's health care system and pay their taxes.

...and that is where you don't get it. If Jesus had the ability, he would have paid for the individual's education and expected nothing in return. You want something in return. You want control. Jesus didn't.

 

[DichotoMe]

... What he didn't do is lobby the government to get them to look after people. Jesus didn't abdicate his personal responsibility to the poor and dump that responsibility on the government...

Could you imagine trying to lobby the Roman Empire. Talk about futile. Who cares about Jesus, the Romans bastardized the story then the church destroyed his reputation. This thread is getting off topic a bit, still interesting nevertheless.

Bringing this thread back on track let me say that nobody will leave NS. Those that do I hope they never come back. Dexter is a prudent fiscal manager and an intelligent man. He was the better choice. Cons had resorted to negative campaigning even before the election. Not to mention the ridiculous suggestions in their platform. Things like a curfew for kids under 16 and having parents pay for damage caused by their children. The new breed of liberals had little experience in government and their ideas were interesting but nobody was willing to let them back in. We've been under the thumbs of the two old parties since confederation. We've had enough and luckily we had a decent alternative.

 

[Cannuck]

Bringing this thread back on track let me say that nobody will leave NS. Those that do I hope they never come back.

Well, that's a mature statement.

 

[DichotoMe]

Well, that's a mature statement.

Mature eh. You're talking to me about maturity? Many of your posts are quite obnoxious but when someone else says something immature you're all over them. Funny!

Why would anybody in any province want a people who are so closed minded they can't live in a province not run by Conservatives? I say goodbye, good luck & don't let the door hit you on the way out. These people have no idea what the NDP will/can do in this province. If they are that close minded then i don't want them in my province. Let them go to Alberta. I don't think anyone here really cares, mature or not.

 

[Cannuck]

Mature eh. You're talking to me about maturity? Many of your posts are quite obnoxious but when someone else says something immature you're all over them. Funny!

I won't bother posting the difference between obnoxious and immature. I'm sure you can find an online dictionary.

Why would anybody in any province want a people who are so closed minded they can't live in a province not run by Conservatives?

That's quite the leap you've made. People didn't leave Saskatistan because the Conservatives weren't running the show. You really shouldn't make such ridiculous statements.

I say goodbye, good luck & don't let the door hit you on the way out. These people have no idea what the NDP will/can do in this province. If they are that close minded then i don't want them in my province. Let them go to Alberta. I don't think anyone here really cares, mature or not.

Of course people care. Saskatistan cared. That is why they are advertising, trying to get people to move back. It's good for the economy. Of course, being an NDP supporter, I'm not surprised that what's good for the economy holds no interest for you. My mother's side of the family is from Nova Scotia. Many will be moving west either before or after the NDP drag the province into the gutter (which won't take much if my relatives are right).

 

[DichotoMe]

I do realize the difference between maturity and obnoxious. Neither are particularly complimentary. The downside for you is that I can grow up but you are stuck with being obnoxious because thats just who you are, maybe. Lets get passed the childish name calling, shall we.

Canuck, you are the one who started this ridiculous thread. Remember:
"The province of Nova Scotia has elected an NDP government. It won't be long till the exodus begins."
If the people didn't leave Saskachewan then why do you think they would leave NS. If there is any logic to your statements I guess I missed it. I'm SURE your smarmy response will enlighten me.

Finally, I'm no supporter of any party. I hate them all. I like independents, real people who don't have grand ambition or partisan leanings. Political parties are vacuous entities that destroy good people. Parties are the reason for division in Canada. They are the reason people are disillusioned with the electoral system.

 

[DichotoMe]

Canuck you made a couple comments that are conflicting:

FIRST:"That's quite the leap you've made. People didn't leave Saskatistan because the Conservatives weren't running the show. You really shouldn't make such ridiculous statements."

SECOND:"...Saskatistan cared. That is why they are advertising, trying to get people to move back..."

Which is it? Did they leave or not?

 

[DichotoMe]

How are Saskatchewan and Manitoba doing now? Not too bad from what I've seen. They are still there and from what I hear around here Manitoba is doing quite well.

Please disregard my previous comment about you're conflict. Apologies, I've misread your meaning.

I should explain what I meant by stating "Why would anybody in any province want a people who are so closed minded they can't live in a province not run by Conservatives?"
What I should have wrote is "Why would anybody in any province want a people who are so closed minded they can't live in a province not run by the party they voted for?"

 

[Cannuck]

The downside for you is that I can grow up but you are stuck with being obnoxious because thats just who you are, maybe.

On the contrary. I choose to be obnoxious to ideologues. They are fun to make fun of

Canuck, you are the one who started this ridiculous thread. Remember:
"The province of Nova Scotia has elected an NDP government. It won't be long till the exodus begins."
If the people didn't leave Saskachewan then why do you think they would leave NS.

Umm...because they did leave Saskatistan. That's the point. Look, if you are going to try and debate on this ridiculous thread, try and get yourself up to speed first.

If there is any logic to your statements I guess I missed it.

No guessing about it. It's clear for all to see.

Finally, I'm no supporter of any party.

On another thread you asked why somebody gave you a bad rep. Perhaps it was because of statements like that. Please don't insult people's intelligence with such obviously false statements.

 

[Cannuck]

How are Saskatchewan and Manitoba doing now? Not too bad from what I've seen. They are still there and from what I hear around here Manitoba is doing quite well.

They were doing OK mostly because of the richness in natural resources. Saskakistan has more resources than Alberta but has been a have not population for many years while Alberta has boomed. You can thank the NDP for that. Those that are conservative minded will tell you it's because of the Conservatives in power in Alberta. That's sillier than saying the NDP will be good for Nova Scotia.

Please disregard my previous comment about you're conflict. Apologies, I've misread your meaning.

No problem. I disregarded it the moment I read it.

I should explain what I meant by stating "Why would anybody in any province want a people who are so closed minded they can't live in a province not run by Conservatives?"
What I should have wrote is "Why would anybody in any province want a people who are so closed minded they can't live in a province not run by the party they voted for?"

It's got nothing to do with who you voted for and everything to do with how you are going to go down the toilet economically with an NDP government. Remember, you don't have the natural resources that Saskatistan and Manitoba have.

 

[DichotoMe]

Look, I did apologize for misreading your statement regarding Sask. so lets move past that.

I'm certainly no ideologue. I tend to lean towards whatever I think is best for the province/country. Just because we disagree doesn't make me an ideologue. The NDP were the best choice. That might not make sense to you or your family but thats the way it is. Why else would they get 46% of the vote, do you think Nova Scotians are stupid?

Oh and I didn't ask anyone "Why" I got a bad rep but rather how I could see who gave me the bad rep and why.

 

[DichotoMe]

We didn't have the resources when the libs or cons were in power either and we didn't slide down the toilet. We obviously don't have the mineral deposits but offshore oil (as much as i despise it) is there, maybe not the quantities in the prairies but we do have the potential. There are other industries we can concentrate on which do help. Canuck, NS isn't going anywhere but up. We'll have to wait and see.