|
The Canadian politics thread (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| capo tutti di |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yohan
None taken :)
I guess the basis of my rant is that already, we are being told what we can and cannot do by the govt unnecessarily.
I read it somewhere that if there is so many laws that a citizen cannot remember all of them, then there are too many laws.
Simple common sense exercised by every individual citizen in a society would mean so many laws are not necessarily. Unfortunately, humanity is dumb I suppose.
My philosophy about law is that a person should be able to do whatever he or she wants, or within a group by mutual consent as long as they are not harming others that don't want to be harmed.
Also, a law has to be enforceable regularly and effectively.
So, the car emissions law makes sense because an individual can harm others and others cannot avoid cars with too much emissions, and the law can be effectively enforced (if the govt chose to)
But the smoking in restaurant law I disagree with, because an individual can make a choice whether to eat in a restaurant that permits smoking or not. If a restaurant wants business from non smokers, they'd choose non smoking.
So, this child in car smoking law, yes, it can harm others, but I fail to see how this law can be effectively enforced.
Another reason is that once there are so many laws, the concept of law loses weight as people become no longer scared by the law.
I really don't think it's necessary for the govt to tell me what I already know to use common sense to not smoke in cars with a kid in it. (On flipside, if the rationale behind smoking free restaurant is for public health reasons, does this mean next law will be no one can smoke in cars with other passengers for health reasons?) |
Good argument. 2 different views and a debate, a couple of the many pillars as to why politics exist in the first place. |
|
|
| TO guy |
How does this:
| quote: | Originally posted by Yohan
Another reason is that once there are so many laws, the concept of law loses weight as people become no longer scared by the law.
|
have anything to do with this:
| quote: | Originally posted by Yohan
My philosophy about law is that a person should be able to do whatever he or she wants, or within a group by mutual consent as long as they are not harming others that don't want to be harmed.
Also, a law has to be enforceable regularly and effectively.
|
|
|
|
| Yohan |
| quote: | Originally posted by TO guy
How does this:
have anything to do with this: |
That was more like a side point than a main point :p |
|
|
| Orko |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yohan
None taken :)
I guess the basis of my rant is that already, we are being told what we can and cannot do by the govt unnecessarily.
I read it somewhere that if there is so many laws that a citizen cannot remember all of them, then there are too many laws. |
This just is not possible in our modern complex societies. Sure in villages, and smaller towns that line of thinking would be ideal, but not in a modern, gigantic city or country.
| quote: | Originally posted by Yohan
My philosophy about law is that a person should be able to do whatever he or she wants, or within a group by mutual consent as long as they are not harming others that don't want to be harmed.
Also, a law has to be enforceable regularly and effectively.
So, the car emissions law makes sense because an individual can harm others and others cannot avoid cars with too much emissions, and the law can be effectively enforced (if the govt chose to)
But the smoking in restaurant law I disagree with, because an individual can make a choice whether to eat in a restaurant that permits smoking or not. If a restaurant wants business from non smokers, they'd choose non smoking.
So, this child in car smoking law, yes, it can harm others, but I fail to see how this law can be effectively enforced. |
You contradict yourself. The law is there to protect kids that cannot protect themselves. It's pretty simple. Kids cannot take the bus, do not have the monetary resources to take a cab, or train or other means of transportation. They HAVE TO ride with their parents. If a parent lights up, and the child says 'please don't smoke', how are they going to force their parents to stop? They really cannot. They are at their parent's mercy, as is the case with so many parent/child situations.
In terms of enforcement, think of it as any other driving offense. Take wearing a seatbelt for example. Cop looks in, does not see a seatbelt, boom ticket. In this case, cop looks in, sees the driver smoking, and a kid in the car, boom ticket. Its a pretty simple procedure. If they can enforce the seat belt law, which is quite hard to stop sometimes, I am sure they have the 'eagle eye vision' required to see somebody smoking.
| quote: | Originally posted by Yohan
Another reason is that once there are so many laws, the concept of law loses weight as people become no longer scared by the law.
I really don't think it's necessary for the govt to tell me what I already know to use common sense to not smoke in cars with a kid in it. (On flipside, if the rationale behind smoking free restaurant is for public health reasons, does this mean next law will be no one can smoke in cars with other passengers for health reasons?) |
No. If you are an adult, you have the choice to ride in the car with somebody else. You have the resources to find your own transportation. Nobody is forcing you to drive with the smoker. Goes right back to your restaurant argument. Same thing.
Your idea, that if there are too many laws people will stop paying attention just doesn't work. That is the whole reason we have different levels of punishment, and why we have civil vs criminal courts. Jay walk, maybe a ticket, I'll take my chance. Murder, life in jail, I won't take my chance.
Humans respond to incentives, negative or positive. The more severe the punishment, the less likely somebody is willing to break that law. Obviously it does not work in every case, but that is the entire basis of the laws we have constructed as a society.
You just cannot compare this to the restaurant debate. It's children vs adults. One group has 'unlimited' freedom of choice, the other is certainly controlled and governed by their guardians. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by infinity HiGH
Basically what he said. The Conservatives, unlike the Liberals, have actually done something worthwhile in this country. Yea they screwed up, but that's politics. The Liberals got away with much worse and ran this country into the ground when they were in power. |
How do you figure that this country was "run into the ground" by the Liberals? They too were aggressively paying down the debt and it is the LIBERAL surplusses that have allowed the CPC to do what they've done.
You have to keep in mind that the subsequent gov't only has so much "play" when they first take office, unless they make sweeping, radical changes (like the CPC cutting programs left and right, which allowed them to cut the GST and still have $$$ to play with).
And Jay, how do you figure that the treasurer has much to do with "forecasting" the downturn? Are you kidding? Our overall economy has been strong and is now cooling...and that is due to the show going on in the U.S., largely due to the sub-prime mortgage fiasco and our high dollar hurting manufacturing and exports. The U.S. is essentially (though not by strict definition) in a recession and due to our ties to the U.S. economy, we're feeling the heat too.
The gov't isn't in full control there...it's the Bank of Canada that made a rate cut of 50bps as a protectionary measure against the downturn. To put that into perspetive, they typically change the rate by 25bps, if at all, and the last time we saw a change of more than 25bps was 2 months after 9/11 (the last economic disaster).
What the gov't HAS done is accounted for the entire surplus so if money IS needed during a downturn...there is none. This budget is "sensible" because there's nothing the CPC could do anyway, lol. They are indeed staying their course, which is commendable to their supporters, but they have also handcuffed any future administration from being able to do anything unless:
they cut spending (not popular)
they raise taxes (not popular)
they bring back 1 or 2% to the GST (unpopular because the general population is shortsighted).
I fully support the CPC paying down the debt (I've never said that the entire CPC fiscal policy is bad).
but the money is now gone...with a surplus now forcast at under 2 billion (IIRC), there isn't much wiggle room is something DOES come up. I think it's actually RESPONSIBLE for a gov't to run small surpluses (not as big as the Liberals, but not this small either) to ensure flexibility.
just my opinion...but don't let this "boring" budget seem like brilliant fiscal prudence. It's devoid of major activity because the CPC simply can't do anything right now because there's no money left to spend and further cuts to any taxes would be irresponsible. |
|
|
| Yohan |
| quote: | | Originally posted by Orko |
Interesting points. Lots to think about.
I'll get back to you when I'm coherent enough to think properly :) |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orko
... |
agreed on your points. I see this as a reasonable limit on freedom.
The critics will say that it's a case of the gov't telling parents how to be parents.
To be fair to the critic position...what is the logic behind allowing this restriction? Is it a health issue? Ok...well...what you feed you kids and how active they are could also fall under that umbrella. Will the gov't start to legislate with regard to how you feed your kids? Will they force you to kick their fat asses off the couch to go do something?
it's a fine line. I think that line can reasonably be drawn...but it's a fine line, nonetheless :) |
|
|
| Orko |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yohan
Interesting points. Lots to think about.
I'll get back to you when I'm coherent enough to think properly :) |
Drunk on a Thursday afternoon? GOOD JOB! :p |
|
|
| Yohan |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orko
Drunk on a Thursday afternoon? GOOD JOB! :p |
That was yesterday. Today, I'm down with a flu, and prepping stuff for work :(
I don't concede *that* easily ;) (though I will admit when I'm wrong, or others make good points) ;) |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: |
Tories plan to kill bill creating education tax break
THE CANADIAN PRESS
OTTAWA – The chances of Canadian parents getting a $5,000 tax deduction by saving for their children's education grew slimmer Friday as the government vowed to kill the private member's bill and its author offered to compromise.
The Conservative government was taken off guard Wednesday night when Liberal MP Dan McTeague's bill, estimated to cost the treasury $900 million, passed third reading and was sent to the Senate for approval.
If passed unamended in the Senate, the bill would likely get Royal assent and Canadians would be able to put up to $5,000 in a registered education savings plan for each child – and deduct the amount from their taxable income like an registered retirement savings plan..
But Conservative Ted Menzies, the parliamentary secretary for Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, said Friday that he has confidence the Senate will kill the bill and, if not, the government would resort to other measures.
"There is always a plan B," Menzie said. "My assumption right now is that we have reasonable minded senators who can do the math, and they won't do that (pass the bill)."
Talking to reporters after a speech in London, Ont., Flaherty repeated the assertion: "This is the kind of thing Liberals bring forward. They want to drive us back into deficits and we're not going to go back into deficits."
But Friday afternoon, McTeague said he was willing to compromise on the limit that can be deducted, although he said he was prepared to fight for the bill in the Senate.
"Perhaps it's time that they begin to discuss with the author of the bill how they plan to see this bill implemented," he said. "I offer to Mr. Menzies and his government to pick up the phone and let's talk about how to make this thing work for the future of our kids."
The bill, which Menzies called "underhanded" and a threat to government's ability to stay in surplus, has presented the government with the unenviable position of both killing a bill that offers a tax break to parents with children, and of having to ask the Liberals they have derided in the Senate for a favour.
Although he must be enjoying the Conservatives' discomfort, Liberal leader Stephane Dion was far from wholeheartedly supportive of his colleague's private member's bill, although he called it a good idea.
"We don't want a deficit," Dion added. "The fact is that this government over the last two years destroyed the fiscal room of Canada. We don't want a deficit, it's sure."
Menzies would not say what the government would do if the Senate passed the bill, but procedural experts say several options remain, although none are foolproof.
One option is for the government to introduce legislation to undo the bill, or seek to amend the budget implementation legislation, making both a matter of confidence.
"But that might be contested because there's a rule in the House that you can't consider the same business twice in the same session, so there's no guarantee it would get through," said Ned Franks, a professor emeritus at Queen's University, who is an expert in parliamentary procedure.
Another option is for the Conservatives to try and pass a motion declaring that they would consider passage of the bill in the Senate a matter of non-confidence in the government, triggering an election.
If the Conservative amendment is considered out of order, "then they are up you know what creek," Franks added.
For now, most observers believe the best way for the government to defeat the bill is in the Senate, even if it is dominated by Liberals.
A Conservative filibuster in the upper chamber could tie up consideration for many months, noted Jerry Yanover, the Liberal expert on procedural matters.
"And I don't think the Senate is a slam dunk for the Liberal bill," he added. "As you may have noticed, the Senate doesn't do things in sync with the House of Commons."
The bill, while it could prove popular to Canadians, would bring the federal government to within a whisker of a deficit based current projections hold.
In last month's budget, Flaherty calculated the surplus at $2.3 billion this fiscal year and $1.3 billion next, meaning the government would be left with virtually no fiscal room in the 2009-2010 year.
As well, Menzies said it would cost the provinces about $450 million, noting that many provinces had already introduced budgets without accounting for the measure.
Franks said the irony is that if the government had approved the requested salary level for an independent Parliamentary Budget Officer, whose duty would be to cost private members bills, the bill might never have been approved in the House once a price tag was attached. |
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/324689
ahahahahahaha...
god, how many more embarassments will we see in the span of a few weeks from this inept, incompetent gov't??? So this "sneaked" through? LMAO. I guess the CPC was too busy dealing with the fallout from bribing a man dying of cancer and ing up Obama's nomination campaign that they didn't notice a bill going through that exposed the fact that, although sound fiscally so far, their agenda has left NO money should anything unforseen come up without going into a deficit. isn't it's kind of pathetic when a private member's bill can both pass "unnoticed" and threaten to throw the country into a deficit? lol
in all seriousness, I agree that this is not a responsible bill to pass. RESP already allow for education savings to grow and be tax sheltered. While SOME form of tax deduction is a good idea, 5k/year is a bit much and if it's going to cost 900 million, it should be a little less inconspicuous.
still...it will be amusing to have to see Harper have to be DIPLOMATIC for once, since he has NO option to just unilaterally pull the plug on this bill. They have to play nice and essentially beg the Senate to send the bill back to Parliament or else resort to measures that are neither flattering to the gov't nor guaranteed to work.
not a big deal at all...amusing, more than anything. |
|
|
| Yohan |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orko
This just is not possible in our modern complex societies. Sure in villages, and smaller towns that line of thinking would be ideal, but not in a modern, gigantic city or country. |
Disagreed. The fundamentals of laws like smoking laws or whatever is assumption that it applies to every citizen in their daily lives, not complex or specific laws like corporate laws that many people do not need to know.
We are being held accountable to the laws that we may not even have an idea that it exists. If you break a law that you don't know, then you are supposedly in trouble.
I don't think it's asking for too much to make laws that are simple, easily known by everyone and not so many that people can't track of them.
| quote: |
You contradict yourself. The law is there to protect kids that cannot protect themselves. It's pretty simple. Kids cannot take the bus, do not have the monetary resources to take a cab, or train or other means of transportation. They HAVE TO ride with their parents. If a parent lights up, and the child says 'please don't smoke', how are they going to force their parents to stop? They really cannot. They are at their parent's mercy, as is the case with so many parent/child situations.
In terms of enforcement, think of it as any other driving offense. Take wearing a seatbelt for example. Cop looks in, does not see a seatbelt, boom ticket. In this case, cop looks in, sees the driver smoking, and a kid in the car, boom ticket. Its a pretty simple procedure. If they can enforce the seat belt law, which is quite hard to stop sometimes, I am sure they have the 'eagle eye vision' required to see somebody smoking. |
Conceded :)
I still think it's stupid that laws like this have to be made, when it really should be common sense.
| quote: |
No. If you are an adult, you have the choice to ride in the car with somebody else. You have the resources to find your own transportation. Nobody is forcing you to drive with the smoker. Goes right back to your restaurant argument. Same thing. |
So, are you agreeing with me that anti smoking laws in restaurants are stupid? I'm a bit confused there...
| quote: |
Your idea, that if there are too many laws people will stop paying attention just doesn't work. That is the whole reason we have different levels of punishment, and why we have civil vs criminal courts. Jay walk, maybe a ticket, I'll take my chance. Murder, life in jail, I won't take my chance.
Humans respond to incentives, negative or positive. The more severe the punishment, the less likely somebody is willing to break that law. Obviously it does not work in every case, but that is the entire basis of the laws we have constructed as a society. |
Perhaps I should have worded and described my idea better.
There are so many laws that one can't keep track of them, and that many of them lack common sense.
If you get hit by a law that you aren't aware of, for example, did you know that if you attend a military educational institute (RMC for example), you are subjected to military law? And you are in trouble according to mil law if you say disloyal or traitorous sayings about the Queen you can be jailed for 5yrs or less?
Would you have respect for the concept then, when you feel like you got the shaft? (I hope you're seeing where I'm going with this)
It's not laws that are common sense like, don't murder, or don't steal I have a problem with. It's just minor niggardly laws that even cops or lawyers or judges probably aren't aware with, yet we as citizens are supposedly are subjected to, that I have a problem with.
Laws are suppose to be fair, be a deterrent and enforceable. Many laws fail to meet this standard, and I feel that this lessens the respect a person might have towards law.
Or maybe it's just me :) |
|
|
|
|
