I'm disappointed in you Aron, I had no idea you were a card-carrying member of the Loony Left.

You keep referring to any information which doesn't support your position as "rhetoric", "synthesized", "sensationalized", etc. That's not a valid argument - if you have some sort of evidence that these issues haven't been reported on correctly then by all means, present it to us. But don't just start with the assumption that the status quo is morally right and go to any lengths necessary (including fallacious ad-hominem arguments) to defend it.

And "social costs?" Give me a break. We had much less of a problem with drug and alcohol abuse before the welfare state started eating up half the economy. People turn to this due to their own free will, but if we can pinpoint any real causes for that, they'd be:
a) The overwhelming tax burden that makes it impossible for most people to live comfortably on their own;
b) State-sponsored racism (AA) that bashes the idea into people's heads that they're inferior and can never succeed; and
c) The deterioration of family values, the nature of which is too "controversial" to start debating with an entire forum full of bleeding-heart liberals.

Newsflash: poor people in Canada would have been considered well-off 50 years. Many if not most people on the streets abusing drugs and alcohol came from well-off families and are either mentally ill or just made very poor choices in life. Don't look only at the results (i.e. the "poor") - look at the circumstances which caused those results (i.e. the fact that they dropped out of school in grade 10 and never even tried to hold up an honest job or develop any marketable skills).

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I'm disappointed in you Aron, I had no idea you were a card-carrying member of the Loony Left.

I belive that the taxpayers' money should be used with discretion. That's not so say that I don't believe that redistributive policy funded by tax revenue is a valid policy tool. I'm not advocating anything as loony as communism, however I do believe in equal opportunity for ALL Canadians, regardless of race/ethnicity. Those who aren't white are often marginalized in Western culture, it's kinda sad.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Who the hell cares about benefitting the poor? I care about what benefits me, and that's all anybody should care about.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I'm all for helping the less fortunate.

Obviously our views of social responsibility differ.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut You keep referring to any information which doesn't support your position as "rhetoric", "synthesized", "sensationalized", etc. That's not a valid argument - if you have some sort of evidence that these issues haven't been reported on correctly then by all means, present it to us. But don't just start with the assumption that the status quo is morally right and go to any lengths necessary (including fallacious ad-hominem arguments) to defend it.

I don't believe that the status quo is socially right. I vote liberal because they represent the set of policy which I think will benefit Canada the most. I don't vote for them because they are incumbent! I do realize that the Liberal Party was totally in the wrong regarding the Sponsorship Scandal. However, I will not (in my view) harm Canada by voting in an inferior party. The Sponsorship scandal was the problem of individual Liberal Party members, not the Party as a whole.

quote:

sen·sa·tion·al·ize (sĕn-sā'shə-nə-līz') To cast and present in a manner intended to arouse strong interest, especially through inclusion of exaggerated or lurid details

Was used in reference to Jay's claim that the Public Works' policy of maintaining a workforce that is representative of the Canadian population was tantamount to racism. The use of this word was not only appropriate, but apt. Do you really think that this "fact" would arouse the same interest without the use of the word "racism"? Hardly. The word was only used in order to persuade the forum to think that White people are actually disadvantaged vis-a-vis ethnic minorities.

"Rhetoric" was used to describe the National Post's news coverage, a fact which had no bearing on this debate.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut And "social costs?" Give me a break. Newsflash: poor people in Canada would have been considered well-off 50 years. Many if not most people on the streets abusing drugs and alcohol came from well-off families and are either mentally ill or just made very poor choices in life. Don't look only at the results (i.e. the "poor") - look at the circumstances which caused those results (i.e. the fact that they dropped out of school in grade 10 and never even tried to hold up an honest job or develop any marketable skills).

Well this again obviously comes down to different ideological viewpoints and cannot be argued effectively in this forum. Suffice to say however, I would advocate that the proposed tax cut not be put into effect and the current revenue surplus to be used in full to help the poor (gov't subsidized housing, drug treatment programs, education). None of the money should be refunded. Seriously do you actually need the extra couple hundred bucks or even a thousand? I don't even have $1000 in my bank account right now. And I think using the money to help the poor would be much better for Canada, than if I had a couple new pieces of clothing or a new video game system, etc. 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.

___________________
"It's mercifully over. But a new phenomenon has taken hold. I recognize it: feelings. Now that they're back, even overcompensating, I never want to lose them again. Bitterness, anger, jealousy, sadness: They all make me happy."

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?

___________________
Nathan Fake - Outhouse (Valentino Kanzyani Remix) || ID PLZ! PVD ID!!!
Disco and classical had sex while watching a sci-fi movie. Their child: trance.

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?

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

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.

___________________
May you live every day of your life - Jonathan Swift

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".

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

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.

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded

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.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

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

Why vote Liberal? What do they have to offer?

___________________
Nathan Fake - Outhouse (Valentino Kanzyani Remix) || ID PLZ! PVD ID!!!
Disco and classical had sex while watching a sci-fi movie. Their child: trance.

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

___________________

Short time TA, Long time Guver, Good time giver.

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?

___________________
Nathan Fake - Outhouse (Valentino Kanzyani Remix) || ID PLZ! PVD ID!!!
Disco and classical had sex while watching a sci-fi movie. Their child: trance.

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.)

___________________
Nathan Fake - Outhouse (Valentino Kanzyani Remix) || ID PLZ! PVD ID!!!
Disco and classical had sex while watching a sci-fi movie. Their child: trance.

Last edited by ShadoWolf on Dec-21-2005 at 15:48