|
Why to vote Liberal, NDP, Green, etc... (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
there SHOULD be a surplus...we are the only industrialized nation PAYING DOWN it's debt, are we not? |
No, we are not.
You keep forgetting the provincial deficits and the provincial debt, which the Lieberals have exacerbated with their downloading and fiscal imbalance.
Paul Martin is not a fiscal conservative. He's a typical tax-and-spend socialist. He did NOT cut the deficit, he merely shifted it to the provinces. Meanwhile, federal spending has balloned under him.
http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/ebrief_23.pdf
| quote: |
tax breaks can be adjusted on income...i.e. raise the threshold where income tax need not be paid, give a larger break to the lower and middle brackets, give a lesser one to the highest, etc. a 2% GST cut rewards those the most who spend the most (i.e. those with the most money to spend, NOT the poorest) |
The very poorest either don't pay tax or pay very little. The main taxes those people pay are consumption taxes, so a GST cut helps them.
| quote: | | the First Nations agreement is SOMETHING...Harper has nothing...and will take months, or years, to get everyone to agree again. In the meantime, First Nations people get *nothing*. |
I will paste again what I posted before... maybe this time you'll read it.
The current Indian Act is racist and favours corrupt tribal chiefs.
A Conservative government will:
• Accept the targets agreed upon at the recent Meeting of First Ministers and National Aboriginal Leaders, and work with first ministers and national aboriginal leaders on achieving these targets.
• Support the development of individual property ownership on reserves, to encourage lending for private housing and businesses.
• Let aboriginal parents choose the schooling they want for their children, with funding following the students.
• Replace the Indian Act (and related legislation) with a modern legislative framework which provides for the devolution of full legal and democratic responsibility to aboriginal Canadians for their own affairs within the Constitution, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
• Pursue settlement of all outstanding “comprehensive claims” within a clear framework that balances the rights of aboriginal claimants with those of Canada.
• Adopt measures to resolve the existing backlog of “specific” claims so as to provide justice for aboriginal claimants, together with certainty for government, industry, and non-aboriginal Canadians.
• Implement all of the recommendations of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development contained in its fourth report on Resolving Indian Residential School Claims, to expedite the settlement of claims and save money.
• Recognize the contributions of Aboriginal veterans, and redress 60 years of inequity by implementing the resolution of the House of Commons to acknowledge the historic inequality of treatment and compensation for First Nations, Métis, and Inuit war veterans, and take action immediately to give real
compensation to these veterans in a way that truly respects their service and sacrifice.
The CPC will re-introduce changes to the Indian Act that were nixed by Martin (in his little spat with Chretien).
The CPC got the endoresement of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.
| quote: | | again, don't point to "the Liberals" this and "the Liberals" that...my post is NOT an advocacy of the Liberal gov't... |
The thread title is "Why to vote Liberal..."
| quote: | | (if you think it's wrong in the first place, which I don't). |
...and that right there is the problem. You refuse to acknowledge the major issues facing the country.
Canada needs major reform if it's to survive in the 21st century. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| Um...quoting Michael Moore does nothing to legitimize your arguement at all... |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by mikester69
I'm going to write "%&*$ you all" on my ballot----more people should do this too |
FYI, spoiling your ballot is a misdemeanor. The proper method is to decline your ballot, or not show up at the polling station at all. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
...
Private clinics save the day!
LOL |
it's not the same...but I'll leave that for you to look up...it made a good news story to crucify Layton without examining all of the relevant details regarding Shouldice. Regardless, one instituation, around for 50+ years, doesn't mean that hundreds of private clinics should be allowed.
I'd support not-for-profit, licensed clinics that don't cost extra to the user vs. the public system...just like Shouldice. I would NOT support profit driven clinics that allow those who can afford it to jump the queue (yes, I know that many proposals don't fall into this category, but some do).
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Um...quoting Michael Moore does nothing to legitimize your arguement at all... |
I said I found it funny...I neither endorsed what he said nor used it to advance any argument I made.
Kyoto? 158 countries/regions have accepted/ratified/etc...that's 158 out of 164 named...the omissions are the U.S., Zambia, Monaco, Kazakhstan, Australia and Croatia. The U.S. (and Alberta) has flat out stated that they oppose it for financial reasons, not because they believe it to be scientifically flawed.
The rest I consider up for debate...we've rehashed most if it here before. I will stand by my non-CPC vote. I suppose it comes down to simple political and legal philosophical...mine don't jive with that of Harper and the CPC, so they won't get my vote.
I'm just asking people to vote for the CPC IF THEY TRULY SUPPORT WHAT THE CPC is putting forth...not because they dislike the Liberals...or are you "strategically voting" for them, just as the Liberals have been bashed for advocating too? ;)
hey, time will tell...I hope the Liberals get a minority and have to work with the NDP...but if the Conservatives win, I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I'd happily be proven wrong, but I'd put my money on seeing a VERY different CPC once they're in office. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | | Originally posted by MarkT I'm just asking people to vote for the CPC IF THEY TRULY SUPPORT WHAT THE CPC is putting forth...not because they dislike the Liberals...or are you "strategically voting" for them, just as the Liberals have been bashed for advocating too? ;) |
So it's ok to vote Bloc to prevent a CPC majority (as suggested by Martin's friend Buzz Hargrove), but it's not ok for someone to vote strategically to get rid of the most corrupt and inept government in the country's history?
| quote: | | but I'd put my money on seeing a VERY different CPC once they're in office. |
The CPC is still essentially a grassroots party. Harper cannot deviate from the Party's policy document which was approved by the party membership (unlike other parties where the leader can trump the party's policies).
Harper as PM will be like Mike Harris - he'll do exactly what he said he'd do. The only wrinkle could be if the CPC only gets a minority; in that case, he may not be able to enact all of the party's platform. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Mark, do you have any real facts to present against the CPC, or is your entire opposition based on FUD?
Other people have already addressed the core issues you brought up so I won't go there... but it gets very tiring hearing you spout this nonsense about how Harper is suddenly going to turn into this frothing authoritarian lunatic upon getting elected and unleash his "hidden agenda". It's almost as if you believe the Liberal ads mocking our military as tools of government oppression and think that's what Harper's going to instigate. They've been making policy announcements daily for over a month; any suspicion of a "hidden agenda" should have been put to rest weeks ago unless you wear a tinfoil hat.
As has already been pointed out, the Conservative parties (both federal and provincial) have always had a specific way of operating, which is that they come up with their policies well in advance and stick to them. They don't come out with a policy book like the Liberal Red Book that's intentionally vague and ambiguous. They don't make up new policies in the middle of TV debates like Paul Martin. They do exactly what they say they'll do. Harper's been very, VERY clear about what his party is going to do if elected, and without any evidence to the contrary, we should take him at his word on that.
Yes, the CPC has some members from the older CA. So what? The Liberal party also has some members from them (such as Belinda Stronach), and there's not a shadow of a doubt in my mind that a Liberal true-believer like you would vote for them in spite of that if they were running in your riding. So don't try to use that as evidence of some deep dark evil secret - it's not evidence, it's FUD.
Quoting Michael Moore on Canadian politics... for shame, Mark. I'm disappointed in you. |
|
|
| jesteraver |
One thing for sure I will never vote for the Tories in my life!
Canadians be well off since Liberals have been back in power.
People want the Liberals out over small little things such as the: Scandal.
Thats all the Tories been talking about is the Scandal and nothing else I find since all this election talk has been going on. I cant believe most of the Canadian people can not see what they are doing to this country.
I just can hope and pray that there a minority government again or some how people notice by tomorrow the Tories are a fraud and Liberals get majority power! |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by jesteraver
One thing for sure I will never vote for the Tories in my life!
Canadians be well off since Liberals have been back in power.
People want the Liberals out over small little things such as the: Scandal.
Thats all the Tories been talking about is the Scandal and nothing else I find since all this election talk has been going on. I cant believe most of the Canadian people can not see what they are doing to this country.
I just can hope and pray that there a minority government again or some how people notice by tomorrow the Tories are a fraud and Liberals get majority power! |
I'm sorry, but $200 million of taxpayer money ($40M on Adscam) is small? In any other country, politicians get thrown in jail if more than about $100k goes unaccounted for.
Canadians have been well off? Actually, Canadians are far worse off now than they were 12 years ago. Our economy hasn't improved, our debt has not been reduced (contrary to popular belief), wages haven't gone up, unemployment hasn't changed any more than the usual fluctuations, but taxes have gone up dramatically (which means disposable income is down), relations with the U.S. (our primary trading partner responsible for over 80% of our exports) are frosty, and hospital wait times have tripled. And we've slipped down to something like #20 in worldwide rankings, near the bottom of the G8. Yeah... we're doing great, if you've spent the last 12 years LIVING UNDER A ROCK.
Tories are a fraud? How? Is there evidence for this, or is it just more FUD?
People don't just want the Liberals out over the scandals they've been involved in (which are numerous by the way, it is not "the" scandal). People want them out because they exist for the sole reason of clinging to power. They don't care about Canada or Canadians. Whether or not you agree with the Conservative mandate, at least they do give a and want to clean up government. |
|
|
| DJ_RRebel |
I don't understand how some of you think surpluses are bad?
We need to pay down the debt now while we still can before the global economic problems in the early 2010's when the babyboomer generation starts to retire in large numbers putting a bigger strain on the need for funding to Medicare and pentions while also needing to deal with a shrinking relative workforce!
Thanks to the last 10 years of Liberal economic strategies we are virtually one of the only western nations to have a semblance of preparedness for that time! That being said, we still need to continue to be careful! Because of the Liberal policies and savings from the last decade, we now have 15-20 billion dollars more per year to spend that we would have otherwise had to spend on interest payments on our debt! Anyhow ... more on that in my Please Save Canada post here: :)
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=319770 |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ_RRebel
I don't understand how some of you think surpluses are bad?
We need to pay down the debt now while we still can before the global economic problems in the early 2010's when the babyboomer generation starts to retire in large numbers putting a bigger strain on the need for funding to Medicare and pentions while also needing to deal with a shrinking relative workforce!
Thanks to the last 10 years of Liberal economic strategies we are virtually one of the only western nations to have a semblance of preparedness for that time! That being said, we still need to continue to be careful! Because of the Liberal policies and savings from the last decade, we now have 15-20 billion dollars more per year to spend that we would have otherwise had to spend on interest payments on our debt! Anyhow ... more on that in my Please Save Canada post! :) |
What the hell are you on?
1. Surpluses are taken FROM TAXES. They are OUR money. They mean we've been overtaxed.
2. Those surpluses haven't been used to pay down the debt - at all. Overtaxation should either be returned to the taxpayers or be used to pay down the debt (not shift it to the provinces or line the pockets of cabinet ministers, their families and their Liberal-friendly businesses).
3. There aren't going to be any global economic problems in 2010. However, if we elect another Liberal government then rest assured there will be Canadian economic problems in 2010.
4. Thanks to the last 10 years of Liberal economic strategies, we're unprepared for even the most optimistic of situations. I'd give our health care system another 10 years at most before it implodes, taking most of the other social programs with it.
5. Your Please Save Canada post sucked ass. Who are you n00b, and why should anybody listen to you when you clearly don't know what the hell you're talking about? |
|
|
| DJ_RRebel |
lmao .. nice to see people can still debate politely and share their points of view without being chastized or called names!
Anyhow .. I'm not sure what planet you're on .. but by law any fiscal federal surplus at the end of a year must go directly to the debt!?
If you ask anybody who knows anything about healthcare (which I do), you'll know that the problem with Health care originated with the mass influx of spending that was very much amplified during the Mulrouny years where we couldn't afford it!
Yes it would be great to have a trillion dollars to put into health care .. but the fact of the matter remains that the Liberals had no choice but to cut back at all federal programs because the conservatives left us with a 42 BILLION dollar a year deficit! Thanks to the Liberal work over the last 10 years, we can now finally afford to put money back into healthcare and education!
Diginut ... no offence ... but ask any economist what's going to happen when there is a major shift because of babyboomers retiring! You do know that when people retire their income usually goes down significantly and therefore the government gets less in tax revenue?
I bet you also are not aware of a posible iminant recession based on a burst of the housing bubble! If that one comes into effect, it could easily make the tech bubble burst seam like a pic-nic!
That's the whole point of having a surplus ... it's a buffer to protect us against things like that and even if we don't need it in a given year, it goes to our debt which means less interest payments in the future which in turn makes us even more prepared for unforseen economic (or other) problems. |
|
|
| Jer. |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ_RRebel
ask any economist what's going to happen when there is a major shift because of babyboomers retiring! You do know that when people retire their income usually goes down significantly and therefore the government gets less in tax revenue?
|
the Man's got a point there. |
|
|
|
|
