No they don't. If you are going to criticize them, at least you could try and be honest.
It's A Great Day For the West
- Thread starter Cannuck
- Start date
No they don't. If you are going to criticize them, at least you could try and be honest.
Nor me. I've known for some time that Manitoba produces the most rational, level-headed and intelligent people in Canada...regardless of their political leanings.
"No they don't. If you are going to criticize them, at least you could try and be honest."
They don't now, because even they realize that the LEADER of a party should not live in subsidesed housing. But they DID before he was elected NDP leader.
They don't now, because even they realize that the LEADER of a party should not live in subsidesed housing. But they DID before he was elected NDP leader.
Toronto Housing rents out units at market rate for they who are willing to pay - the same as many other housing authorities. "Subsidized" is a blanket (and inaccurate) stereotype the rabid like to manipulate into their propaganda. Can you prove their Toronto Housing unit was subsidized?
Yukon, The Metro Toronto Housing Authority rents apartments that are both subsidized and market average rent and are mixed in the same buildings. Layton was never subsidized. To do so, would require you making about minimum wage or being on some form of provincial benefits.
How about this, Most Canadians support a least a few socialist programs like public education, old age security, universal medicare and welfare.
I like your rhetoric; but can you back it up with precise and contrete steps that can be taken to move towards the goals you espouse, or is it to remain expressed in words only?
Of course they didn't. They lived in a complex that had subsidized units. They themselves were not subsidized. As I said, If you are going to criticize them, at least you could try and be honest.
No doubt about that, although there's some of it I don't necessarily agree with. I think public education is good, old age security should be optional, if a person wants to opt out and invest for his old age that should be allowed. Welfare is good but it should be in the form of a loan to be paid back when the guy gets back on his feet, Medicare is not too good, gov't has it's nose too far into it and because of all the gov't bureaucracy is quite dysfunctional.
Time and time again I have suggested the conrete steps necessary to effect benevolent social change so I'm inclined to believe that your question is a bit disengenuous or you're oblivious to the very real socialist revolution already underway (those with progressive socialist leanings have always been the much feared and hunted terrorists and they still are today) I believe that you believe that there's is some restorative tweekings for capitalism that will make it function for the broad swath of humanity when the facts indicate that it was from the beginning only a maintennance tool for the wealthy. I have been an activist and organizer before as far back as the early eightys I marched against free-trade and the Mulrooney facsists. There is no precision at all in broad social movement, it is organic and responds to natural unschedualed events loosely based arround availability of resources.
I have given you the one and only first step toward good social change wherein lies the only possible salvation for mankind itself but you have poopooed it. I'll try again, eliminate private banking or stay in your backyard, there is no fix for the species nor the economies that does not take that necessary first step.
I believe and support Medicare (in theory)- just not the current structure that we have now - it is too politicized both by the Government, and the Medical establishment.
I do believe that a hybrid (yes two tiered) system is inevitable (well, it really does exist now anyways) - and a serious discussion needs to happen on the future of medicare...however, that would require maturity from our politicians, which just doesn't exist.
You oppose free trade in principle, of certain details of NAFTA only?
Personally, though I'm not sure what to think of some of the details in NAFTA, I still support free trade in principle. After all, could you imagine having to pay tariffs to buy something from a neighbouring neighbourhood?
And Darkbeaver, if you have given concrete steps, I've not noticed them. Would you mind repeating them? From what I gather, you just want a revolution and then we could figure out after that what we ought to do. Brilliant.
You have an overly simplistic view of what Jesus taught. Perhaps it would help if you read the new testament.
Earth as one: I don't know where you live but it is obvious you never suffered through an NDP government of the B.C. variety. They were so busy establishing their workers utopia(actually government employees only) that they all but killed the goose that laid the golden egg. I don't have much use for rampant capitalism either but I am a firm believer in free enterprise. And this is exactly what the Dippers destroyed in B.C.
Much as socialists may love to hate large companies it is these companies that create large high paying union jobs and the tax base that goes with them. We currently have a big problem for four cities on the island that have been brewing for decades that were caused by socialist ideals and now are coming home to roost. These are the cities that have pulp mills as their main source of employment/revenue. For decades heavy industry has been over taxed to provide low cost municipal services. The belief was that these costs were simply passed along to customers when paper was king. Now that there is low cost competition as well as poor markets the mills can no longer afford their taxes. They are paying a little over $4 in tax for every $1 in services received while residential taxes are around $.83 for every $1 in services. Municipal bureaucracy has become bloated and some of the mills have closed creating a double whammy of lower industrial taxes and no employment to up residential taxes. So a socialist utopia actually requires a certain amount of capitalism to survive.
Much as socialists may love to hate large companies it is these companies that create large high paying union jobs and the tax base that goes with them. We currently have a big problem for four cities on the island that have been brewing for decades that were caused by socialist ideals and now are coming home to roost. These are the cities that have pulp mills as their main source of employment/revenue. For decades heavy industry has been over taxed to provide low cost municipal services. The belief was that these costs were simply passed along to customers when paper was king. Now that there is low cost competition as well as poor markets the mills can no longer afford their taxes. They are paying a little over $4 in tax for every $1 in services received while residential taxes are around $.83 for every $1 in services. Municipal bureaucracy has become bloated and some of the mills have closed creating a double whammy of lower industrial taxes and no employment to up residential taxes. So a socialist utopia actually requires a certain amount of capitalism to survive.
Taxslave, what you're describing is an absolutely radical idea for some: moderation in all things.
To some degree, we could even say that one socialist policy has to be counterbalanced with a capitalist one. For example, if you want to give workers voting rights on boards of directors, that's going to cost the company money, and so we might have to lower corporate taxes to compensate. Or if we give workers more power, then we might have to privatize more institutions to ensure that workers don't become an excessive burden on government, etc.
It's only natural that if society is too capitalist, we end up with extremes of wealth and poverty, and if it's too socialist, we end up with lack of economic productivity. Moderation in all things.
To some degree, we could even say that one socialist policy has to be counterbalanced with a capitalist one. For example, if you want to give workers voting rights on boards of directors, that's going to cost the company money, and so we might have to lower corporate taxes to compensate. Or if we give workers more power, then we might have to privatize more institutions to ensure that workers don't become an excessive burden on government, etc.
It's only natural that if society is too capitalist, we end up with extremes of wealth and poverty, and if it's too socialist, we end up with lack of economic productivity. Moderation in all things.
I neglected to mention that Catalyst Paper is taking the cities involved to court to have their tax bite lowered to reflect the services they use. Sorry.
So this isn't a hypothetical situation, it is real and the cities with their bloated bureaucracies are having a hard time adjusting.