Reject the election. Don’t mark your ballot!
- Thread starter atlanticaparty
- Start date
I doubt anyone on the east of Ontario would like political reform since they would loose their excessive over representation And all the goodies they get from the west like equalization payments and Atlantic Opportunities fund.
Why? I think it has more charisma and certainly more integrity then anything in Ottawa!
Ya images of Karrie in thigh high boots is what we need to get this thread back on track!
So long as there is nothing else unnatural above the boots.LOL
I am not talking about a '1/2 a loaf of bread'. I am talking about horribly stale bread that will do you more harm then good.
That is what I think of all 4 major parties - that they will (and do) FAR more harm then good.
And there is no way I am voting for that.
And it is not because they are corrupt - that is a given.
It is because they cannot balance the budget - and any economic ignoramus could do that. They are either too economically stupid and/or too gutless to bother.
This is the problem. We make exceptions for wars and helping the poor. And so as long as it's a 'valid' endeavour, balancing the books goes out the window. If we want to fight a war, and are prepared to ask our men in uniform to make the sacrifice, then the least we can do is make a minor sacrifice of our own by being wiling to pay higher taxes to support the war effort.
If we truly care about the poor, then we wil certainly be wiling to raise taxes to help them. If in the end the people are not prepared to make a small financial sacrifice while our soldiers are dying, then clearly the war is not worth fighting. Likewise, if we're not willing to pay more taxes to help the poor, then the poor are not worth helping.
Also, ideology must be put aside sometimes. Let's suppose for a moment that you're a Conservative MP who'd campaigned on tax and spending cuts, but the NDP forms a minority government that increaes government spending, would you still promote tax cuts in the face of such pending increases?
Inversely, if you're a New Democrat who'd campainged on more funding for hospitals and a minority Conservative government comes to power and cuts taxes, will you stil promote more spending?
Personally if I were a federal candidate, I' campaign on spending cuts but never on tax cuts, explaining that any support for tax cuts would be conditional on success in spending cuts. Should I fail to reign in spending, I'd certainly support tax increases as a responsible thing to do. Unfortunately though, it would seem many MPs disassociate spending and taxation in their minds, and so see nothign wrong with promoting tax cuts even when spending is increasing, or to promote spending increases even while taxes are being cut. All parties are guilty of that, as we'd seen even just in the last Parliament.
All of these parties are economic losers. Fiscally irresponsible to the max - anyone that votes for any of them is a macro-economic ignoramus, imo.[/QUOTE]
Canada is not declared war at this time - btw.
And I am absolutely certain that Canada's poor can be helped adequately within a balanced budget. In fact, I don't hear of Canadians starving to death who are on welfare. If anything, too much money is thrown at people that are not really poor - but call themselves as such.
When I say poor - I mean people that would literally die if the government did not help them.
I personally think we need to look beyond mere sustenance and to education. for instance, which would you choose between the two options below:
1. Give a person enough money to live off of for the rest of his life, or
2. Give him an education so he can become a contributing citizen himself, which would you rather?
I'd rather the second option. It might cost me more money initially, but at least I won't have to support that person for the rest of his life, but only for a short period of time before he eventually contributes to the economy himself. Add to that that he's less likely to turn to crime that way too.
But again, I'd cut all funding for that person in a heartbeat if that was the only way to balance the budget. Should the public then complain, I'd offer the option of raising taxes, and if they accept it, great, if not, i let him starve and point to the people as the ones who'd made that choice.
Same with war by the way. You want us to go to war but aren't willing to raise taxes to pay for it? Then we pull the troops out. After all, why risk the lives of our troops when people at home can't even make the most minor of sacrifices?
I talking in general terms. In reality, seeing that those areas I consider to be important for the government to be involved in (i.e. public education and trades or professional training for the unempoyed) are provincial matters, for the most part I see the role of the federal government to be to remove obstacles to employment (promoting free trade, free labour movement agreements, common international educational standards for various trades and professions in ollaboration with provinical and foreign national ministries of education,serving as a kind of broker between them), with provincial governments taking the rest of the rponsibility.
I say neither 1 or 2.
I say give people enough food, shelter, clothing and healthcare to survive only as long as they need it. Not a welfare cheque - but the actual food, shelter, clothing and healthcare. NEVER give money to people - too often it is misspent (except to those that are mentally/physically handicapped - give them money).
And where did I say I wanted Canada to go to war or that I was not prepared to raise taxes to pay for it?
I said (in essence) the budget should remain balanced UNLESS a technical state of war exists. Which means that if there is a war then whatever needs to be spent to pay for it - should be.[/quote]
I know that - but they depend on transfer payments from Ottawa for much of their budgets.
Frankly, I think welfare should be federal so that there is a national standard that is available to all in every province/territory.
That I agree with. Definitely never giv them money. However, I'd go beyond basic necessities to provide education too. After all, the goal ought to be to make them independent ASAP. Simply maintaining them does not help them get back into the workplace.
To my knowledge. the government (federal/provincial) already subsidizes post-secondary education to the tune of almost 90% of tuitions.
That is more then enough, imo.
And I am totally against my tax dollars going to subsidize people going to college/university for frivolous things.
You want to become a doctor, nurse, engineer, etc. - I say have the government pay 100% of tuitions (so long as you stay and work in Canada for a certain period of time after you graduate).
If you want to become an artist or a poet? Pay for the entire tuition yourself.
I'm not talking about the uy who can afford 10% of tuition to learn poi sci. I'm talking about the guy who can barely feed himself lerning a skill that is in demand in thw workplace. As the old saying goes, give a man a fish... vs teach a man to fish...
Which party speaks out against the wars? Which party speaks out against the bankers? Which party speaks out against Israel? Which of them dosn't waste your time telling you about garbage like CO2 or global warming? Fornicate them all before they fornicate you ,again.
I would never dishonor the women who fought so hard that I might have the 'right' to vote by doing any such thing to a ballot. Every vote counts as I saw myself when working as an electioneer during one federal election. In some small rural areas the polling stations may have as few as 50 voters on their list - believe me one vote can make a difference.
IMHO, people who actively work to nullify votes simply won't the take the time to learn the platforms of the various parties - and I don't mean just the mainstream parties. What galls me is their blatant solicitation of others to their worthless cause.
Last edited:
Personally, I think post-secondary education is generally over-rated.
I learned almost nothing during my post-secondary educational life that helped me in my later life.
And I know of TONS of people with lots of degrees/diplomas that do not have jobs.
Imo, FAR too many people use post-secondary education as little more then something to do while they decide what to do with the rest of their lives....almost all at taxpayers expense.
Not all post-secondary education revolves around university. What about learning a trade that is in demand, such as auto mechanics for example? Don't knock non-university education.
They may have wanted it and yes they sure as heck expected it, but they still didn't vote themselves out of office. You gotta wonder, if the conservatives WANTED an election, why the heck would the opposition GIVE it to them. Do you really want that caliber of decision making running the country?
I was referring to non-university as well as university education.
I say let businesses pay for the training.
If they cannot find enough people to fill the positions they need - then they will probably gladly pay to train people for those positions they require; assuming those that they train agree to work for the company for a minimum period of time or be charged part of the costs the company incurred to train that person.
This way people are trained in positions that are in demand. And not just for skills they think/hope will be in demand.
It was a calculated move. Killing Parliament when there are good Bills pending makes it easier to con the soft-headed into believing it was someone else's fault.