Latest Poll: Conservative Lead widens
- Thread starter Jersay
- Start date
Re: RE: Latest Poll: Conservative Lead widens
Oh please. Typically, a right wing government is good for the economy, there will be no economic disaster (prove how, don't just spew empty words), social programs will not end, but will become far more accountable than the liberal way of simply throwing money at an issue, and there will be no change in equality, even on the SSM issue. Harpers program does nothing to diminish the rights and benefits of SS Unions vis a vis traditional marriage. To say otherwise is simply not true, and you know it.
Of course I am hoping for a Conservative majority, but would certainly be pleased with a Conservative minority, with at least enough members of parliament to be able to govern with some degree of authority.
the caracal kid said:
Oh please. Typically, a right wing government is good for the economy, there will be no economic disaster (prove how, don't just spew empty words), social programs will not end, but will become far more accountable than the liberal way of simply throwing money at an issue, and there will be no change in equality, even on the SSM issue. Harpers program does nothing to diminish the rights and benefits of SS Unions vis a vis traditional marriage. To say otherwise is simply not true, and you know it.
Of course I am hoping for a Conservative majority, but would certainly be pleased with a Conservative minority, with at least enough members of parliament to be able to govern with some degree of authority.
pastafarian said:
If I live in a socialist paradise, I want it to be one that isn't under an economic blockade by the US, where I can ski and where I can watch Corner Gas, in French!!!!
Move or stay in Quebec then. But leave the rest of the country out of your socialist nightmare, okay??
karra said:
Ah, Karra, your insights into socialists and their engineers are so elightening...............Please continue!!
really,
you think Harper is financially sound. show his numbers. he has not released how he is going to pay for his programs while providing tax cuts so you must be privilaged.
There is a difference between fiscally conservative and the harper neocon approach. Look at Bush to the south to see what neocon fiscal planning produces: DEBT.
Social programs: go look at the links i have provided in other threads and refute harper's own words. Please, show how harper's own words do not represent harper's plans.
Whether or not he can end SSM does not mean that a government with such a "religious based" guidance will not introduce legislature that goes contrary to the equality of all. Unless you are again suggesting that the "new and improved, public friendly" harper is not the same harper of record.
Difference is label on SSM is difference. Semantics matter greatly to people, and these differences in labels create differences in treatment and perception.
There is a remarkable lacking in details from the harperites. So i ask you again if you have all this insider information on the detailed harper plan, put it forth. Otherwise, we are left to evaluate Harper on his history. A history that does not show a man capable of leading this country.
you think Harper is financially sound. show his numbers. he has not released how he is going to pay for his programs while providing tax cuts so you must be privilaged.
There is a difference between fiscally conservative and the harper neocon approach. Look at Bush to the south to see what neocon fiscal planning produces: DEBT.
Social programs: go look at the links i have provided in other threads and refute harper's own words. Please, show how harper's own words do not represent harper's plans.
Whether or not he can end SSM does not mean that a government with such a "religious based" guidance will not introduce legislature that goes contrary to the equality of all. Unless you are again suggesting that the "new and improved, public friendly" harper is not the same harper of record.
Difference is label on SSM is difference. Semantics matter greatly to people, and these differences in labels create differences in treatment and perception.
There is a remarkable lacking in details from the harperites. So i ask you again if you have all this insider information on the detailed harper plan, put it forth. Otherwise, we are left to evaluate Harper on his history. A history that does not show a man capable of leading this country.
Re: RE: Latest Poll: Conservative Lead widens
You're going to love Harper. I'll post this again just for you.
Yep it’s great, on the 24th Bush will meet with PMSH then in the afternoon the CPC will abolish abortion, the gun registry, SSM, then make private clinics the only options for health care oh and slam the door on immigrants. Then on the 25th there will be a concealed carry law put on the books.
Be afraid very afraid. He’ll ship all dippers to Cuba on the 26th
the caracal kid said:
You're going to love Harper. I'll post this again just for you.
Yep it’s great, on the 24th Bush will meet with PMSH then in the afternoon the CPC will abolish abortion, the gun registry, SSM, then make private clinics the only options for health care oh and slam the door on immigrants. Then on the 25th there will be a concealed carry law put on the books.
Be afraid very afraid. He’ll ship all dippers to Cuba on the 26th
hmmm Well I hope the NDP pick up more then just 19. But with FPTP who knows they may pick up 60, or 6. lol
Conservative Proposed Expenditures
In my opinion, the types of spending increases that Stephen Harper is suggesting, in addition to his proposed tax decreases, cannot be sustained within the framework of our current revenue. Revenue and taxation this year made $186 billion available to the Government of Canada; from this amount, $35.8 billion had to be spent on interest payments, and despite Conservative demands to increase spending to various projects and endeavours, only $9 billion was available to contribute to the payment on the principle of the debt.
Spending increases, if entirely warranted and in fact needed, should be cautiously considered. However, I oppose tax decreases, and shall continue to oppose decreases in taxation, until such time as Canada no longer has a federal debt to contend with; at the moment, it stands at $499.9 billion (as per this year's Annual Financial Report).
In my opinion, the types of spending increases that Stephen Harper is suggesting, in addition to his proposed tax decreases, cannot be sustained within the framework of our current revenue. Revenue and taxation this year made $186 billion available to the Government of Canada; from this amount, $35.8 billion had to be spent on interest payments, and despite Conservative demands to increase spending to various projects and endeavours, only $9 billion was available to contribute to the payment on the principle of the debt.
Spending increases, if entirely warranted and in fact needed, should be cautiously considered. However, I oppose tax decreases, and shall continue to oppose decreases in taxation, until such time as Canada no longer has a federal debt to contend with; at the moment, it stands at $499.9 billion (as per this year's Annual Financial Report).
Conservative Policy
Heh, then apparently Stephen Harper is going to be the first Prime Minister to use the notwithstanding clause even once, never mind the three or four times he'd need to use it in order to pass his policies; some experts say that even the invokation of the notwithstanding clause can't prevent the Provinces from honouring same-sex marriages, though.
I'm sure Stephen Harper could find a way around that, though.
Texas1 said:
Heh, then apparently Stephen Harper is going to be the first Prime Minister to use the notwithstanding clause even once, never mind the three or four times he'd need to use it in order to pass his policies; some experts say that even the invokation of the notwithstanding clause can't prevent the Provinces from honouring same-sex marriages, though.
I'm sure Stephen Harper could find a way around that, though.
On January 24th said:
bluealberta:
1) show the numbers for these "accounts"
2) if the money has been stolen, then it is not accessable to Harper unless he is the one who stole it!
3) harper and social programs: take a look at harperwatch.ca or intheirownwords.ca
4) a neocon is a neocon. it does not matter what county they are in. the effect is always the same.
5) relgious based guidance: look up the christian fundies that harper has tradionally drawn support from. you know, those groups that are against SSM, abortion,etc.
6) equality in everything but name is not equality!
1) show the numbers for these "accounts"
2) if the money has been stolen, then it is not accessable to Harper unless he is the one who stole it!
3) harper and social programs: take a look at harperwatch.ca or intheirownwords.ca
4) a neocon is a neocon. it does not matter what county they are in. the effect is always the same.
5) relgious based guidance: look up the christian fundies that harper has tradionally drawn support from. you know, those groups that are against SSM, abortion,etc.
6) equality in everything but name is not equality!
Re: Conservative Proposed Expenditures
I'm with you on keeping most taxes up to pay down debt. Unfortunately, everybody seems to want everything right now.
If you want to save Medicare, and CCP, pay off the debt ASAP.
At the same time, the gov't right now is awash in cash.
Hey! There are voters to be paid off you know. 8O
Actually, I think this over-promise thing is why Harper has decided to concentrate on his "five priorities". That a gov't can probably handle with current revenues and no deficit. And no matter what else he promises, Harper will be able to point to the priorities as promises kept.
BTW, if you were serious about debt repayment, you should have supported the Reform Party.
FiveParadox said:
I'm with you on keeping most taxes up to pay down debt. Unfortunately, everybody seems to want everything right now.
If you want to save Medicare, and CCP, pay off the debt ASAP.
At the same time, the gov't right now is awash in cash.
Hey! There are voters to be paid off you know. 8O
Actually, I think this over-promise thing is why Harper has decided to concentrate on his "five priorities". That a gov't can probably handle with current revenues and no deficit. And no matter what else he promises, Harper will be able to point to the priorities as promises kept.
BTW, if you were serious about debt repayment, you should have supported the Reform Party.
The problem with supporting the reform party was that to get the proposed "good", you had to sacrifice your conscience in accepting all the "bad".
Those reformers sure proved what they were made of when they got to ottawa and accepted all those perks they claimed they would refuse. Ahh... the history of the conservative party of canada. They should have stuck with the CRAP name. At least we would have had an honest party about something. tee hee
Those reformers sure proved what they were made of when they got to ottawa and accepted all those perks they claimed they would refuse. Ahh... the history of the conservative party of canada. They should have stuck with the CRAP name. At least we would have had an honest party about something. tee hee
I’m sorry but I can only read this for so long before I have to say something….
First off lets talk about the SSM issue. Harper has not said he would outlaw SSM, he is simply saying that the definition of Marriage (the word) should not apply to Same Sex couples. He is not planning on taking away the right of homosexual couples to have a civil union. I.e. they will still have all the same rights as heterosexual couples; therefore this is not a rights and freedoms issue, because they will have the same rights, just a different name.
He has clearly stated he WILL NOT USE the not withstanding clause in relation to SSM. And he won’t have to, because it is not a rights and freedoms issue.
Next is the simple economics of the socialist “utopia” as some of you call it. The reason this doesn’t work is the same reason communism doesn’t work, just on a smaller scale. NDP especially wants more and more spending on social programs, subsidized housing, and free health care etc. etc. However, all this costs money, but based on the NDP philosophy you can’t tax all the people more, so you end up taxing the middle to upper class population, and also the businesses and corporations. This, as anyone will tell you, forces businesses to either downsize, or shutdown. And causes the remaining businesses to raise prices on goods. This, my friends, is how inflation gets out of control.
So now all the people that have lost their jobs and the others that have jobs but can’t afford anything, now start to take advantage of the socialist programs and start to live in the “socialist utopia” (yeah right). This in turn causes taxes to rise again, and the cycle continues. Canada eventually bankrupts itself, and this “utopia” becomes a second rate third world country.
Inflation also has the adverse affect of making the country non competitive on the world market, which only speeds up our demise.
This was proven when the NDP more or less bankrupted British Columbia in one 4-year term.
The saying “Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime” is the way markets thrive. Instead of giving people free programs, free housing, free childcare, free everything, you have to give people the opportunities to work to improve their standard of living. This is done by encouraging businesses to thrive, so that it in turn creates more jobs, and more opportunities.
Instead of investing in leach social programs, invest in education, so that people have the opportunities to learn and work, and increase their standard of living on their own.
This is why I never understood the NDP/Liberal philosophy, they want everything given to them on a silver platter, but when asked how they pay for it, they haven’t a clue.
Now health care, I could go into a lot of detail on this subject, but I will keep it short. A private health care system, running parallel to the publicly funded system, is a logical progression in a capitalist nation. In it’s current form, and current track, the health care system can’t sustain itself for much longer.
Canada is the LAST industrialized nation in the world to disallow private healthcare by law. Every other industrialized nation has some sort of private option to its citizens, and allows them to seek private options should they want or need it.
Unfortunately Canada’s healthcare issue is more an emotional issue than it is an economics or quality of care issue.
There is so much more I want to write, but I will save it, since this is getting rather lengthy.
First off lets talk about the SSM issue. Harper has not said he would outlaw SSM, he is simply saying that the definition of Marriage (the word) should not apply to Same Sex couples. He is not planning on taking away the right of homosexual couples to have a civil union. I.e. they will still have all the same rights as heterosexual couples; therefore this is not a rights and freedoms issue, because they will have the same rights, just a different name.
He has clearly stated he WILL NOT USE the not withstanding clause in relation to SSM. And he won’t have to, because it is not a rights and freedoms issue.
Next is the simple economics of the socialist “utopia” as some of you call it. The reason this doesn’t work is the same reason communism doesn’t work, just on a smaller scale. NDP especially wants more and more spending on social programs, subsidized housing, and free health care etc. etc. However, all this costs money, but based on the NDP philosophy you can’t tax all the people more, so you end up taxing the middle to upper class population, and also the businesses and corporations. This, as anyone will tell you, forces businesses to either downsize, or shutdown. And causes the remaining businesses to raise prices on goods. This, my friends, is how inflation gets out of control.
So now all the people that have lost their jobs and the others that have jobs but can’t afford anything, now start to take advantage of the socialist programs and start to live in the “socialist utopia” (yeah right). This in turn causes taxes to rise again, and the cycle continues. Canada eventually bankrupts itself, and this “utopia” becomes a second rate third world country.
Inflation also has the adverse affect of making the country non competitive on the world market, which only speeds up our demise.
This was proven when the NDP more or less bankrupted British Columbia in one 4-year term.
The saying “Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime” is the way markets thrive. Instead of giving people free programs, free housing, free childcare, free everything, you have to give people the opportunities to work to improve their standard of living. This is done by encouraging businesses to thrive, so that it in turn creates more jobs, and more opportunities.
Instead of investing in leach social programs, invest in education, so that people have the opportunities to learn and work, and increase their standard of living on their own.
This is why I never understood the NDP/Liberal philosophy, they want everything given to them on a silver platter, but when asked how they pay for it, they haven’t a clue.
Now health care, I could go into a lot of detail on this subject, but I will keep it short. A private health care system, running parallel to the publicly funded system, is a logical progression in a capitalist nation. In it’s current form, and current track, the health care system can’t sustain itself for much longer.
Canada is the LAST industrialized nation in the world to disallow private healthcare by law. Every other industrialized nation has some sort of private option to its citizens, and allows them to seek private options should they want or need it.
Unfortunately Canada’s healthcare issue is more an emotional issue than it is an economics or quality of care issue.
There is so much more I want to write, but I will save it, since this is getting rather lengthy.
Food for thought.
In the World Economic Forum's "Global Competitiveness Ranking", for this year, the rankings were:
Notice the position of the "socialist" Scandinavian countries. Undergraduate economics "guns and butter" simplicities don't even work on their own terms, let alone with an eye to quality-of-life and democratic concerns.
Harper is a warmed-over Straussian,Republican-ass-kissing ,trickle-down, faux-populist puppet for the American religious and economic extremists who want to redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich on the backs of the middle-class he lies about defending. A minority Harper gov't is what the Liberals deserve, the economic upper 1% hasn't been good enough and the rest of us haven't been bad enough to deserve his party of the greedy, bigotted and ignorant getting a majority.
nomore said:
This semantic game as to what constitutes rights is the same one I encountered on the expatriate voting issue. One poster stated that a particular ideal should be adhered to less the definition of what constitutes rights on voting be construed too broadly. The issue in question was residence and voting. Here the question is marriage and sexual orientation. Same problem with different words. Split hairs to differentially define rights. This is a very common Canadian trend.
The reason why in Canada conflicting standards are frequently used to determine rights is that Canada does not recognize individual rights. Canada recognizes group rights and this is what the Charter protects. And even for group rights to be acknowledged members of the group have to mobilize and lobby for recognition. The best example of this are “visible minorities.”
The Charter is very different than the US Constitution in the way it recognizes rights. The ACLU for example takes cases where rights are violated irrespective of political considerations. It’s position is based on the premise that all individuals in the US have equal rights. In Canada the CCLA will only take cases identified with certain groups that they consider are entitled to being defended on human rights In other words only individuals belonging to certain groups in Canada have human rights. Individuals outside these groups have no way to seek redress if their rights are violated other than first mounting a Charter challenge.
So Canada really does not have a universal humans rights system. Rights a re calculated in terms of potential political gain and for self interest on the part of various groups.
There was an interesting article in the Economist I believe in September 2004 on the limited way that human rights are defined in Canada.
On the election I think it is important not to let corrupt and inept liberal politicians tarnish the ideals of the party platform. The next government should go into caretaker mode and clean up government as its main priority. They have to get these morons out of government.
Ah Jay, my nemesis...hope you had a a Merry Xmas and that 2006 kicked off well for you!
Ummm...no, not really.
Ummm...no, not really.
I'm glad that list of countries was brought up, because Sweden is a perfect example of my point. I think what Jay is getting at, is the fact that on a world stage, Canada is a relatively young country, where as European and Asian countries have been doing this much longer and have learned from their mistakes.
Sweden is a perfect example, if anyone remembers the economic crisis, and extreme recession that enveloped Sweden in the early 90's. This was almost directly related to their "Welfare state" mentality. (Which Canada is adopting). In the 50's Sweden was recognized as one of the wealthiest countries in the world, but somewhere in the late 50's early 60's they began introducing a large number of publicly funded programs, and began adopting a highly centralized form of government (much like Canada is becoming), in which the “State” began controlling many of the things it’s citizens had previously done on their own through fundamental capitalist principles like worker motivation, where as, you work harder to obtain a higher standard of living.
Gradually these programs started to become unsustainable as workers began to take advantage of such things, and the worker motivation began to drop as taxes increased. The problem came in the late 80’s early 90’s where the number of people using these social programs increased from around 0.5 people for every 1 person not using the system in the 60’s to almost 2 people using the system for every 1 person not using it in the 90’s. Taxes were so incredibly high, that inflation increased exponentially, and as a result unemployment increased exponentially. This caused the recession in the 90’s, which almost bankrupted the country because of their unsustainable programs and ever-increasing huge national debt.
In the mid 90’s the government was forced to roll back their welfare mentality, and essentially go back (to a lesser extent) to the way they had been doing it before. They introduced major tax reform, major social spending cuts, and social program reductions. As a result they reduced inflation to much lower rates (even lower than Canada), and also reduced unemployment rates to nominal levels (also lower than Canada). Many parts of the Swedish healthcare system were also privatized.
As a result of all this they have once again become very competitive on the world market.
Canada is on the exact same track as Sweden was before it’s reform, so we are most likely headed in a similar direction whether Canadians want it or not. The difference is, we can learn from these mistakes, and make the right decisions before we hit a bad recession and have to make extreme changes to correct it.
Sweden is a perfect example, if anyone remembers the economic crisis, and extreme recession that enveloped Sweden in the early 90's. This was almost directly related to their "Welfare state" mentality. (Which Canada is adopting). In the 50's Sweden was recognized as one of the wealthiest countries in the world, but somewhere in the late 50's early 60's they began introducing a large number of publicly funded programs, and began adopting a highly centralized form of government (much like Canada is becoming), in which the “State” began controlling many of the things it’s citizens had previously done on their own through fundamental capitalist principles like worker motivation, where as, you work harder to obtain a higher standard of living.
Gradually these programs started to become unsustainable as workers began to take advantage of such things, and the worker motivation began to drop as taxes increased. The problem came in the late 80’s early 90’s where the number of people using these social programs increased from around 0.5 people for every 1 person not using the system in the 60’s to almost 2 people using the system for every 1 person not using it in the 90’s. Taxes were so incredibly high, that inflation increased exponentially, and as a result unemployment increased exponentially. This caused the recession in the 90’s, which almost bankrupted the country because of their unsustainable programs and ever-increasing huge national debt.
In the mid 90’s the government was forced to roll back their welfare mentality, and essentially go back (to a lesser extent) to the way they had been doing it before. They introduced major tax reform, major social spending cuts, and social program reductions. As a result they reduced inflation to much lower rates (even lower than Canada), and also reduced unemployment rates to nominal levels (also lower than Canada). Many parts of the Swedish healthcare system were also privatized.
As a result of all this they have once again become very competitive on the world market.
Canada is on the exact same track as Sweden was before it’s reform, so we are most likely headed in a similar direction whether Canadians want it or not. The difference is, we can learn from these mistakes, and make the right decisions before we hit a bad recession and have to make extreme changes to correct it.