Your Vote; This Time VS Last Time?

[Jersay]

Well for me I would say on

Aboriginal Issues

Scrapping the Indian Act which who knows where you go from there. Once the Indian Act is gone, is it Aboriginal land, is it land for the taking, what about the international treaties signed with first nations peoples.

Quebec:

He doesn't seem to know alot about Quebec, it doesn't matter if he is out west, he just doesn't seem to care and just makes promises to get some kind of vote.

Military:

Good, however, probably too costly, like the idea of 75,000 new soldiers.

Health Care:

He has said that he would privitize health-care if he could not change the course of public health care. So what does that mean, try for one day to fix health care than ask his American buddies to come take over.

Iraq:

Both Martin and Harper are not good on this issue. Both of them supported the Bush war, that is a fact, while the only party that was against it was the NDP.

 

[Colpy]

Well for me I would say on

Aboriginal Issues

Scrapping the Indian Act which who knows where you go from there. Once the Indian Act is gone, is it Aboriginal land, is it land for the taking, what about the international treaties signed with first nations peoples.

Quebec:

He doesn't seem to know alot about Quebec, it doesn't matter if he is out west, he just doesn't seem to care and just makes promises to get some kind of vote.

Military:

Good, however, probably too costly, like the idea of 75,000 new soldiers.

Health Care:

He has said that he would privitize health-care if he could not change the course of public health care. So what does that mean, try for one day to fix health care than ask his American buddies to come take over.

Iraq:

Both Martin and Harper are not good on this issue. Both of them supported the Bush war, that is a fact, while the only party that was against it was the NDP.

Well, I wasn't asking you, but that's alright. I was asking a Liberal supporter. I actually would prefer people voting NDP rather than Liberal.

On aboriginal Issues, I am not sure I have any answers, but throwing cash at the problem without any control of it is NOT a solution. We now pay $19,000 for every native on a reserve. Ain't that enough? AND the left has resisted any attempt by the Feds to exert any control over how this money is spent, despite wide-spread corruption. Martin dumped Nault as Minister of Indian Affairs, when Nault was trying to pass legislation to clean the mess up.

On Quebec, I think Harper understands the issue quite well. His attitude and that of the Liberals is practically identical.

On the military......How come, in 1968 (before that arsehole Trudeau came to power) we could afford a very well trained and equiped military of 140,000 and still run a surplus, with a population base of 20 million? Now we have a population base of 35 million, and a under-funded military of 50,000, with people crying that an increase to 75,000 or 100,000 would break us. Doesn't make sense.

On health care - don't be ridiculous. Socialized health care is here to stay. To banish it would be political suicide. Harper just wants to allow the provinces to experiment with efficient delivery systems.....to get the best for our buck.

Canada couldn't have sent troops to Iraq, we didn't have any left after sending 1,500 to Afghanistan. And I think we SHOULD have sent troops to Iraq.

 

[the caracal kid]

"On aboriginal Issues, I am not sure I have any answers, but throwing cash at the problem without any control of it is NOT a solution."
do you feel the same way about the harper version of the child credit?

on the military: remember the dief messed up our military before trudeau, and mulroney moved to the revservist-centric military after trudeau, so we can see how libs and cons are both useless.

 

[Jersay]

I am all for an increase in troops for the Canadian army, navy and air force. However with the decreases and decreases in buget and then the destruction of the military by Liberal policy, an immediate increase of 75,000 could break the budget. Maybe every three to four years, an increase of 25,000 to 30,000 until the Canadian military is back to what it was.

 

[Roy]

"On aboriginal Issues, I am not sure I have any answers, but throwing cash at the problem without any control of it is NOT a solution."
do you feel the same way about the harper version of the child credit?

Caracal Kid comparing the aborigional issue to the day care issue is not very helpful. The single largest problem we all hear about in terms of Aborigional Issues is the money not getting to all the people because of corruption. This is the problem we need to address not just throw out more money to be squandered.

Second of all the Tory Child Care plan is more effective because it not only gives parents choice, but has other positive spinoff effects such as stimulating businesses and companies to provide an on-site day care program. I have a sister who has a young child and she prefers the Conservative child care plan.

 

[Roy]

voting liberal, i couldnt help laughing when i saw the commercial for stephen harper and the cons, do they actually believe the stuff they put on the commercial or are they just decieving themselves? time to stand up for canada? yea rite, i noe a lot of ppl are gonna label me a leftist or whatever but I could never vote for the current conservative party platform.

nitzomoe, so you don't buy the Tory ads, but the Liberal ads seem to have hooked you....can you explain that? Because to me the Liberal ad showing Harper and Duceppe at a holocaust memorial suggesting they are planning to break up Canada seems more rediculous, not to mention the "30 million reasons to stand up for Canada" ads. Now I'm not saying the CPC ads are any better, actually they might be the cheesiest of them all, but at least they are not putting out the shameful stuff like the Liberals have. That brings me to my point.....what is it that you could never vote for in the Conservative Party platform???....just interested.

 

[FiveParadox]

I chose "Other."

This will actually be my first time voting in a federal election (I'm quite lucky; I turn the age of majority unless four days before election day), and I will be voting for Sukh Dhaliwal, the Liberal candidate in the riding of Netwon—North Delta.

I have chosen the Liberals because their social policies are more in line with my own opinions, and their fiscal performance thus far has been exceptional; eight surplus budgets is certainly something to be proud of.

The Conservatives are a bit too right-wing for me; their stance on same-sex marriage, for example, as being a topic that should undergo a free vote and be dragged back, kicking and screaming, into the Commons. Let it rest, I say; to grant rights is one thing — to take them away afterward is quite another.

As for the Bloc Québecois; well, while I like Duceppe's honesty, his party doesn't have any candidates in British Columbia, lol.

And for the NDP, while I like their social policies, their fiscal practices and proposals kind of scare me sometimes. I don't think that they are, at this point, ready to govern the nation.

 

[the caracal kid]

roy, the conservative plan is so good its equivilant was scrapped in the past. hmmm.... you, throwing money at the parents but not providing the infrastructure for those parents to spend the money on works wonders.

the same probem with the aboriginal issues. the system is a mess but harpers approach is not going to improve the current state.

 

[Roy]

I have chosen the Liberals because their social policies are more in line with my own opinions, and their fiscal performance thus far has been exceptional; eight surplus budgets is certainly something to be proud of.

Saying the Liberals did a great job of balancing the budgets is like saying Ralph Klein made Alberta prosperous. Yes they have had a string of balanced budgets, but so what. The Liberals have free-rode the free trade agreement (NAFTA), which was sighned by a former Conservative. I really don't think they (liberals) did all that good of a job. The massive surplues being hoarded till election time for the Liberals to buy the vote of the ignorant is also something not to be proud of.

 

[manda]

I have the Green Party on mt balot now, I'll change my vote

 

[yballa09]

roy, the conservative plan is so good its equivilant was scrapped in the past. hmmm.... you, throwing money at the parents but not providing the infrastructure for those parents to spend the money on works wonders.

On child care, Harper's got it right
06 December 2005
Publication: National Post
Section: Editorials
Page: A20

**Excerpt**

On the issue of child care the Conservatives have set themselves apart. Stephen Harper's proposal is a welcome antidote to the Liberals' big-government approach to a national daycare program.

Far from being unsympathetic to the needs of working parents, the Conservatives are in fact proposing to spend more on child care than the Liberals. But rather than the heavy-handed approach taken by Paul Martin's government, which will see $5-billion transferred to the provinces over five years in return for the creation of regulated daycare spots, the Tories would leave child-care decisions up to parents. Under their plan, parents would receive an annual allowance of $1,200 per child under age six (on top of current benefits) that could be spent on whatever form of care best suits their kids' needs best -- be it formal daycare, babysitting or stay-at-home parenting.

Equally laudable is the Conservative plan to increase the number of daycare spots not by building government-run centres, but by offering $250-million in tax credits to companies that build daycare centres to accommodate employees' children. As Conservative child care critic Rona Ambrose has pointed out, "The infrastructure part is so expensive, we have to look at ways to bring other partners in the private and public sector on board."

The Conservative plan is a mild deviation from the child-care alternative they previously proposed, which would have involved a tax credit rather than an allowance. But the basic principle of parental choice is the same. The Tories clearly recognize that every family's circumstances are different, and that parents understand better than government officials what arrangements best suit their young children.



On top of the allowance, Conservatives would still be allotting hundreds of millions each year in tax credit towards companies who build day-care centres. Over the next 5 years the Conservative plan will put aprroximately 5 billion dollars more towards child care than the Liberal plan, not to mention parents will actually be choosing where this money will be spent.

 

[Jersay]

Equally laudable is the Conservative plan to increase the number of daycare spots not by building government-run centres, but by offering $250-million in tax credits to companies that build daycare centres to accommodate employees' children.

So profit-child care centers! How about the ones who want child care but don't want to send them to Aunt, Uncle, Cousin, Grandma or to a corporate profit-child center. What do they do, they don't seem to have many choices. With 25$ a week!

 

[Timetrvlr]

Yeah, interesting isn't it? He supports For-Profit Child Care and For-Profit Medical Care but he only supports a bigger government-controlled military? Why not a For-Profit Military? Lots of countries have them, they call them mercenaries. In fact the US employes quite a few mercenary forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When Harper needs to fight a war somewhere in support of his buddy George II, he can just call up the local Rent-A-Military and hire them for the job. No point in keeping a lot of government employees on the payroll in peacetime is there? The economies of it should appeal to his accountant-soul.

 

[Jersay]

Yeah, interesting isn't it? He supports For-Profit Child Care and For-Profit Medical Care but he only supports a bigger government-controlled military? Why not a For-Profit Military? Lots of countries have them, they call them mercenaries. In fact the US employes quite a few mercenary forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When Harper needs to fight a war somewhere in support of his buddy George II, he can just call up the local Rent-A-Military and hire them for the job. No point in keeping a lot of government employees on the payroll in peacetime is there? The economies of it should appeal to his accountant-soul.

Yeh, that could be why he makes all those announcements for the military. If you buy the equipment, get rid of the regulars and then hire mercs when you need them to go to war oyu would probably save a bundle. But then you would have the maintainance costs.