TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- The Belinda Bounce
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by daves yeah really, why isn't there more talk about why people should vote for someone rather than the bash trains driving on and on about why we shouldn't vote for someone?

I agree, but why should you vote for Belinda?

quote:

Originally posted by AwakenedAddict Furthermore, by giving the poor aid it would remove them from the streets, and prevent them from getting there in the first place. This is not to say that all the money spent in this manner will have a direct and measureable effect on the quality of life. However, increased social spending in the abovementioned areas would definately promote equality of opportunity in Canada. And yes, some poor people are the product of bad life-choices and drug abuse. However, class-reproduction and stratification are problems which are the product of the institutions under which a citizen lives.

I'm not ignoring the rest of your post but I think this is really the part to focus on.

This is what all liberals believe. Subsidizing the homeless will get them off the streets. Subsidizing the poor will improve their financial situation. Subsidizing statistical inequalities will create equality.

That's why we need business people and economists in politics - because business people and economists understand the reality that subsidizing something results in MORE of it, not LESS of it. Subsidizing the homeless creates more homeless. Subsidizing the poor creates more poor. Subsidizing statistical inequalities creates more inequality. The net effect of subsidization is incentive - you are giving people a financial incentive to be homeless, poor, or unskilled. Or at the very least, you are giving said individuals less incentive to avoid those conditions. When you put up a safety net, people are more likely to jump.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that forcibly redistributing money from the productive sector (i.e. the corporate world and the middle/upper classes) to the unproductive sector (the homeless, the unemployed, the mentally ill, the single welfare moms) will make that unproductive sector more productive? Because there is plenty of evidence to show that such redistribution policies only lead to further waste in that same unproductive sector, while simultaneously lowering productivity in the productive sector.

In plain English - that means we're not solving the problem for the "disadvantaged", but we are enlarging the problem by dragging down people who are "on the edge" - for example, people who make decent salaries but aren't particularly good at saving or investing. People who are "on the edge" of their finances, so to speak, and end up going into debt under a 40% income tax when they would have been fine with a 10% income tax.

Is there evidence that increased social spending will solve any social problems, when 50 years of increased social spending have only seen a drastic increase in those problems? Or are you simply advocating band-aid, turd-polish solutions that don't actually solve the problem but merely hide it in order to make things look more pleasing to the eyes of suburban white middle-class bleeding-heart liberals?

Furthermore, you can talk all you want about social responsibility, and I think it's wonderful that some people give back to the community, but tell me again what is so moral about putting a gun to my head and telling me I'll go to jail if I don't?

interesting thread, even though it has been hijacked. it goes to show the different ideologies at play here. diginut seems to favour the tough love ideal, and the more capitalist individual. if you work hard, it should pay off to your own pockets. the "lazy people" should not be siphoning off your hard earned money and throwing it into a perpetual black hole. there was an earlier thread about how poverty in africa should be resolved by not giving them aid, and let an equilibrium develop and allow them to eventually sustain themselves. many parallels here. i'm not willing to let people languish however. i am proud to be a bleeding heart, though not necessarily bleeding red.

if the choice is more tax cuts or using that money for social spending, spend away! of course, this is where the conservative pundits say the liberals have no moral authority to lead and manage our money. i think this is where shadowolf and jayx1 have to understand, your constant bashing of the lieberals (intended) is not gonna sway me to vote for blue. show me cpc's strengths and not the liberals' weaknesses. (btw, on a sidenote, i wonder if shadowolf has created a macro to type 'lieberal' for him). regardless, i have read through conservative.ca thoroughly. i think they should understand that the readers of this forum are articulate and slightly more intelligent than they give credit for. i fall on the 94th percentile, so this negative campaign of yours and constant hyperlinking is not getting it done.

i have gone way off topic, but one last remark. the national post has a tagline that goes something like, "it's not the story, it's how you tell it". this is why i have a hard time digesting the right.

quote:

Originally posted by kwongandy i have gone way off topic, but one last remark. the national post has a tagline that goes something like, "it's not the story, it's how you tell it". this is why i have a hard time digesting the right.

The point is, the Post is up-front about their agenda, while the Star and the CBC claim to be objective news. I wouldn't have a problem with the liberal media if it actually admitted to being liberal (and I mean liberal as in left-wing, not LPC).

Incidentally, it's not really about "tough love", it's about practicality. It's not that I have no sympathy for the people who don't make it, just that offering the losers money *in advance* of their loss always guarantees more losers will be made. Why work a $30k job if you can get paid that much to sit at home? Why wait until you're financially secure enough to have kids when you'll get that much more in welfare if you have one now? Etc.

The simple question people really need to ask is not "does it sound good" but "does it work".

Wild assed mumbo jumbo here.

I believe that humans need a little bit of motivation to get their asses working. To survive, you need to get a fire lit on your butt.
Think about it. If you didn't have hard deadlines, would you ever complete your assignments? Or do work to get paid?

I mean, who wants to work hard? We like our comforts and be lazy. It's a good life to sit back, enjoy the beach and have our siestas, right?

Imagine a society where everyone is guaranteed 3 meals a day. Well, why would the majority want to work hard? To innovate? To improve? Such society would eventually stagnate and die, because in the end, the majority don't want to improve their society by working hard and the minority who does want to work hard can't support the society on their own.

The world is a jungle. If you want to survive, you gotta work at it.

Exactly right.

This may break your bleeding hearts, folks, but the greatest Socialist experiment ever conducted now lies on the junk heap of history. Isn't the ex-Soviet Union with such proud accomplishments as food rations and Chernoble proof enough that the system can't work? Or do you seriously believe that they just didn't have the "right people" in charge?

Unless you work for free, don't tell me what I should be doing with the money I earn. I work for the sole purpose of providing for my own wants and needs, and if those wants and needs happen to include helping out others, wonderful. Mandating that at the state level only provides an incentive for others not to work.

quote:

Originally posted by kwongandy show me cpc's strengths and not the liberals' weaknesses.

Why vote Liberal? What do they have to offer?

quote:

Originally posted by ShadoWolf I agree, but why should you vote for Belinda?

quote:

Originally posted by ShadoWolf Why vote Liberal? What do they have to offer?

I rest my case. pwn3d. See my point everybody? I never get a straight answer... I get either bashing the Liberals, or no answer. Like these.

How convenient it is, to reply to a question with another question when you don't have an answer. Classic political bull-sh*t.

Like I said earlier, I don't represent myself akin to any party, but all I hear is Conservative candidates and supporters bashing their opponents.

I get the feeling there are people trying to hide something. Is this a matter or trust, like the Conservatives motto is? How can I trust if no one gets to the point?

AJ

quote:

Originally posted by Abercrombie I rest my case. pwn3d. See my point everybody? I never get a straight answer... I get either bashing the Liberals, or no answer. Like these. How convenient it is, to reply to a question with another question when you don't have an answer. Classic political bull-sh*t. Like I said earlier, I don't represent myself akin to any party, but all I hear is Conservative candidates and supporters bashing their opponents. I get the feeling there are people trying to hide something. Is this a matter or trust, like the Conservatives motto is? How can I trust if no one gets to the point? AJ

You have a double standard. It's not enough for the CPC to point out the damage the Lieberals have inflicted on Canada, you want them to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Which, by the way, is fine - it's not enough to be against something, you have to offer an alternative.

Yet Lieberals never have to make their case to you. All they have to do is bash the CPC with the "scary" and "hidden agenda" labels. Noone here has made the case to vote Lieberal (although that's understandable - they have nothing to offer).

By the way, this election campaign has seen the CPC roll out a new policy every day. They've focused on policies far more than bashing Lieberals. In contrast, the Lieberals have been on the defensive the entire campaign. The pattern has been that by 9 am Harper announces a policy, and the Lieberals bash it by noon. Have you not been following the news?

I guess I'll have to make the case for the Lieberals.

-the Lieberals would increase the lifetime capital gains exemption by 50 per cent from $500,000 to $750,000

-personal income tax cuts

-corporate tax cut

-increased military spending

All of those are good Lieberal policies.



HOWEVER:

-they've been in power for 12 years, why didn't they act on them?

-the promises don't go nearly far enough

-the Lieberals can't be trusted to actually enact those promises

-there are MANY other reasons to not vote for them (anti-democracy, corruption, separatism, etc.) AND there are much better alternatives




(It should be noted that there are many good Liberal backbench MPs. Belinda is NOT one of them.)

Obviously, social service provision would have to be done in a manner that would curb repeated abuse of and dependency on the welfare system. Some useful restrictions could be:
*A cap on the time (~5-8 years) you can recieve certain benefits
*A maximum age to recieve benefits
*Tie benefits to participation in treatment/education programs

The goal would be to focus on providing youth and young adults (~15-25 years old) who might not have had a good upbringing, or for whatever other reason, has trouble assimilating themselves into society and the workforce. The point would be not to "magically" clean up the streets, but to attack the root of the problem of displaced and neglected youth in Canada.

Those who are motivated, productive members of society who comprise the "elite" will still excel in an environment with low corporate taxes and moderately progressive income taxes. Sure, the incomes of these people will suffer when the taxman cometh, as compared to under a conservative government, but they can afford it. Thus, the basic differentiation between the conservative and liberal policy positions is that
* Conservatives believe that personal wealth should ultimately be retained by the individual. Preferring better economic performance and consequently increased income disparities, in favor of tempered economic growth and a more equal society.
* Liberals believe that a portion of personal wealth (income taxes) should ultimately be used to better those around us. This makes Canada as a whole, more attractive. The downside is that the redistribution of wealth is not an effective use of the money in terms of bang for the buck. Economic growth then is curbed to provide a more egalitarian society. However, such restrictions to economic growth are probably prudent in the Canadian economic climate in order to curb inflation currently experienced due to higher prices of oil, base metals and other primary materials.

Again, See what I mean folks? ShadoWolf goes on and on.... Still didn't answer my question. Nothing but filibuster.

The more he opens his mouth, the worst he's making his party look.

I guess no one can answer why I should vote for Conservsative candidate Lois Brown.

Is there anyone here who actually knows the Conservative party and answer?

AJ

quote:

Originally posted by Abercrombie I rest my case. pwn3d. See my point everybody? I never get a straight answer... I get either bashing the Liberals, or no answer. Like these. How convenient it is, to reply to a question with another question when you don't have an answer. Classic political bull-sh*t. Like I said earlier, I don't represent myself akin to any party, but all I hear is Conservative candidates and supporters bashing their opponents. I get the feeling there are people trying to hide something. Is this a matter or trust, like the Conservatives motto is? How can I trust if no one gets to the point? AJ

Why vote for Lois Brown? Because im confident that i can trust her more than the current MP. She has promised to be a strong voice for our area. She will also represent a party that will do a lot of good for this country as already discussed in this forum. Those are the reasons to vote for her

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Why vote for Lois Brown? Because im confident that i can trust her more than the current MP. She has promised to be a strong voice for our area. She will also represent a party that will do a lot of good for this country as already discussed in this forum. Those are the reasons to vote for her

Thank you Jayx1 !!!

Everyone, keep them coming!

quote:

Originally posted by Abercrombie Again, See what I mean folks? ShadoWolf goes on and on.... Still didn't answer my question. Nothing but filibuster. The more he opens his mouth, the worst he's making his party look. I guess no one can answer why I should vote for Conservsative candidate Lois Brown. Is there anyone here who actually knows the Conservative party and answer? AJ

"Lois has a proven track record when it comes to dealing with people's concerns. As someone who has seen a lot of politicians come and go, Lois is amongst the very best."

Alice Sheridan
Community Activist

***

"During the many years I have known her, Lois has impressed me with her genuine warmth, intense interest and concern for others. Equally impressive is the energetic activity she gives for the good of our local community."

Victor Woodhouse
CFP Woodhouse Executive Insurance
Former Councillor, Town of Newmarket

***

Lois was born and raised in York Region, the third of eight children.

An accomplished musician, Lois pursued an ARCT degree from the Royal Conservatory of Music in Toronto and for 15 years taught keyboard and Music History. A student of life-long learning, Lois is currently finishing a Bachelor of Arts Degree, with a major in Economics.

For years, Lois volunteered in the political sphere and has participated at the Executive level in both federal and provincial politics. Offered the opportunity, Lois was employed in the office of Frank Klees, both at the constituency level and at Queen's Park.

In June 2003, Lois was successful in securing the Nomination for the Canadian Alliance for the riding of York North. With the merger of the CA and the PC parties, and the reconfiguration of the ridings, Lois stood for nomination for the Conservative Party in the new riding of Newmarket Aurora, in a hotly contested battle.

Seeking other opportunities to serve, Lois was elected to the National Council of the Conservative Party at the National Convention in March of this year. She is one of four Council members for the Province of Ontario.

When a vacancy was created for a Conservative Candidate in Newmarket-Aurora, Lois successfully secured the Nomination.

Lois' volunteer efforts in the community have evolved over the years. She has initiated a number of organizations in the area including a networking group for young mothers and continues to volunteer at Southlake Village Seniors residence. Currently, she is the accompanist for the York Regional Police Male Chorus, a good will endeavour of the Police Force that has performed in Canada and in tours in the United Kingdom. Lois has always used her musical talents in her local church and at festivals, both as a soloist and as an accompanist to vocal and instrumental performers.

Appointed by the Lieutenant Governor to the Council of a Regulated Health College, Lois was elected by the Council to serve as Vice President of the College.

Lois and her husband, Kelvin, own and operate a Consulting Business, assisting companies across Ontario with Risk Management related to Worker's Compensation. Kelvin and Lois have two daughters, Shannon (25) and Kristen (23).

quote:

Originally posted by Abercrombie Thank you Jayx1 !!! Everyone, keep them coming!

LOL

All Jay said was that the woman would be "more trustworthy", a "strong voice" and that she "represents a party that will do a lot of good". None of these terms actually mean anything that would be relevant to a debate about issues, the reason to ulitmately vote for a specific candidate!

quote:

Originally posted by AwakenedAddict LOL All Jay said was that the woman would be "more trustworthy", a "strong voice" and that she "represents a party that will do a lot of good". None of these terms actually mean anything that would be relevant to a debate about issues, the reason to ulitmately vote for a specific candidate!

As i said.. the actual issues regarding the conservative party that she would represent have already been discussed throughly on this board and that those are also reasons she should be elected.

quote:

Originally posted by Abercrombie I guess no one can answer why I should vote for Conservsative candidate Lois Brown. Is there anyone here who actually knows the Conservative party and answer?

AJ, reasons to vote for a candidate are highly personal. The reasons would largely depend on how it is that you decide where to cast your ballot...
You could vote based on who would be the best representative for the interests of your riding, who would do the best job at bringing the needs of Newmarket Aurora to the minds of those in a position to address those needs. If this is the case then you must balance a number of factors primarily surrounding the character of the individual and the leverage they will have in parliament. As I am not following this race I cannot provide any guidence in this regard.

You could vote based on which party you believe has the best agenda for Canada and will produce a Canada closest to what you would like to see four years from now. If voting this way you are voting based on party platforms. You seem informed so I imagine you have reviewed the same and if voting this way have already determined who you think best reflects what you want to happen in this country.

You could vote based on who you think will make the best prime minister. This is also highly subjective as only you can decide who you think would best represent Canada based on the criteria you deem to be important.

Finally, you could vote based on which party you believe best represents your particular interests. If the most important thing to you is a GST cut then vote Brown, if you're interested in nationally subsidised child care then vote Stronach, if your primary consideration is the legalization of pot then vote for the Marajuana party candidate, etc.

No one can tell you how to vote or even guide you unless they know what is important to you and how you base your vote. Quite frankly, anyone interested in democracy shouldn't be trying to tell you why you should or should not vote for or against someone. You know what matters to you and how to determine which candidate will best address that which you deem important. Don't listen to what anyone tells you, your reasons need to be your own.

Moral Hazard: Great response. Thank you. All votes are personal. However we are all voting for candidates on our ballots. How we decide to vote on our candidates is up to us, whether it's just because they're affiliated with a certain party, or because of their background and experience to do a good job to represent me and my community. I've heard a lot on the former, but would like to hear the latter.

OK, so far from the responses I got;

1) promises a strong voice
2) trustworthy
3) deals well with people's concerns as supported by a community activist
4) well regarded by a former city councillor
5) accomplished musician, student and teacher of music
6) High School diploma (currently studying for a BA)
7) volunteered, participitated and worked for Frank Klees
8) lots of volunteer experience, sings and plays a lot of music
9) appointed then elected to serve as Vice President of the College.
10) co-owns a consulting business with her husband.

11) represents a party with good public policy for change.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 11) represents a party with good public policy for change.

good is subjective, since you are not the judge (regarding AJ's vote) you cannot state this objectively.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard good is subjective, since you are not the judge (regarding AJ's vote) you cannot state this objectively.

Exactly, thank you for putting into words what, for some reason, I could not.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard good is subjective, since you are not the judge (regarding AJ's vote) you cannot state this objectively.

its always subjective... just like when someone advertises they have the best coffee in town

quote:

Originally posted by ShadoWolf Why vote Liberal? What do they have to offer?

that STILL does not provide a REASON for voting Conservative (or NDP or Green or...)

The flaw of the CPC is that their entire strategy, to date, has been a reaction of the Liberals. It's been proven, repeatedly, that the people DO NOT RESPOND to this approach.

If Harper and his people had half a brain, they'd completely drop the corruption angle...it's clear that outside of Quebec, enough people don't care.

It may be wrong...but it's apparently the case and you have to work in reality, not in theory. In theory, people would be so outraged, that they'd boot the Liberals...but that's not happending. So you either amend your strategy...or you fail.

Everytime someone says "why should I vote for Harper", the answer is a slew of anti-Liberal points...that's not going to cut it whether you like it or not.

but ok...stick to the bashing...I hope Harper does the same...he'll be able to continue bashing as the leader of the opposition AGAIN after the next election.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Exactly right. This may break your bleeding hearts, folks, but the greatest Socialist experiment ever conducted now lies on the junk heap of history. Isn't the ex-Soviet Union with such proud accomplishments as food rations and Chernoble proof enough that the system can't work? Or do you seriously believe that they just didn't have the "right people" in charge? Unless you work for free, don't tell me what I should be doing with the money I earn. I work for the sole purpose of providing for my own wants and needs, and if those wants and needs happen to include helping out others, wonderful. Mandating that at the state level only provides an incentive for others not to work.

to be fair, many will argue that the U.S.S.R. was not even an example of true socialism...pure socialism has also arguably not existed anywhere on earth at any point in recent history.

having said that...the question then becomes, is *pure* socialism even possible, given the seemingly inevitable corruption and inefficiencies that result, by human nature.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.