|
Canadian Federal Elections 2011 - Official Thread (pg. 31)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Good spin but it doesn't work in reality. The Conservatives bring in more money by way of donations from private citizens then the other parties do; significantly more. Once this is the only source of funding other then membership fees that the parties have access to (corporate donations are already not allowed... Chretien) the Conservatives, while having less overall money then before, will have significantly more then the other parties. Of note; I support the change; however, don't try to pretend that this hurts the Cons as much or more then anyone else... let's try being honest with each other. |
So why shouldnt the parties have to raise funds from the public? Why should taxpayers pay?
If people support a party, they will receive funding. Makes sense to me.
There was a time when Liberals got most of the publics funding. The taxpayer funded scheme in place now has only been there a short time since chretien. Everyone survived just fine before this and they will again.
The Bloc, NDP, Social Credit Party, Reform and a host of other influential parties in the past got started on their own without the government subsidies.
This just proves that the more handouts you give someone, the more reliant they become on them ;) |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by nacarter
Well, if I learned anything in this election, it's that NDP voters are no smarter than anyone else. Let's face it, would anybody who had done their homework have actually voted for Gatineau waitress Ruth Ellen Brosseau? We're talking about a woman who doesn't know Free Trade from Rough Trade and can't communicate with her constituents effectively because she can't speak French... LOL |
But shes hot...
LOL!
Gotta love the communist they voted in as well. I will give him credit though. Unlike his NDP colleagues, at least he is honest about being a communist! :tongue2 |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by nacarter
Well, if I learned anything in this election, it's that NDP voters are no smarter than anyone else. Let's face it, would anybody who had done their homework have actually voted for Gatineau waitress Ruth Ellen Brosseau? We're talking about a woman who doesn't know Free Trade from Rough Trade and can't communicate with her constituents effectively because she can't speak French... LOL |
I don't know if I agree with you. Despite our system being set up so that people vote for their local candidates rather then a party or leader most voters just see the local candidate as a proxy for the party. Although I tend to vote for the individual; the party disipline system that we have negates many of the advantages to having a strong or disadvantages of having a weak MP. It isn't unreasonable to assume that many people would have voted for Ms. Brosseau irrespective of her personal background and skill set because they support her party even if they were fully informed if they view her as just being a party proxy. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
So why shouldnt the parties have to raise funds from the public? Why should taxpayers pay?
|
Did you read my post? I support this change; I explicitly noted that.
The only thing about your post I took issue with is the contentention that this will hurt the CPC the most, which is pattently false given that they get significantly more by way of donations thus it is a net benefit to them in relation to the other parties. I'm not being partisan here, Jay, I'm just in favour of honesty. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
But shes hot...
LOL!
Gotta love the communist they voted in as well. I will give him credit though. Unlike his NDP colleagues, at least he is honest about being a communist! :tongue2 |
I guess running for NDP is better then running for the communist party.
I'm surprised there aren't more Pirate Party members....especially amongst the younger generation. |
|
|
| nacarter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I don't know if I agree with you. Despite our system being set up so that people vote for their local candidates rather then a party or leader most voters just see the local candidate as a proxy for the party. Although I tend to vote for the individual; the party disipline system that we have negates many of the advantages to having a strong or disadvantages of having a weak MP. It isn't unreasonable to assume that many people would have voted for Ms. Brosseau irrespective of her personal background and skill set because they support her party even if they were fully informed if they view her as just being a party proxy. |
Keep in mind that local MPs do provide some gov't services to constituents such as passport processing and access to forms and documents. On the flipside, and frankly more important, your local MP is your direct source for an explaination of gov't policy. What would Brousseau do if you asked her for clarfication on Tory Law & Order policy? I figure something along the lines of "Would you like fries with that, hun?"
Sorry, a certain level of knowledge for the job is required and it's irresponsible to rely solely on lackeys. Even farmers have a basic comprehension of economics and finance, since their farm is a business. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by nacarter
Keep in mind that local MPs do provide some gov't services to constituents such as passport processing and access to forms and documents. On the flipside, and frankly more important, your local MP is your direct source for an explaination of gov't policy. What would Brousseau do if you asked her for clarfication on Tory Law & Order policy? I figure something along the lines of "Would you like fries with that, hun?"
Sorry, a certain level of knowledge for the job is required and it's irresponsible to rely solely on lackeys. Even farmers have a basic comprehension of economics and finance, since their farm is a business. |
I don't disagree with you. My point; however, is that since most voters are primarally concerned with the party a candidate represents rather then the candidates qualifications it is probable that even if they knew she was unqualified most would have voted for her regardless. It's a question of priority. |
|
|
| smuncky |
 |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by smuncky
|
I have better descriptions for the orange areas
Northern Ontario: Sherwood Forest
Downtown Toronto: Happy Jack Land
Quebec: Socialist Republic of Quebec
Windsor: Proof that Socialism works
BC: Work? Whats that?
:D |
|
|
| Jake Sevendy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Miss Pie
Are bad guys born or made though? Perhaps with more social programs and community support, you wouldn't see people turning to lives of crime and poor decision making. Unless they're schizophrenic. Lolololol.
No but seriously though.
:o |
in society there are:
the unknowns (men in black)
millitary
government representatives
government agents
government officials
police
government workers
non-immigrants with degrees
immigrants with degrees
non-immigrants without degrees
immigrants without degrees
criminals by choice (just for the thrill and fun of it- non-violent disobediance towards the rules of the government)
criminals without choice (those who turn to crime after being unemployed for more than 5 straight years)
-----remember one offense, and kiss that good job goodbye, so if you get profilled early, your pretty much chosen to be a destined criminals)
WILD CARDS:
-pro athletes, famous actors & entertainers & mainstream artists
the guvernment keeps these people happy in order to take away the cream of the crop
Away from the #1 fear of the government, which is revolution
Extremes:
criminals that are hidden within any of the government classes.
these people hide behind the law, take no responsability
and are usually the ones causing moral hazzard.
you want to stop crime? stop spending your money. give it to the guy who is risking his life, just to make a buck.
in movies EVERYONE LIKES THE BAD GUYS FOR A REASON. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Tories back off campaign pledge to show a surplus by 2014-15
BILL CURRY
OTTAWA— From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, May. 11, 2011 7:30PM EDT
Last updated Thursday, May. 12, 2011 8:18AM EDT
With the election results barely a week old, Conservatives are muddying the waters around a central – and surprising – campaign pledge.
The revised 2011 budget that the government will present next month will not show a surplus by 2014-15 as promised in black and white in the Conservative campaign platform, even though the government insists it still intends to deliver on the election promise.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says he needs time to consult economists and to draft a clear plan to deliver the extra savings Prime Minister Harper promised during the election campaign.
“We will do the strategic and operating review and we will book [those savings] once the review is done. That will get us to balance a year earlier, but is not part of the upcoming budget,” Chisholm Pothier, Mr. Flaherty’s spokesperson, said on Wednesday.
The platform promise was surprising because just a week before the election campaign began, Mr. Flaherty released a budget that would balance the books in 2015-16. That budget forecast a tiny deficit of $300-million in 2014-15. It also promised a plan would be drawn up later this year to see if further savings of $4-billion a year could be found, but these savings were not included in the government’s projections.
When asked directly during an appearance on CTV’s Power Play whether he was committing to eliminating the deficit one year earlier, Mr. Flaherty responded that he was not.
“No. I think we have to look at all of the data,” he replied. “We use an average of the private sector forecasters, as we have done for years now, to make sure that we’re on the right track, and in sync with the view of the private sector on the economy, so we’ll look at all these things, there’s a couple of platform commitments too that we’ll look at as well, but fundamentally it will be the same budget that was introduced on March 22.”
Mr. Flaherty has indicated that the budget will account for commitments made during the campaign, including setting money aside to strike a deal with Quebec over sales taxes.
The Conservative election platform states that: “Through accelerated reductions in government spending, a re-elected Stephen Harper government will eliminate the deficit by 2014-15.”
The platform said this would be achieved by ending stimulus spending, continuing existing restraint measures, and completing, within one year, a comprehensive review of government spending.
|
sourcy wourcy |
|
|
| GGM |
Yup that's no surprise. Any savings they have from reduced spending will go to corporations I can promise you that and that they won't be having a surplus any time soon.
Conservatives have somehow established themselves as the best choice for the economy when in reality I'd rate them slightly better than the NDP. Best party to ACTUALLY have done good for Canada's economy (not just talk about it) in the last 30-40 years would be Cretien and Martin. In fact Harper's actions one way or another didn't do much to save us from a recession it was much more the Liberal's building of a solid economy up to that point that helped. Our strategy in spending stimulus money was rated quite poor in comparison to what other countries did with theirs and it's debatable if we even needed to spend that at all. |
|
|
|
|
