# The Election



## SFontaine (24 May 2004)

As some of you likely know Mr Martin called an election for June 28th and it looks like this year the Liberals might be done..

For those of you at voting age, who do you intend to vote for? 
Harper seems to have his **** together. He has some good reform ideas (To the Senate, Health Care etc) and good ideas in regards to the military. I however unfortunantly can‘t vote (Sure I know enough to but since I‘m under 18 I‘m apparently to dumb). Anyway what do you fine folks think?


----------



## K. Ash (24 May 2004)

Not sure yet. In the past I always voted Liberal. But there‘s a lot that‘s transpired since the last election thats left a bad taste in my mouth wrt the Liberal party. And frankly, my opinion of politics and the whole left and right has changed alot in the past 6 months or so too.

I would probably vote for the Conservatives if it wasn‘t for Stephen Harper. Just something about that guy that I don‘t like. 

But hey, you know the saying: vote for the party not the man, so I guess I got some thinking to do.


----------



## MikeM (24 May 2004)

I‘ll be voting conservative, time for a change.


----------



## K. Ash (24 May 2004)

If it was Tony Clement or even Belinda Stronarch (sp?) maybe. But Stephen Harper? I  just don‘t know. 

The only thing I do know is it won‘t be the NDP. There already too many ******* Svends in the world.


----------



## Duotone81 (24 May 2004)

> Originally posted by absent_element:
> [qb]
> I would probably vote for the Conservatives if it wasn‘t for Stephen Harper. Just something about that guy that I don‘t like.
> 
> [/qb]


Yeah I get that feeling too. He doesn‘t seem inspiring and he doesn‘t look like a leader. The Liberals are fiscally irresponsible but one only has to look to Ontario to see how the Conservatives act when in charge of the books. I‘ll be paying a 300-400$ health care premium because of our 2 billion+ deficit. I‘m not terribly bothered by it (those in the higher tax brackets might have a different opinion however) but it makes ya wonder how truly different their platforms are. It might look good on paper but I‘m having a hard time distinguishing between the two. Maybe that‘s why Marty called the election now. Seat rich Ontario has a sour taste in her mouth thanks to Ernie and Harris.


----------



## Bert (24 May 2004)

Am I the only one that thought Joe Clark would have made the greatest PM (I have respect for that guy) and Kim Campbell was hot?


----------



## corporal-cam (24 May 2004)

Kim Campell was not hot compared to Belinda Stronarch who almost got the conservative leadership. Of course by the time of the election I‘ll only be 16 so I wont get to vote but even if I could I don‘t know if I would vote. I don‘t like the idea of the conservatives they seem too right wing and they have too many of the same dick heads from the reform party. I don‘t like the liberals on the other hand because of the things like group action and our danish ambasador. If I could vote and I chose to vote it would be for the conservativies just because a party shouldn‘t be in power as long as the Liberals, it‘s lieka dictatorship. I guess I would choose to shake things up a bit and hope they don‘t start something worse.


----------



## scm77 (24 May 2004)

Everything on TV is saying that Ontario is going to be the make or break province.  Which is good for the Conservatives because of the broken promise in the budget by Dalton Miguinty(sp??).


----------



## rdschultz (24 May 2004)

> Originally posted by corporal-cam:
> [qb]but even if I could I don‘t know if I would vote. [/qb]


I‘m of the opinion that if someone doesn‘t vote, they lose their right to whine about governmental affairs.  I‘m not trying to lump you into this group, because you can‘t vote, and because you did make mention of probably choosing somebody (if you could).   But I don‘t have much respect for many people (friends of mine in particular) who ***** and moan about the current state of politics in the country but refuse to get off their *** and vote.  In my opinion, no politician is a great choice, but I‘m still going to participate whether or not I strongly feel for one candidiate or one party.


----------



## Farmboy (24 May 2004)

I don‘t know how any one could ever vote Lieberal.

$1 BILLION wasted on registering law abiding gun owners 
Maher Arar betrayal to the Syrians, then ignored his pleas for help 
Khadr terrorists not arrested 
Democratic Deficit - appointing candidates 
Secret Lieberal Slush Fund 
Canada Steamship Funding Lie ($135 thousand vs $161 MILLION) 
Abolish NAFTA Lie 
Abolish GST Lie 
Pearson Airport Payoff 
Destruction of the Cod Fishery 
The tainted blood scandal, coverup, and the paltry deal 
Devalued Canadian Dollar ($1.05 to $0.64 American) 
Ciprogate 
Ripping off veteran‘s and widow‘s pensions 
The botched Airbus scandal investigation 
The cancelled Somalia "inquiry" 
The cancelled APEC "inquiry" 
The cancelled AdScam "inquiry" 
The "Shawinigan Strangle" 
The HRDC billion dollar boondoggle 
No New Helicopters for the Army, but New Challenger Jets for Chretien 
Wheat farmers arrested for selling their own wheat 
Gutting $25 billion dollars out of health care 
Big Brother Files (aka the HRDC "Longitudinal Files") 
Election gag order restricting freedom of speach 
EI regulation vote buying flip-flop (x2) 
$40 billion dollars ripped off from the EI fund 
Highest tax rate in the G7 
Native Treatment Center Scandal 
The Fake Flag Fiasco 
Leaky Used British Submarines 
Thousands of missing refugee claimants 
Thousands of "extra" Social Insurance Cards

 This latest budget for Ontario is just a killer. Health care will not pay for physio now. Do you know how expensive it is and how many people will not be able to get proper care now?

 I don‘t mind paying an extra $5 for a case of beer but to pay health care premiums ect. is just BS.

 **** right I will be voting, same as every year!


----------



## jutes85 (24 May 2004)

I‘ll vote for anyone who wants to improve the Military and cut Useless social programs. Don‘t even get me started about Healthcare. I don‘t know how anyone can‘t vote Conservative if you are a member of the Forces


----------



## SFontaine (24 May 2004)

Well the chubby REMF sorts (Not saying anyone here is, don‘t worry) prolly don‘t want to lose their cushy desk jobs and actually have to PT once in a while so that might be a factor, Jutes.


----------



## CDNBlackhawk (24 May 2004)

I‘ll be voteing for Conservative, 150% hands down, liberals need to get out, and its looking good for the Conservative party right now.


----------



## Paul F (24 May 2004)

If I were of age to vote I would vote Conservative.

The Liberals have been in power too long and I would dread the day the NDP governed our nation.


----------



## The_Falcon (24 May 2004)

Conservatives, LIEberals need to be turfed. I should metion that I am a Conservative party member


----------



## Bert (24 May 2004)

HatchetMan

Bring back Joe Clark.


----------



## Andyd513 (24 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Nick:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> ...


The 2 billion+ deficit is non-existant. Even the liberal party members I‘ve heard interviewed on can‘t keep the numbers the same. The statement by McGuinty was merely a projection of what the deficit would be IF the Liberals continued on their spending course without raising taxes/implementing the health care changes.

I doubt we‘ll ever truly know what the deficit was when the conservatives left office, liberals will say it was more conservatives will say it was less. Somewhere in the middle ground is the truth.

My personal slogan about the liberals - "Better dead then red"   :rage:


----------



## McG (24 May 2004)

For those interested in a related tangent:
Issues Poll


----------



## Mo` fella (24 May 2004)

Farmboy! Awesome list! Did you come up with that off the top of your head or What?

To the rest of you, Nothing is wrong with Steven Harper...lots of fresh ideas, while Martin is all over the place, he‘s promised increased attention and funding for every single issue.


----------



## K. Ash (24 May 2004)

Hoser rd I agree with you 100%. Everybody whines about government and politicans,it‘s a citizen‘s right. But as far as I‘m concerned if you refuse to vote because of laziness, stupidity, or apathy; then you forfiet that right. As far as I‘m concerend if you don‘t vote you have no right to complain. 

Farmboy, 

I‘m shamed to admit that there are a few things in your list that I never heard of. With that said I will DEFINITLEY be reconsidering my politcal stance this coming election.


----------



## Farmboy (24 May 2004)

I can not take credit for the list, Nimrod, at Canadian Gun Nutz keeps us well informed.  http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/viewtopic.php?t=9479&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40


----------



## Rick_Donald (25 May 2004)

Disbandment of the Airborne Regiment
Sponsorship scandal
The Khadr‘s
Will Sampson
Challengers instead of Seakings
Sheila Copps
Adrienne Clarkson‘s spending spree
cutbacks to transfer payments to provinces (read health care)

I‘m sure that this list and the previous list only scratches the surface of what went on for the last 12 years. Makes you wonder what we don‘t know about, eh?

I‘ll be voting conservative if you haven‘t figured it out. Stephen Harper may be younger and fresher than what we‘re used to but perhaps that‘s what this country needs. Not some past relic from days gone by. Change is needed and only the Conservatives are providing that change.


----------



## Wingman (25 May 2004)

"I would probably vote for the Conservatives if it wasn‘t for Stephen Harper. Just something about that guy that I don‘t like." "Yeah I get that feeling too. He doesn‘t seem inspiring and he doesn‘t look like a leader."

Comparison perhaps..............
‘He [King] was a man of no charisma, in public the blandest of the bland, whose tedious speeches, in and out of parliment, were hedged about with qualifications and parentheses that verged on the ponderous‘ 
Pierre Burton,Marching As To War : Canada's Turbulent Years, 1899 â â€œ1953. Doubleday Canada, 2001. pg. 242 

King was the longest serving PM in the whole of the Commonwealth so sometimes image isn‘t everything.  
I‘ll be voting on the issues.  We‘ll see who stands where before judging.


----------



## Duotone81 (25 May 2004)

Don‘t get me wrong I won‘t be casting my vote based on wether or not I think the candidate could win the Swan competition. I was just chimming in on what absent_element said and I agreed with him. His (Stephen Harper) appearance doesn‘t have any bearing on his competency. Maybe if he didn‘t seem so scripted all the time and acted with a little more exhuberance. He is running for Prime Minister after all. 

BTW, I read that King would sometimes consult with the spirit of his dead dog and looked for assurance from spirits rather than the advice of his political peers.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (25 May 2004)

I like how everyone that wasn‘t alive when Joe Who was Prime Minister are now advocating him.

In case anyone really, really hasn‘t figured it out by now, Joe Who is not a good candidate for the Prime Minister, he is a Political Animal.  It means he doesn‘t care about consituents, he cares about getting votes and inflating his ego.  You should have seen him as the Grand Marshall of the Gay Pride Parade in Calgary.  I have nothing against what people do in their bedrooms, it‘s when they have parades to walk around in their underwear - male, female, gay, straight, doesn‘t matter - that I start to wonder how exactly this is going to convince anyone that they want to be part of the mainstream.

But I digress.

Why was Joe Who there?  To get points.  Why is Joe Who stepping down from Parliament?  To get a Senate appointment, naturally.  Joe Who saw the writing on the wall, he refused to co-operate with the Party merger, he did every **** thing he could to sink the new Conservative Party at the polls by badmouthing Harper, and all this to score points with the Liberals so he can get appointed to the Senate.

I would like to see a Party come to the House of Commons, refuse to play kindergarten games like tossing insults or refusing to listen to the other parties, and make that place an instrument of thoughtful debate and real political change.

Pigs might fly someday, but Joe Who won‘t be Prime Minister again.


----------



## Gayson (25 May 2004)

I am voting Conservative because IMO:

We have had the liberals lead for too long, it is time for change.

The Conservatives are pro military.


----------



## Rick_Donald (25 May 2004)

Look, with the Conservatives proposing $1.2 billion to defence,maritime helicopters, new aircraft,ships and destroyers, an increase to 80,000 personell to reg force and 60,000 to reserves, increased naval training, improvements to veteran‘s rights and benefits it is a pretty clear choice who all of you should be voting for.


----------



## K. Ash (25 May 2004)

Rick, Perhaps the Conservatives will do what they claim. 

But, more often than not promises get broken. 

So what‘s a fella to do?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (25 May 2004)

Yeah, right, election promises ALWAYS get kept, too.    

Spending money without a plan is worth than spending no money at all.  Do the Conservatives actually have a vision for what they want DND to be doing for the next 10 years?  Or are they simply buying votes?

Now that Joe Clark is no longer in my riding, I will be voting Conservative, especially since Reform has since merged with them.

I‘m not optimistic about any of the parties, really.


----------



## Rick_Donald (25 May 2004)

Well, if you refer back to the lists of Liberal boondogles you will note the billions of dollars that already exist in the system.
Now take the money out of the free spending Liberals hands and put it into a parties hands that for the last 10 years has preached on deaf ears about government reform and see what happens.
I don‘t know what the future holds any more than you but I do know what the past held with Chretien and Martin at the helm.


----------



## Pieman (25 May 2004)

I don‘t know about you guys here in the West, but I sure miss the good old days of the Reform party. Preston Manning was a guy with some great ideas, and he brought a sence of excitement to politics.

Those days over (sadly), Stever Harper and the ‘new‘ Conservative party is not a pretty choice. Harper lacks good ideas (Harper policy: What do the Americans want us to do?...Let‘s do that!) and I think he totally lacks an ability to excite the population. I don‘t think they will be able to do anything and I don‘t think Harper will keep things together. I think the Conservative party will infight constantly. 

On the other hand, we have the corrupt Liberals who won‘t change anything. They will also do very little for the Forces.

That being said, I feel this election is like having two bags of **** held up to you and being told to choose. Both of them stink. Bad. I think it is a sad sad time in Canadian politics.

Too bad that Ralf Klein would not run for the conservative leadership. He has the influence to unite and light up the west again...a lot of people would disagree with that one mind you!


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 May 2004)

I‘m so embarassed when i watch political debates and commercials on TV.

Voting for one party over the other because they are "pro military" might be a little off. Chances are we won‘t really see a difference at our level and like Michael pointed out, promises aren‘t always kept.

I don‘t know half as much about politics or the different parties compared to most of the people here.  I‘m going to vote conservative simply because i think they are the lesser of two evils and quite frankly all it seems the liberals have been doing is lying to us, breaking promises or wasting money.  Every time  you turn on the news it‘s something else with these guys. The conservatives CAN‘T possibly be worse and if they turn out to be then atleast i‘ll have tried to fix a broken record instead of sitting around getting screwed over and over.

If the liberals win the election I am never ever voting again, i‘m going to give up and admit defeat. if the liberals win again we will truely be in country a country surrounded by idiots.


----------



## MG34 (25 May 2004)

If you are in the military and vote LIEBERAL you should be drummed out at the soonest time availible.No party has done more to ruin this country and the military more than that crew of incompetant buffoons,everyting the touch has come to ruin from taxes to the Firearms Regestry.My vote will be for the CPC,if you are in uniform your vote should be the same.


----------



## Infanteer (25 May 2004)

> I‘m not optimistic about any of the parties, really.


Pretty much sums up my feelings on the issue.  Unlike the last election, which had the Stockwell Day boogey man as a highlight, this one is just dry toast.  As much as we flame the Liberals for corruption, one only has to look at the Tory‘s under Mulroney for a good comparison.

However, the bungling of our nation‘s foreign policy under Cretin has left a sour taste in my mouth and confirmed my Conservative vote.


----------



## jutes85 (25 May 2004)

If the Liberals win, I might as well go back to Israel and join the IDF. The US Air Force is also a possiblity.


----------



## SFontaine (25 May 2004)

If you can even get into the US what with their horrible backwards immigration system.


----------



## SFontaine (25 May 2004)

I‘ve researched every way to head south so I can serve but nope.. Nothing. Unless I have an American parent I can‘t. The real zinger is if I was a Somalia or something I could enter the Green Card lottery.


----------



## K. Ash (26 May 2004)

S_Baker, don‘t you have a canadian citizenship as well?


----------



## winchable (26 May 2004)

> I‘ve researched every way to head south so I can serve but nope.. Nothing. Unless I have an American parent I can‘t.


Either that or you wait out the process for getting a citizenship, I looked into it for a while too, for all the trouble it would have taken I figured it‘s better to stay...even if it means I can‘t be a Navy SEAL   

Anyhoo, this election should be a real scrap. Hoorah.


----------



## The_Falcon (27 May 2004)

Conservatives all the way baby.


----------



## logau (28 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Farmboy:
> [qb] I don‘t know how any one could ever vote Lieberal.
> 
> $1 BILLION wasted on registering law abiding gun owners
> ...


Farmboy had the best post on this so far so I will add to it here - on www.canoe.ca they have a poll about the election - while not scientific it will work for me and my fellow ranters - note below - Defence is not a really big issue yet but accountability is -

Q1: At this point in the election campaign which issue matters to you the most?
Total Votes for this Question: 10113 
So far, 17%  have voted for Health care.
So far, 45%  have voted for Government accountability.
So far, 10%  have voted for The economy.
So far, 6%  have voted for Defence.
So far, 0%  have voted for Trade.
So far, 4%  have voted for Gun registry:
So far, 3%  have voted for Same-sex marriage.
So far, 9%  have voted for Gas prices.
So far, 5%  have voted for Other.

Can we, should, we could we - get rid of the current regime?

Whoever comes in can`t do worse - can they?

Can we get back to Kansas Toto?    

My new rank as shown above is per my old rank when I first met Herr George (ex PEIR) the Tanker

Ain‘t that right George - Henry Gerhardt and the rest of the best of the RCR in Shilo in 74 - are we really that old?
  :tank:


----------



## casing (28 May 2004)

3% believe that same-sex marriage is the issue of greatest importance? 9% think that gas prices are? Well, at least they took the time to select a radio button. Good grief.


----------



## T.I.M. (28 May 2004)

I‘m not a fan of hyperbole, and as such I have a hard time taking claims that "anyone" could do a better job of running this country seriously.

For me, neither the sponsorship scandal, nor other instances of bureaucratic waste (which all nations suffer from) change the fact that for the past decade this country has been fiscally _very_ well managed.  We‘re in a better position to meet the coming demographic challenges (and they are coming) than any other western nation.  As Finance Minister Martin was particularly competant.  So much so he was named the best finance minister in the world in 2001 by the World Economic Forum.  That being the case I‘m not eager to toss aside all his accomplishments over the sponsorship scandal, which the cynic in me sees as an inevitable part of the bureaucracy anyway.

That isn‘t to say Martin‘s a saint.  He clearly bears responsibility for what was being done with monies under his nose.  As Finance Minister it was Martin who wielded the shears that pruned the CF to the roots, but let‘s be realists here: the government follows the priorities of Canadians, and until very recently defence wasn‘t even on the political radar.  Even now, when some Canadians are newly sympathetic to it, it is still a very tertiary issue.  Sure, as a member of the CF I think it sucks, but that alone won‘t decide my vote. 

What it all comes down to is that I _don‘t_ believe the Liberals have done a terrible job of running the country.  Add to that my deep distrust of the old Reform/CA platforms and policies, and I will more than likely vote for the Liberals in the coming election.  I‘m not going to throw away a party I‘m overall tolerant of (if not ecstatic for) for one which makes me _deeply_ uncomfortable.

When the new Conservatives show to me that they‘re more PC (for whom I routinely voted) than CA (whom I wouldn‘t touch with a ten foot barge pole), then they can have my vote, but not before.


----------



## George Wallace (28 May 2004)

> Originally posted by logau:
> [qb] Ain‘t that right George - Henry Gerhardt and the rest of the best of the RCR in Shilo in 74 - are we really that old?
> :tank:  [/qb]


YES....we are!   

Now I know how Henry must have felt running with us eighteen year olds and still blowing our doors off.   

Here‘s to MCpl‘s Terry Seaver and Jack Van Fleet.  An amazing "Double Team".

GW


----------



## Spr.Earl (28 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Rick_Donald:
> [qb] Disbandment of the Airborne Regiment
> Sponsorship scandal
> The Khadr‘s
> ...


Rick,I can‘t forget lyin‘ Brian and what he did to us.
Free Trade was a sell off of our resource‘s and more.   

I still remember the election of 68 and all the hoopla over sneaky Pete.Thats when Canada realy started going down the tubes and it has not stopped and won‘t untill qwe change the rules how we are governed by! 

They are all liers and cheat‘s once elected because we are all forgotten.
Why?
Because they all end up power hungry!


----------



## Mo` fella (29 May 2004)

> Rick,I can‘t forget lyin‘ Brian and what he did to us.
> Free Trade was a sell off of our resource‘s and more.


Spr Earl, I know Mulroney was a disaster in most ways for the country. But it was people like Steven Harper as a Reform Party MP who in the 1993 election wiped out the Mulroneyite conservatives in parliament. Harper is the opposite of what Clark/Mulroney/Campbell was.

Today when he was campaigning, in rebuttal to what Martin was throwing, Harper actually said that the roll of governments shouldn‘t be to throw money at social programs.

When was the last time you heard  _that_  said by a Canadian politician.

that took guts, not like Martin who has promised everything to everyone.


----------



## Goober (29 May 2004)

I‘m amazed at the amount of people who will vote for Harper. I can‘t see how any Canadian can vote for him.

Who will I vote for? Noone, I‘m not going to vote, didn‘t vote last election either. Why? Noone to vote for.

I refuse to vote for someone just because they are the "best of the worst".


----------



## Infanteer (29 May 2004)

> I‘m amazed at the amount of people who will vote for Harper. I can‘t see how any Canadian can vote for him.
> 
> Who will I vote for? Noone, I‘m not going to vote, didn‘t vote last election either. Why? Noone to vote for.
> 
> I refuse to vote for someone just because they are the "best of the worst".


And your apathetic additude is the reason why politicians are able to get away with what they do.  How is it that you condemn members here for pledging their support to Harper (ie: you feel strongly about some of his views) and yet you say you will not vote for any candidate in your riding (ie: you don‘t know or don‘t care about any issues).

Democracy doesn‘t work if the _demos_ do not participate.  In ancient Athens there was a fine for not showing up to the Assembly to vote on matters of the city.


----------



## Goober (29 May 2004)

This is a good article...

 http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1082585409030&call_pageid=968256290204 

A little snippet:

"In a May, 2003, speech to the Institute for Research on Public Policy, Harper said: "The time has come to recognize that the U.S. will continue to exercise unprecedented power in a world where international rules are still unreliable and where security and advancing of the free democratic order still depend significantly on the possession and use of military might."

Maybe something good will come of it, if Harper does become PM, he‘d join the US war machine, and we could prosecute him for war crimes along with the Bush administration.

 http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=50069 

 http://www.counterpunch.com/stephens05262004.html


----------



## Goober (29 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Infanteer:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> ...


You just took me totally out of context, and you pass judgement on me stating I don‘t know or care about any issues.

Such ignorance doesn‘t even deserve a rebuttal.


----------



## Infanteer (29 May 2004)

> "In a May, 2003, speech to the Institute for Research on Public Policy, Harper said: "The time has come to recognize that the U.S. will continue to exercise unprecedented power in a world where international rules are still unreliable and where security and advancing of the free democratic order still depend significantly on the possession and use of military might."


I don‘t really see this statement as being too far off from the truth.  Would you rather us stick to the dreamy-eyed Axworthy approach that has essentially neutered us internationally?



> Maybe something good will come of it, if Harper does become PM, he‘d join the US war machine, and we could prosecute him for war crimes along with the Bush administration.


Is that you again, FUBAR?!?  Back from the peace rally yet?



> You just took me totally out of context, and you pass judgement on me stating I don‘t know or care about any issues.


No, you critized people for carrying through with their democratic right to choose the representative of their choice, and then proceeded to tell us that you will not that soverign privledge.  



> Such ignorance doesn‘t even deserve a rebuttal.


Whatever, Tinkerbell.


----------



## Goober (29 May 2004)

I didn‘t "critized" anyone, simply stated my opinion, of how I couldn‘t "see" anyone vote for him. It doesn‘t mean my view is the correct one. Its obvious people have thier own views based on things they‘ve seen or read.

If your not going to contribute to the thread constructively, you can go troll somewhere else.


----------



## Infanteer (29 May 2004)

Okay, lets try this again.



> I‘m amazed at the amount of people who will vote for Harper. I can‘t see how any Canadian can vote for him.


What is so "amazing" about people voting for the Conservative party?  Is there something they don‘t know about that you‘ve managed to figure out that we don‘t know?

Instead of tap-dancing with this notion of it being "un-Canadian" to vote for Harper, just be a big-boy and say you don‘t like the Conservative party.



> If your not going to contribute to the thread constructively, you can go troll somewhere else.


13 posts and your off and running.  I‘ll take that one to heart....


----------



## Rick_Donald (29 May 2004)

Democracy doesn‘t work if the _demos_ do not participate.  In ancient Athens there was a fine for not showing up to the Assembly to vote on matters of the city. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Correct me if I‘m wrong but doesn‘t Australia have legislature to that effect now?


----------



## Rick_Donald (29 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Goober:
> [qb] I‘m amazed at the amount of people who will vote for Harper. I can‘t see how any Canadian can vote for him.
> 
> Who will I vote for? Noone, I‘m not going to vote, didn‘t vote last election either. Why? Noone to vote for.
> ...


If you don‘t vote you lose the right to criticize. Seeing as you didn‘t vote in the previous election maybe you should shut your pie hole and leave this thread to those of us that give a **** what direction this country is going in.


----------



## George Wallace (29 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Rick_Donald:
> [qb]If you don‘t vote you lose the right to criticize. Seeing as you didn‘t vote in the previous election maybe you should shut your pie hole and leave this thread to those of us that give a **** what direction this country is going in. [/qb]


That is about it.  Don‘t complain about the way the politicians decide to run the country because you never voted.  It is you who run the country by voting in people who will make the decissions on how to do so.  If you don‘t vote, then you agree fully with those who are elected by others, and agree with the way they will administer the nations business.

To me, anyone who doesn‘t vote or votes in protest for NDP, Green, Rhino, or whatever party is agreeing to the Liberals and their managing our country‘s affairs.  If you seriously don‘t like the way the Liberals are running the country, then you should be voting for the most likely party to replace them with a ‘majority government‘ and that would be the Conservatives.  Don‘t waste you vote.

GW


----------



## Ian (29 May 2004)

> Originally posted by George Wallace:
> [qb] To me, anyone who doesn‘t vote or votes in protest for NDP, Green, Rhino, or whatever party is agreeing to the Liberals and their managing our country‘s affairs.  If you seriously don‘t like the way the Liberals are running the country, then you should be voting for the most likely party to replace them with a ‘majority government‘ and that would be the Conservatives.  Don‘t waste you vote.
> 
> GW [/qb]


My personal politics aside, doesn‘t it seem like a failing of democracy for somebody to be forced to vote for the ‘most likely party‘ to win, even if their personal politics are more akin to the NDP than the conservatives?

Clearly, if left-leaning NDPers were forced to vote for a right-wing Conservative party, this would not be a democracy? 

One could hope that a certain amount of votes for the NDP/Green could influence the ruling Liberals/Conservatives to alter their policy in order to bring those voters into the fold? 

Cheers.


----------



## Goober (29 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Rick_Donald:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> ...


I totally disagree with you. How can you say someone loses the right to criticize just because they exercized thier right to not vote? I would feel pretty bad if the party I voted for was elected and happened to screw the country (sponsorship scandel).

Again I‘m judged and thrashed by a member of these forums. You can keep your insults to yourself, and please refrain from posting any more.


----------



## Goober (29 May 2004)

> Originally posted by George Wallace:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> ...


So what you are saying is for those who don‘t agree with the Liberals and those who don‘t want an anti-Canadian running the country don‘t give a ****, and don‘t have any rights to voice thier say? I think thats just ignorant.


----------



## George Wallace (29 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Goober:
> [qb]   So what you are saying is for those who don‘t agree with the Liberals and those who don‘t want an anti-Canadian running the country don‘t give a ****, and don‘t have any rights to voice thier say? I think thats just ignorant. [/qb]


No

1.  First off; Who is anti-Canadian?  Paul Martin, who fired all his Canadian sailors at CSL and hired cheaper foreigners to sail his foreign registered ships or who?

2.  If you don‘t exercise your right to vote, then you must agree with the way things are being run and don‘t have the right to B***h.

GW


----------



## George Wallace (29 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Chesterfield:
> [qb] My personal politics aside, doesn‘t it seem like a failing of democracy for somebody to be forced to vote for the ‘most likely party‘ to win, even if their personal politics are more akin to the NDP than the conservatives?
> 
> Clearly, if left-leaning NDPers were forced to vote for a right-wing Conservative party, this would not be a democracy?
> ...


Frankly, I don‘t care what your politics are.  If you want to vote Communist or Pink, go ahead.  Don‘t waste your vote, though.  Our political system, however, is turning into a facimile of the Italian Parliament, with way too many parties.  
By spliting the votes up so much we are guaranteeing a Liberal win.  If you don‘t want that and want change, then think smartly when you vote.  
The last election had Reform running a close second in many of the country‘s ridings, even in some Quebec ridings, but the Conservative‘s split that vote, coming in third and allowed the Liberal candidates the win.   Don‘t even imagine that this did not throw some fear into the Liberal polsters.  Why do you think they started out slamming Harper, even before an election was called, with their "Harper said" webpage ads?

What I am saying is the Liberals are guaranteed a win if everyone refuses to vote or makes a protest vote for some obscure party.  If you really want to change the government then make your vote count.  That does not mean that the Conservative Candidate in your riding is the best either.  Perhaps you live in Ottawa Center, which is strongly NDP for some reason.  There the people would be silly to split the vote and allow the Liberals to win.  

GW


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Goober:
> I refuse to vote for someone just because they are the "best of the worst".


Smart more. I supose it‘s better to have the worst of the worst than the best of the worst  eh?  

Probably one of the dumbest things i‘ve heard in a while. Your pretty quick to call people (everyone?) ignorant. Maybe you should give some consideration to the fact that most of the people here seem to disagree with you. 

maybe YOU mr Goober [Mil Experience: Cadets only] Should have some respect and refrain from telling someone like Mr Donald [Mil Experience: 4 years, 1 RCR,3 CDO CAR 1983-1987 ] to stop posting on a military forum.


EDIT: Just read in the paper today that the liberals are promising cities up to 2 billion dollars from the gas-taxs, *IF* they are elected again. I think i‘ll change my vote to liberal now, i mean a promise is a promise, right?


----------



## Mo` fella (29 May 2004)

Goober, if you choose not to vote and say nobody‘s worth your vote, thats your right. And no, I dont believe anyone should lose their right to speak up and criticize whether they vote or not.

But other than some weird fringe websites and forums, and reading in a sinister meaning to some (true) statement that Harper made, can you provide any reasons you classify Harper as anti-Canadian? Has he been selling secrets to the Russians or something? 


> quote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I‘m amazed at the amount of people who will vote for Harper. I can‘t see how any Canadian can vote for him.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...


Yes we_ are_ amazing !


----------



## rdschultz (29 May 2004)

I think they lose the right to complain, but not in any formal sense.  I just don‘t think they should complain.  Just like I don‘t think people who don‘t have kids shouldn‘t lecture anybody on parenting, and I don‘t think Dr. Phil should be some sort of weight-loss guru.

Apathy doesn‘t work on any level.  You‘re sure showing everybody else when you don‘t vote... because you... did nothing?  If a person who doesn‘t vote honestly gave a ****, they‘d come up with better excuses.  In the last federal election, only 55% of the voting age population voted. The remaining 45% is enough to change the results in nearly any riding.  Granted, some of those 45% are too stupid or lazy to vote, but at least they have a reasonable excuse.   And in many cases, the "I don‘t vote, because there‘s nobody good to vote for" is just another excuse for the lazy, because lazy people try to pretend they‘re not lazy.

Goober:  I want you to tell me off the top of your head, every single fringe party candidate in your riding, what their basic policies are.  If you don‘t like the liberals or the conservatives, then you‘d better **** well know what everybody else is about before you choose not to vote.  

Not voting doesn‘t prove anything, except for the fact that you don‘t care about how the country you live in is run.  You might pretend you do, but you don‘t.  If you honestly did care, you‘d have voted.


----------



## Infanteer (29 May 2004)

...and for the record, casting your vote for a smaller/fringe party (Green, Canadian Action Party, etc.) is in no way "wasting" your vote.  You‘ve exercised your sovereignty and contributed to the democratic dialogue.

I‘d rather have an educated voter who knows the issues vote for the Green Party than have some dummy vote Liberal or Conservative just because their parents did.


----------



## Goober (29 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Infanteer:
> [qb] ...and for the record, casting your vote for a smaller/fringe party (Green, Canadian Action Party, etc.) is in no way "wasting" your vote.  You‘ve exercised your sovereignty and contributed to the democratic dialogue.
> 
> I‘d rather have an educated voter who knows the issues vote for the Green Party than have some dummy vote Liberal or Conservative just because their parents did. [/qb]


Thank you, you just stated my point.


----------



## rdschultz (29 May 2004)

I believe your point was "I‘m not going to vote" and not "an educated voter is better than an uneducated one".  Unless you have a really convoluted way of making your point.


----------



## Goober (29 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Ghost778:
> [QB]
> 
> 
> ...


I didn‘t call everyone ignorant. Who said I didn‘t consider the fact that most people here seem to disagree with me? Please show me where I said that, a link would help. Re-read the paragraph where I said the IDEA that someone who doesn‘t like the Liberals AND doesn‘t like the Conservatives loses the right to complain, is ignorant.

Besides only a few of the members here voiced thier opposition to me (people have different opinions, not everyone has to go with the crowd), and I‘m willing to bet many exercised thier right to NOT post too, perhaps because they see this is simple bickering and doesn‘t serve any constructive purpose.



> maybe YOU mr Goober [Mil Experience: Cadets only] Should have some respect and refrain from telling someone like Mr Donald [Mil Experience: 4 years, 1 RCR,3 CDO CAR 1983-1987 ] to stop posting on a military forum.


Congratulations, you just proved his is bigger than mine. I asked him to stop posting if all he does is flame, just repeating what a moderator said in another post.

I have plenty of respect, just not for flamers or trolls, thats all.

The race is between the Liberals and the Conservatives, I think thats pretty aparent. Let me ask you, hypothetically, who would you vote for if you believe one party told only lies and couldn‘t be trusted, and you disagreed with most, if not everything the other party said, and/or promised?


----------



## Goober (29 May 2004)

> Originally posted by hoser rd:
> [qb] I believe your point was "I‘m not going to vote" and not "an educated voter is better than an uneducated one".  Unless you have a really convoluted way of making your point. [/qb]


The fact that I‘m not going to vote (as of now, still a month to go) is the ACTION, or the VERB as some would say, it is not the subject of my point, therefore, it cannot be said that my point is "I‘m not going to vote".


----------



## Infanteer (29 May 2004)

> I believe your point was "I‘m not going to vote" and not "an educated voter is better than an uneducated one". Unless you have a really convoluted way of making your point.


No kidding.  I am now trying to figure out what your point was, goober; is it that you are a dummy so you won‘t vote for anyone?


----------



## Infanteer (29 May 2004)

> The fact that I‘m not going to vote (as of now, still a month to go) is the ACTION, or the VERB as some would say, it is not the subject of my point, therefore, it cannot be said that my point is "I‘m not going to vote".


...

???

 

Your doing a good job of relegating yourself to obscurity on this board.


----------



## Goober (29 May 2004)

Again with the flames. Anyway, answer this question, this is the sum of my point.

"The race is between the Liberals and the Conservatives, I think thats pretty aparent. Let me ask you, hypothetically, who would you vote for if you believe one party told only lies and couldn‘t be trusted, and you disagreed with most, if not everything the other party said, and/or promised?"

There is no alternative. I will not vote ignorantly. I‘ll wait until I see evidence of a party that is in line with my views and values, and vote for them. If none comes along, perhaps I‘ll have to do something about that myself.


----------



## rdschultz (29 May 2004)

[No message]


----------



## Rick_Donald (29 May 2004)

Only after reading the platforms presented in the newspapers on all the major parties did I decide that the Conservatives stand on some of the issues appealed to me.
I‘ve observed the antics of the ruling party for the last 12 years and absolutely refuse to stand back and let it happen all over again because of low voter turnout.
Just look at their track record in earlier posts to this thread.
The Liberals inherited a great economy in 92 and claimed it as their accomplishment. We watched them slowly erode it to tatters.
If health care is your issue who do think cut transfer payments to the provinces?
If defence is your issue do I need to say anymore?
Education? Same deal as health care. The money is there,always has been there but has been squandered and funnelled to various institutions which benefit none of us.

If I was in my early twenties I probably wouldn‘t care enough to vote either. When I was Goober‘s age all I cared about was my FN, beer, women,jumping, my next posting, beer, women, etc.
I didn‘t have time to keep up with politics. Mulroney was a cartoon character I saw on page 5 every so often. But I sure as **** didn‘t sit around the Kyrenia Club discussing something I knew nothing about. I talked about jumping,beer,women,war stories,beer,women.....


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 May 2004)

You can always tell who the message board vets are when they pop up throwing around the classic catch words such as flaming, ignorant and trolls and trolling. Show me where i said this show me where i said that. What i really ment was. Im new here but im going to be as loud and confrontational as possible. Please do not FLAME me i find it very offensive

Unlike happy feely PLUR message boards if you act like a door nob or make an *** out of yourself your going to get negitive attention. yes, maybe even "flames" too. 

Look, if you don‘t feel like voting than don‘t vote. If you can‘t find someone you want to support go order some stickers that say "Vote Goober, quit begging the question it‘s very trollish of you.


----------



## nbk (29 May 2004)

I am not going to vote either. This is because all of the political parties are awful, and although some have their good points, which would improve the nation, they ALL have very very bad points and would end up damaging this nation more then helping it, if they were elected.

Liberals: 
GOOD: Well I cannot really think of any good points because anything good that they do, they will change their minds and do the opposite the next week. 
BAD: They backtrack and change their minds on every policy decision, they have destroyed the military budget over the last decade, they support idiotic things such as the gun registry, they are corrupt, and they are just plain criminals.

Conservatives:
GOOD: They realize that the gun registry must be scrapped right away, and are in favour of supporting the military in infusing a lot of cash into defence.
BAD: They have the most regressive and backwards social policies ever imagined. If elected they would destroy any sovereignty that this nation has, force every Canadian to pledge allegiance to the stars and stripes, beg the terrorists to attack us so they can help colonize the middle east, force all immigrants and non-white-straight-christians into concentration camps, destroy our healthcare and education systems, and stomp on cute little kittens with their big red and white laced doc martins.

NDP:
GOOD: Proper social policies, which are in step with Canadian values. Correct policies on health care and education.
BAD: They would rather see me as a bum living on the street then dare have me in the military where golly gee I may end up learning how to swear or something. Allah forbid I ever held a weapon on duty as they would have to send me to my room to see that holding a weapon is not correct behaviour for a soldier. They also have retarded policies on the gun registry, and they only support "decriminalization" of marijuana, which is not much better then having it completely illegal, as it will do nothing to solve the problem of illegal drug dealing on the streets and all the negative things that come with that. Also lets face it, the NDP is basically a joke.

Bloc Quebecois: 
GOOD: They are not any of the other parties.
BAD: They want Quebec to seperate (I like Quebec).

Green party, man:
GOOD: Ummmm.......well they are the only political party to realize that full legalization is the only reasonable answer to the marijuana issue.
BAD: They want to dismantle the military and create some sort of police force, that will go to Afghanistan and plant flowers or some stupid $hit like that. They want to do away with prisons and put all criminals under house arrest for some retarded reason.

So you see, no matter which party gets elected, Canada is ****ed. We need a new political party, that is a true alternative to the liberals, not some backwards radical fundamentalists. The liberals will be in power for a long time because Canadians are too intelligent to support other political parties which would destroy this country even worse. And if they do elect another party next election...I want to say I would feel very bad for Canada‘s future, but I would feel the same way if the liberals were elected again, so no matter what happens, I feel bad for Canada‘s future.

So if we do not want to see any of these parties  win, what are we suppost to do on election day? If I bothered to go vote I would write in my name on the ballot, and I would encourage everyone to do the same. I am the only person who knows how to properly run this country, so none of these stupid parties are going to get any support from me. I respect this nation too much to participate in having it destroyed by any of these political parties.

And plus if I dont vote I can disagree with whichever party gets into power, because I do not have any silly allegiances to keep.


----------



## gate_guard (29 May 2004)

> Originally posted by nbk:
> [qb] I am the only person who knows how to properly run this country, so none of these stupid parties are going to get any support from me. I respect this nation too much to participate in having it destroyed by any of these political parties.
> [/qb]


Of course you are. Just because you think you‘re right, doesn‘t mean you are. If you can do a better job form a party and run for a seat. If you get voted in, then obviously people agree with you. Otherwise your just another toilet king with an opinion.

And just for the record, you (and Goober) are exactly the type of people politicians love. They don‘t have to worry about getting your vote, and also don‘t have to worry about you voting for another party. You think you‘re making a statement by not voting, but merely making things easier for the parties and politicians you so despise. Perfect for them. Good job stud.


----------



## gate_guard (29 May 2004)

..


----------



## SFontaine (29 May 2004)

Canada has sovereignty? I must have missed that while I was pledging undying allegience to a non-Canadian Queen and all.


----------



## muskrat89 (29 May 2004)

> Canada has sovereignty? I must have missed that while I was pledging undying allegience to a non-Canadian Queen and all.


Oh? Was that against your will? If you didn‘t agree with the pledge you took, the honourable thing would‘ve been not to take it. Maybe you support your personal principles through internet message boards, as opposed to personal actions...


----------



## rdschultz (29 May 2004)

I was watching CPAC for a few minutes one day, and they had three strategists from the major parties there.  What I witnessed there sums up the viewpoint I have long held on the parties.

The NDP and Conservatives both know what they believe in and aren‘t afraid to tell people what that is.  The Liberals on the other hand seemed to be more variable or fickle.  They want to tell you what you want to hear, and they were more content with throwing buzzwords out there than offering anything firm.  While I think that could generally be a good thing, i.e. a government that tries to please its people, their tenure in office has led me to believe that they‘re not capable of doing such a thing.


----------



## SFontaine (30 May 2004)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> > Canada has sovereignty? I must have missed that while I was pledging undying allegience to a non-Canadian Queen and all.
> 
> 
> Oh? Was that against your will? If you didn't agree with the pledge you took, the honourable thing would've been not to take it. Maybe you support your personal principles through internet message boards, as opposed to personal actions...



The pledge is mandatory for citizens, politicians, civil servants, soldiers, etc.


----------



## Goober (30 May 2004)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> You can always tell who the message board vets are when they pop up throwing around the classic catch words such as flaming, ignorant and trolls and trolling. Show me where i said this show me where i said that. What i really ment was. Im new here but im going to be as loud and confrontational as possible. Please do not FLAME me i find it very offensive
> 
> Unlike happy feely PLUR message boards if you act like a door nob or make an *** out of yourself your going to get negitive attention. yes, maybe even "flames" too.
> 
> Look, if you don't feel like voting than don't vote. If you can't find someone you want to support go order some stickers that say "Vote Goober, quit begging the question it's very trollish of you.



I didn't realize having a different opinion than the popular one was making an ass out of myself.

Doesn't matter anyway, I was only stating my opinion. Sheesh.


----------



## Rick_Donald (30 May 2004)

gate_guard said:
			
		

> > Originally posted by nbk:
> > And just for the record, you (and Goober) are exactly the type of people politicians love. They don't have to worry about getting your vote, and also don't have to worry about you voting for another party. You think you're making a statement by not voting, but merely making things easier for the parties and politicians you so despise. Perfect for them. Good job stud.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Rick_Donald (30 May 2004)

??? Excuse me, but why is Paul Martin and the Liberals trying to make this election about bilingualism?
As important as language is in Canada I think it pales in comparison to issues such as health care, education, taxes, defence, unemployment and education. Another smokescreen to rile up the masses while avoiding the issues that really matter and effect every Canadian as a whole?


----------



## muskrat89 (30 May 2004)

SFontaine - Maybe I am misunderstanding you. As a citizen, I've never been required to pledge allegiance to the Queen. As far as soldiers and civil servants, if one disagrees in principle with any of the requirements, including pledging allegiance to the Queen - they are never forced to choose that career path......


----------



## K. Ash (30 May 2004)

Correct if I'm wrong, but don't we have a choice in the oath we take when we get sworn in?


----------



## SFontaine (30 May 2004)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> SFontaine - Maybe I am misunderstanding you. As a citizen, I've never been required to pledge allegiance to the Queen. As far as soldiers and civil servants, if one disagrees in principle with any of the requirements, including pledging allegiance to the Queen - they are never forced to choose that career path......



I understand what you mean but I'm just saying that we claim to be a sovereign country but we hold allegience to a foreign Queen. I don't have   a problem with it honestly but I wonder what we _truly_ are. It just seems silly to call us sovereign.

Furthermore I'm not going to let the chance to serve my country and better myself pass me by simply due to a differing of opinion. That would be petty.


----------



## Infanteer (30 May 2004)

> I understand what you mean but I'm just saying that we claim to be a sovereign country but we hold allegience to a foreign Queen. I don't have  a problem with it honestly but I wonder what we truly are. It just seems silly to call us sovereign.
> 
> Furthermore I'm not going to let the chance to serve my country and better myself pass me by simply due to a differing of opinion. That would be petty.



You obviously do not understand the concept of soveriegnty.  Canada is a sovereign nation in that it decides it's own domestic and foreign policies.  Regardless of whether you pledge alliegence to a queen or a flag, the de facto power rests in the hands of the democratically elected government.


----------



## SFontaine (30 May 2004)

If we're truly sovereign we should pledge alliegance to a symbol of our own country. Everyone always goes on about what a unique country Canada is, why don't we have our own symbol to pledge allegience to and not a foreigner?


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 May 2004)

> why don't we have our own symbol to pledge allegience to



The maple leaf suits me just fine, i see it every day i go to work on my left shoulder.
You don't need to give a big speach, a picture  of a monarch or to put your hand on a bible to hold something close to your heart.


----------



## Infanteer (30 May 2004)

> If we're truly sovereign we should pledge alliegance to a symbol of our own country. Everyone always goes on about what a unique country Canada is, why don't we have our own symbol to pledge allegience to and not a foreigner?



Your not listening...you'll make a *fine* recruit if you keep it up.

Again, your confusing sovereignty with some sort of cushy symbol.   Sovereignty is the power of the Government of Canada to act; this power is backed by the monopolization of coercive force.   Despite the influences that many may decry, as a _sovereign_ state Canada's decisions are not decided in Washington or London; the government in Canada bears sole responsibility for their implementation.


----------



## SFontaine (30 May 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> > If we're truly sovereign we should pledge alliegance to a symbol of our own country. Everyone always goes on about what a unique country Canada is, why don't we have our own symbol to pledge allegience to and not a foreigner?
> 
> 
> 
> Your not listening...you'll make a *fine* recruit if you keep it up.



Just having a friend debate, Sir. I apologize if it looks like I'm not listening. I guess we just have different views of sovereignty.


----------



## girlfiredup (31 May 2004)

Well looks like the liberals are at it again... hocus pocus abra kadabra.. "a new deal on gas tax revenue sharing with cities" promised by Paul Martin.   It's amazing the garbage that spews out of his mouth.   Anything for a vote I guess.   I wonder if PM has seen this? http://www.liberals.ca/


----------



## Goober (31 May 2004)

I fail to see how that applies as "garbage". Care to elaborate?


----------



## Rick_Donald (31 May 2004)

I think what girlallfiredup is trying to say that the man is lying through his teeth like his counterpart in Ontario, Dalton McGuilty. I don't know if you are aware of it but the provincial Liberal government just hit us with a huge tax increase disguised as a health surcharge after signing a pledge not to raise taxes prior to being elected. This is only one of McGuilty's broken promises and we in Ontario are having a hard time believing anything coming out of a Liberal's mouth. For instance what ever happened to scrapping the GST?


----------



## girlfiredup (31 May 2004)

Goober said:
			
		

> I fail to see how that applies as "garbage". Care to elaborate?



I'm sorry that you fail to see that what comes out of Paul Martin's mouth and the "promises" he's made to us canadians is nothing more than garbage.  Rick_Donald is right.. I'm having a hard time believing anything this man says.


----------



## Infanteer (31 May 2004)

> Just having a friend debate, Sir. I apologize if it looks like I'm not listening. I guess we just have different views of sovereignty.



What you don't understand is I am not trying to debate you, I'm trying to teach you something.  I didn't major in Political Science for nothing.


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 May 2004)

> I fail to see how that applies as "garbage". Care to elaborate?



Because of all the promises they have broken they have no credibility?


----------



## Scratch_043 (31 May 2004)

Goober said:
			
		

> I totally disagree with you. How can you say someone loses the right to criticize just because they exercized thier right to not vote? I would feel pretty bad if the party I voted for was elected and happened to screw the country (sponsorship scandel).
> 
> Again I'm judged and thrashed by a member of these forums. You can keep your insults to yourself, and please refrain from posting any more.


First, the people opposing you on this site (and there are many of them) did not, and will not, vote for the liberals, (your sponsorship scandal example) that is the point being made, that not voting is just as bad as voting for the liberals.

Second, you are not being 'thrashed' or insulted by the members of this forum, you are being proven wrong. If you don't like it, it is best to know what you are talking about. Infanteer gave my advice when I started posting that I will now give to you: DO NOT POST unless you know what you are doing, read, think, then post if you have something worth saying.



			
				Goober said:
			
		

> Congratulations, you just proved his is bigger than mine. I asked him to stop posting if all he does is flame, just repeating what a moderator said in another post.



You Realize don't you, that Infanteer (the 'troll' you referred to in a previous post) is a moderator on this site, and is vastly more experienced than you are. Infanteer also has a degree in Political Science, so it is a very bad idea to get on the wrong side of a Political Discussion with him.



			
				Goober said:
			
		

> I fail to see how that applies as "garbage". Care to elaborate?


 So what, are you defending the liberals now? I thought you were going to abstain from voting?


----------



## Infanteer (31 May 2004)

> You Realize don't you, that Infanteer (the 'troll' you referred to in a previous post) is a moderator on this site, and is vastly more experienced than you are. Infanteer also has a degree in Political Science, so it is a very bad idea to get on the wrong side of a Political Discussion with him.



Thanks for the back up, but don't take the degree too seriously.  It's a piece of paper, and you'd be surprised at the asstards they give that thing too.  There are many wise and savvy guys in the military that will teach you things that will stick with you for life, and some of them never even finished high school.  For the most part, politics is about points of view (ie: should we support free market economics or be lazy socialists) and anyone who can give good reasons for their belief can contribute to the political dialogue.

Remember, in most cases experience will outweigh the facts someone yanked off of some book or heard from some professor who likes to hear himself talk.

That being said, I have first hand experience of dragging the definition of _sovereignty_ out of the text books for 4 years, and that is why I insist on correcting Mr Fontaine's version of the term.


----

Here is a thought I just had.  Now that the Grit vote has been mended from the previous Reform/PC split and many are tired of Liberal boondoggales, some see the Conservative Party giving the Liberals a run for their money in Ontario.  If their is some sort of near split in the province, which usually decides the vote, I guess western Canada (BC in particular) will become sort of a swing vote.  It'll be nice out here to actually have the vote be crucial instead of learing as soon as the polls close that Sourthern Ontario has already decided on the new government.

What do you guys think about that?


----------



## Scratch_043 (31 May 2004)

I like it, it forces the libs to sweat, and not break out the champagne just because they won more seats in Ontario or Quebec.

I will be voting Conservative, and trying to persuade my friends to do the same, but, if not, that's OK too, because everyone is entitled to their own opinion and their own say.

Piece of paper or no, I will still take the word of a degree holder more highly than the word of a kid off the street. I know that there can be some fruit loops in the program, but most of them do get weeded out.(I hope)

Cheers


----------



## FastEddy (1 Jun 2004)

Can we really believe that any Political Party thats in Power for  12 Years is not going to in-cure some scandals, mis-management,broken promises or area's of public dis-content.

Of course to prove this point we would have to wait and see   (maybe 12 years) if the NDP or PC's get in.

But! you say they couldn't do any worse, you could be very right.

Remember! IT IS BETTER TO DEAL WITH A DEVIL YOU KNOW THAN ONE YOU DO NOT.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Jun 2004)

> Remember! IT IS BETTER TO DEAL WITH A DEVIL YOU KNOW THAN ONE YOU DO NOT.



I'm really getting sick of that phrase.

Christ, these are established political parties in one of the oldest democracies in the world.  Its not as if this election is one between National Socialists and Versailles Traitors.  Some of you are acting like the future of a free society depends on the upcoming election.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Jun 2004)

Jings Fast Eddy do you think?

I mean this one's pushing me into the fire, its getting kind of hot and the pitchfork is kind of sharp.

Aye your right enough.  I should just keep going into the fire.  Who knows how much worse the other guy could be? He might try to drown me!!

Drop a line and let us know if you decided to get out of bed tomorrow.  I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself.

Cheers.


----------



## girlfiredup (1 Jun 2004)

This upcoming election is a complete joke.   IMHO, none of these leaders are worthy of representing this country.   Have we even seen a plan from any of them?   How do they plan on getting there?   The only reason I'm voting conservative is because I'm sick of the liberals as is the majority of this country and that is what's making the conservatives look so appealing.  So what does that say about them?  Apart from their "plan" to finally sink some dollars into our military, I just don't see a conservative party running the show.   It's a scary thought actually.   Harper or Martin for PM?   Not much of a choice is there?   Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Smoothbore (1 Jun 2004)

The liberals are annoying on defence issues, however Paul Martin has done a wonderful job for Canada's economy, since 1997 we've constantly had a large surplus in government spending that has enabled the gov't to significantly reduce our national debt (by about 30 billion dollars). Since most of you are military personel I understand your frustration about defence spending but keep in mind, it always comes down to economics. That's why I'm voting for Jack Layton.....Buahaha, not!


----------



## 48Highlander (1 Jun 2004)

I think what you mean to say is, since 1997 we've constantly had a large surplus in government spending that has enabled the gov't to waste more money on pet projects and special interest groups.

I'm supposed to be happy that the  Liberals have saved billions of dollars by gutting the CF and other proud and productive Canadian institutions, and then wasted that same money by canceling neccesary projects and paying hundreds of millions in fees, starting a billion dollar gun registration database that's absolutely useless, and giving more money to Quebec and french language projects in order to keep them happy?  I don't fucking think so.


----------



## T.I.M. (1 Jun 2004)

When the Liberals first came into power most people predicted we were in for an era of skyrocketing national debt, financial stagnation and worsening employment prospects.   Now, we have one of the strongest economies in the G-7, and a history of perhaps the most sound and forward looking budgets tabled by ANY western nation.   I refuse to overlook this.

I also don't plan to overlook the fact that a great deal of the Liberal's success in this regard rode on the hard decisions made by the Progressive Conservatives (the GST without which paying down Canada's debt would be impossible, and Free Trade on which much of our economic strength resides) which made them widely unpopular at the time, and contributed to their defeat, but in retrospect were the right decisions.   However much they benefitted from what at the time they decried, the Liberals still get credit from me for managing all this in an intelligent manner.   And yes, they did.   A few scandals don't change the essentially excellent management.

We don't realize it, because we're right in the middle of the good times (which are always relative, and never enough), but we have it damn good right now, and what we're quibbling about are relatively minor issues when compared to the successes this nation has achieved in the last ten years - _particularly_ when compared with how bad we thought things were going to be ten years ago.     I do not plan on throwing this away on a protest vote to a party I feel is not fit to govern the nation - that is, the Canadian Alliance, of which I see far too much in the new Conservatives.

So Harper isn't going to buy my vote even with his promises of massive infusions into the military (which seem more election granstanding than solid policy anyway).   I simply don't trust his party and I fundamentally disagree with some basic parts of their platform.   I remember too many of its past policies and statments that I found odious.   When the CA elements are fully purged, then I'll willingly vote Conservative, but not before.


----------



## 48Highlander (1 Jun 2004)

TIM, I don't imagine it'd be too hard to run a balanced budget and pay back the national debt when the average Canadian spends nearly 50% of his/her income on taxes.  While we may have one of the best economies in the G7, we also have one of the highest tax rates in the world.  I personaly think it'd be nice to see a little more efficiency and a little less taxes.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Jun 2004)

I really wonder if good management is the proper term when 26% of my tax dollars go to some form of social assistance and 17% goes to a health care system that is in danger of becoming obsolete.

Not that the Conservatives may be any better though; sure the Liberals may have managed the system well, but in my opinion the system itself is broke, and the Liberals have done fuck all in 12 years to fix that.


----------



## casing (1 Jun 2004)

Talking about 17% going to the health care system and also hearing polls indicating that a good portion think that improving the health care system is a very high priority just makes me shake my head. With 17% going to the health care system, that should be the least of peoples' desires to improve. Just serves as another indicator about what "good fiscal management" really is. Not!


----------



## Infanteer (1 Jun 2004)

It's the 26% to social services that really pisses me off.   I really like knowing that 1 in 4 of my tax dollars basically goes to someone who is unproductive enough that they cannot look after themselves.

On another note.   I read today that the NDP is fielding about 50 or so candidates under the age of 25.   One in Toronto is 18 years old.   Another onr in Kelowna is a 23 year old Native single mother and has a $60,000 student loan debt; how about that for interest lobby.   There is some good experienced candidates to represent your interests in Parliament.   The NDP pulls it off again.... :


----------



## Scratch_043 (1 Jun 2004)

an 18 year old??? are they crazy, what if he wins, he'll have to ask mommy's permission to raise her taxes


----------



## rdschultz (1 Jun 2004)

Hmm, are they intentionally trying to capture the youth vote?  Could be a good move for them in 10 years time.  Well, as long as the people they entice now don't mature or grow a brain, otherwise they're screwed.


----------



## Iwannabeasoldier (1 Jun 2004)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Conservatives, LIEberals need to be turfed. I should metion that I am a Conservative party member



See this is what pisses me off about politics whats the point of pointing out that Mcuinty lied by capitalizing the first part of lieberal.  this is just the same childish shit that makes our country look bad.  I think that politions should be adressing the issue's as they are now instead of throwing childish remarks eachothers way.  Cause what is going to happen is that nothing will be addressed and everyone will be voting blindly, instead of voting for somthing that they believe in.  If your going to bitch and if your going to vote just make sure that you make yourself informed.  Instead of playing into the game and propaganda that can be arrised by media and campagning efforts. really comes down to voting for a lesser evil.


----------



## Scratch_043 (1 Jun 2004)

Iwannabeasoldier said:
			
		

> Hatchet Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Uh, dude, it's spelled Liberal


----------



## Iwannabeasoldier (1 Jun 2004)

Im wondering if anyone is listening to the NDP's Idea's. or are we all just so against thier former leaders that we dismiss anything they are trying to get across?  I think out of the candidates that we are looking at, Jack layton posessess the best qualities in what our leader should look like.  Before you just decide to vote concervitive just get the liberals out take a look at the NDP site look at what they have to offer our country.....you might be pleasently surprised the site is www.ndp.ca


----------



## rdschultz (1 Jun 2004)

If someone is very adamant about voting conservative, I doubt they'll even consider the NDP.  First, they're take opposite views on a number of policies.  They're the two parties that are most unlike eachother.  If they have no idea what the conservative party is all about, maybe, but even at that rate, its tough to change their mind.

The reason I dismiss the NDP party is I disagree with them on just about every level.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Jun 2004)

Iwannabeasoldier said:
			
		

> Im wondering if anyone is listening to the NDP's Idea's. or are we all just so against thier former leaders that we dismiss anything they are trying to get across?  I think out of the candidates that we are looking at, Jack layton posessess the best qualities in what our leader should look like.  Before you just decide to vote concervitive just get the liberals out take a look at the NDP site look at what they have to offer our country.....you might be pleasently surprised the site is www.ndp.ca



Your joking, right?

 ???

You've come to the last place in Canada to try and preach the ideals of socialism and organized crim...I mean labour unionism.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Jun 2004)

We should select our riding representatives based on what each party's leader "looks like"?  If that isn't a suggestion that we need some sort of competency test to qualify to vote, I don't know what is.

I am certain the NDP's platform looks attractive to a great many people.  Who doesn't like the idea of helping themselves to the contents of someone else's pocket?  Does it ever occur to anyone to instead question whether the federal government has any business whatsoever delivering social programs?

Canada is a large and diverse country - geographically and culturally.  What are the odds that an inherently bureaucratic organization (government) will design optimal programs to efficiently deal with problems everywhere?  It is almost certain that it can not.  Government has a ponderous decision cycle and is self-encumbered by regulations designed to cushion every possible discomfort and uncertainty.

Five years ago I thought western separatism was a bad idea.  I now think it would be a very interesting and useful experiment to have BC and Alberta separate and establish a new, republican federation in which mass transfers of wealth between regions is nigh impossible.  Then wait and see how long it takes for Ontario to join.  Then watch while the rest of Canada deals with a dried up money tap.


----------



## Smoothbore (1 Jun 2004)

There's just too much at stake right now to experiment with Consrvatives just because they promised an extra 1.6 Billion dollars to the DND. Besides that one attribute, a conservative government would be far inferior and less effcient.


----------



## Scratch_043 (1 Jun 2004)

Smoothbore, Please state the basis for your claims, I would like to see examples.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (2 Jun 2004)

First things first....

I'm not military.   I'm a 30-year who runs two small Canadian companies who is a Military, Economics and Politics buff....and as such lurk here as you guys do a great job of centralizing all Canadian Military Information in one place.

That being said, after reading some of the comments in this thread I literally *HAD* to register for this board just to be able to post a rebuttal.

First, Paul Martin's fine leadership did not save the countries finances.

What did you ask?
1)   The Conservatives GST (which Martin promised to cancel) to the tune of $20 billion per year in additional tax revenues
2)   Paul Martin's Hack & Slash of Provincial Transfer Payments ($6 billion) which have resulted in the inadequate Healthcare & Education Systems we now have in place.
3)   Falling interest rates.   (don't kid yourself, they've been responsible for upwards of $5 billion in reduced carrying costs from year-to-year)
4)   A crashed $CDN which although it allowed Canadian Exporters to be very profitable and thus pay a great deal in taxes, dramatically lowered our standard-of-living.

As a sidebar, the debt at it's highest level was approaching $550 billion.   It is now at $510 billion.   Our carrying costs (interest paid without paying down any principle) on that debt is still in excess of $35 billion or 21% of all tax revenues collected.   The debt is still a major issue and the one thing I was hoping to hear from Harper that I haven't yet is a Legislated Debt Repayment Policy.   Even if it's only 1% per year....that's still $5.1 billion which in turn provides Canadians with a Fiscal Responsibility Dividend of $500 million/year to spend in perpetuity.   

Short Version:   Don't believe the hype re: Martin.   The only good thing he did was not flush the budgetary surpluses   that others created (or he created on the backs of the provinces) down the toilet which it appears he wants to do now....


Cheers,


Matthew.


----------



## Scratch_043 (2 Jun 2004)

Thanks for your input Blackshirt, we hope that you will stick with us and contribute to our conversations more in the future.

Cheers


----------



## Smoothbore (2 Jun 2004)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> 4)   A crashed $CDN which although it allowed Canadian Exporters to be very profitable and thus pay a great deal in taxes, dramatically lowered our standard-of-living.



Well then, you shouldn't be complaining..
I've visited the Conservative Party Of Canada website and the only benefit I see of voting conservative is increased financial support for our armed forces: 

"Supporting our Canadian Forces
They do us proud. Whether serving here at home or on peacekeeping missions abroad, Canada's military is a great source of pride. But unfortunately, pride is not enough. The Liberals are starving our armed forces. A Conservative government will invest in our military and provide them with the quality equipment they need to achieve the difficult tasks we ask of them."

The consevatives also declare a tax break:

"The Liberal government is collecting about $1,500 more in taxes per Canadian than it did ten years ago. That is an annual $6,000 increase for a family of four. Ask yourself, are you getting more value for that money? Should taxes stay this high when the government is wasting so much? We believe the answer to these questions is No. That's why The Conservative Party will reduce your taxes."

- I don't see how tax cuts can improve the wealth of Canadians, tax breaks mean less government spending, that translates into less money entering the private sector - a proven fact (most people actually believe that with the money saved Canadians will invest and consume, boosting the economy). Besides, the Liberals have a great relationship and thus full cooperation with the Bank of Canada - a decisive issue when it comes to national fiscal policies.

Health care and education - the conservatives have previously demonstrated their innability to create and sustain an effective and efficient system of social health care and have done even worse with the public education system by trying to privatize it entirely. Both dismal failures. 
Accountability - just looking at Harper you can tell he is a false and misleading figure, corruption will mostly likely be on the rise once elected.


----------



## rdschultz (2 Jun 2004)

Explain how less government spending means less money entering the private sector?  You've go the most effed up view of economics I've ever heard.  

Health Care is a lousy point.  You can't say the Conservatives previously demonstrated anything, because its been over a decade since they've been in.  Plus, the conservatives today are not the same conservatives of before.

And your point about Harper.  OH BOY, YOU CAN JUST TELL HE'S EVIL.... LOOK AT THOSE EYES!!!


----------



## Goober (2 Jun 2004)

Harper needs a haircut.

I see some great points and counterpoints posted here. Some good reading.

I agree with what GirlFiredUp said on page 8



> IMHO, none of these leaders are worthy of representing this country.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Jun 2004)

>I don't see how tax cuts can improve the wealth of Canadians, tax breaks mean less government spending, that translates into less money entering the private sector - a proven fact (most people actually believe that with the money saved Canadians will invest and consume, boosting the economy).

I almost strangled while laughing after I read this.  What, pray tell, do you think Canadians can do with money other than spend or invest it?  Merely leaving it in the bank constitutes useful investment, and I don't believe for a second that anyone is stuffing mattresses and taking money out of circulation.  Further, what are your grounds for believing that a dollar in government hands achieves more good than a dollar in private hands?  It is almost axiomatic that government gets less good out of a unit of currency than free enterprise.  Hordes of people acting in their own interests inevitably will elicit a greater good than government.

And why do people persist in believing that education and health care are in crisis?

Regarding post-secondary education, I crunched some data: my daily rate as a reserve private in 1983 paid for less of my combined tuition and room/board than the daily rate for a reserve private does now (based on UBC's suggested figures for a first-year student).  Similarly, it would take fewer hours at current minimum wage (in BC) to pay today's expenses than to pay 1983's expenses using 1983's minimum wage.  My guess is that education is _relatively more affordable_ now.  The real constraint on post-secondary education is rising entrance requirements due to demand outstripping supply.  (And that has led to grade inflation in secondary schools, which results in some very crestfallen first-years who believed they really were "A" students.)

Regarding health care, we don't have as effective a system as we could _for the money we currently expend_.  But I disagree that more money is the solution; I believe that more privatization of delivery is the solution.  If you want more of a service, create opportunities for people to make a profit providing it.


----------



## Infanteer (2 Jun 2004)

Mr Sallows, you beat me too it.



> I don't see how tax cuts can improve the wealth of Canadians, tax breaks mean less government spending, that translates into less money entering the private sector - a proven fact (most people actually believe that with the money saved Canadians will invest and consume, boosting the economy). Besides, the Liberals have a great relationship and thus full cooperation with the Bank of Canada - a decisive issue when it comes to national fiscal policies.



Your shitting me, right?

Since Brad pretty much nailed it down, all I have to say is you need a lesson in economics that does not involve the words "Das" and "Kapital".



> Health care and education - the conservatives have previously demonstrated their innability to create and sustain an effective and efficient system of social health care and have done even worse with the public education system by trying to privatize it entirely. Both dismal failures.



Again Brad hit the nail on the head.   Considering the sum total of my undergraduate degree was less than $16,000 (tuition and books) I can't see why anyone complains about post-secondary costs; I guess it just goes to show how spoiled Canadians have become when they protest tuition hikes (see: helping themselves to someone elses pocket).   Regarding health care, considering almost 1 out of every 5 tax dollars goes to health care, there is no excuse for the inefficent system we have today (I agree with private delivery of services).   However, this is a systemic problem that is beyond party politics; again I blame it on the spoiled (and uneducated) Canadian who cries foul whenever someone advocates reform.   I guess I level blame at Martin for trying to use the big Health Care boogy man to pray on those (uneducated) fears and attack Martin.



> Accountability - just looking at Harper you can tell he is a false and misleading figure, corruption will mostly likely be on the rise once elected.



Only an idiot would base accountability on a bad hair cut.


----------



## RCA (2 Jun 2004)

Economic wisdom says the gov't save during good times, and runs deficits during bad times. Over time they will balance each other out. As these are good times, the gov't should be saving the surplus for when the economy does (not if) have a downturn. Then the gov't can run a deficit by spending and spurring economic growth. Deficits have become a dirty word, and now gov't have forced themselves into a corner by promising balanced budgets (some by legislation) and tax cutting at the same time. So when the economy has a downturn, they will be forced to cut programs, or tax back what they gave a way.

As for tax breaks spurring the economy, what size should they be? Definably not 1-2%. Not large enough to have an effect. Lower interest rates accomplish more. And during good times, an influx of disposable income could spur inflation, therefore raising interest rates, defeating its purpose. During bad times, the average Canadian will save the money, therefore not contributing to economic growth. The issue of simply cutting taxes is not a simple as it seems. Capitalism and Socialisms can be good as long as not taken to extremes.

Your belief in the size and influence of gov't generally decides where you fall on the political spectrum. I personal believe in a totally non-profit health care system. I think it is a slippery slope we start down by introducing profit elements into the system. Worse case scenario at the end is some family not being able to afford to take their children to the doctor because they can't afford it. Because you have more money, does that some how make you better, and entitled to faster health care. I feel any profit element will slow but surely siphon off resources from the current system. Education could be next. Proof is in Alberta, kindergarten isn't free and therefore not universally attended. Is this giving those children that can attend an advantage over those that can't simply based on monetary means.

 As for those that said that no leader is worthy, who do you consider worthy â â€œ Don Cherry! I think people (most anyway) get into politics because they think they can make a difference. And for the most part they are well intentioned. For all the media hype over Question Period, the real work is never seen, done by backbenchers quietly plodding away. Politicians tell us what we want to hear, so it partially our own faults because we rather have a 10 sec sound bite rather then learning about the issues. No issue is as obvious as it sounds. Tougher law and order, then that means more inmates staying longer, then more jails, guards and justice bureaucracy, and then you want a tax cut on top of that. The gov't is a zero sum game. Add somewhere, and then must take away somewhere else. And downsizing the Governor-General's (and lets not forget, she is our head of sate) budget isn't going to chance anything as it is peanuts. And the same goes for Foreign Aid, which I feel is a moral issue and we have an obligation to help those less fortunate then ourselves.

Sorry about length, but the last thing is, if you don't vote, you have absolutely no right to bitch about anything. Voting can included entering an empty ballot. So if you intend to vote, lets debate the issues. If you don't think it will make a difference, shut up, because you don't here either.


----------



## Infanteer (2 Jun 2004)

Good post sir.



> personal believe in a totally non-profit health care system. I think it is a slippery slope we start down by introducing profit elements into the system. Worse case scenario at the end is some family not being able to afford to take their children to the doctor because they can't afford it. Because you have more money, does that some how make you better, and entitled to faster health care. I feel any profit element will slow but surely siphon off resources from the current system.



Do you think you are mixing two issues together; namely medicare and services.   Going with a public/private split doesn't change the fact that all Canadians are entitled to public health insurance, whether they can afford private insurance or not.   I believe Australia has a system like this in place, perhaps Wesley has a little more knowledge on the subject.



> Sorry about length, but the last thing is, if you don't vote, you have absolutely no right to bitch about anything. Voting can included entering an empty ballot. So if you intend to vote, lets debate the issues. If you don't think it will make a difference, shut up, because you don't here either.



We definitely agree on something.


----------



## RCA (2 Jun 2004)

The problem with the mixing, is as I said the slippery slope. As a doctor's income increases, the more he will shy away from public service as it cuts into his income. The same with free standing clinics. The further you follow the analogy, you see the making of a two tied system. For profit hospitals will draw the best leaving the rest for those who can't afford the system. 

If we look at the legal aid system that pays lawyers to represent the intergent, you see that the lawyers constantly complain that it is not worth their while to defend legal aid clients and threaten withdrawal of services if fees aren't increased. Now transfer that scenario to the health system with for- profit doctors. Not much of a stretch.

 as for insurance after watching auto and other rates sky rocket, do you really want them to get a foothold in the health care system.

For those who want faster service.  get private insurance and then go to the States for treatment.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Jun 2004)

Infanteer has already outlined the common Canadian confusion over   the difference between health care insurance and health care delivery.

Consider this analogy: automobile insurance and collision repair.   Whether your insurer is public or private, you will probably find that your insurer is not also in the collision repair business.   You pay premiums.   You might have to pay a deductible when you make a claim.   You probably have the freedom to choose a repair shop.   Your insurer pays the repair shop.

Consider a closer analogy: dental insurance and care.   Your dental insurer probably does not run a stable of dentists and hygienists.   Now just change from user-   and employer- paid premiums, to a government-funded insurance plan.   Public insurance, private delivery.

Most Canadian pay health care premiums.   The bulk of it is in the form of taxes; there may also be a token component in the form of provincial health care premiums and there may be token user fees.   Mostly, taxpayers pay premiums which are heavily scaled to means.   When you need medical care, you doubtless have the freedom to choose the hospital, clinic, doctor, etc.   The insurer (provincial government, or DND) pays the provider.

The government can be wholly, partially, or not at all involved in the health care delivery business.

As long as there is universal public insurance, no family will be unable to afford health care.   The issue is completely disconnected from whether the delivery system is profitless or not.   If government is the sole insurer, it can be a non-profit insurer since it effectively just takes what is needed in the form of taxes.   In theory it has some pricing advantage over a for-profit insurer.   Maybe government is less efficient bureaucratically (no profit motive), and some or all of the advantage disappears.   I don't know, but I accept public health insurance as a good worthy of whatever it costs.

However, more private delivery introduces competitive motivations. Fair competition and relatively free markets act to minimize prices and encourage suppliers to meet demand.   (Otherwise, government should control everything.   Does anyone still believe that's the correct solution?)   Despite Romanow's desire for someone to prove private delivery would be more cost-effective, I believe the burden of proof is on the proponents of public delivery to demonstrate why the health care industry acts differently than any other in a free market.

The other advantage is that private delivery removes governments from negotiations with health care unions.   This means anti-union governments will not be in a position to impose conditions, and pro-union governments will not be in a position to buy votes.   That alone is probably worth the cost of privatization of delivery.

[Add: the fear that the "best" doctors will all migrate to a private system inaccessible to the rest of us is an empty hypothesis.  It has not come to pass in socialized countries which have wholly or fully private delivery.  The really profit-obsessed people have already left Canada or set up to deliver non-essential, profitable services in those niches they currently occupy.  At least if you allow people the opportunity to maximize their potential, they will stay here.  At least if you allow the rich to buy health care in Canada, the money stays here.  I frankly have no interest in pissing talent and money away just to spite the rich.]


----------



## scm77 (2 Jun 2004)

I shook hands with Stephen Harper today.  I know you're all jealous.


----------



## Smoothbore (2 Jun 2004)

scm77 said:
			
		

> I shook hands with Stephen Harper today.   I know you're all jealous.



Blehh....
Bleach them.


----------



## RCA (3 Jun 2004)

There is no perfect health system and generally a lack of concesus as what constitues one. For a healthy person, it comes down how much you are willing to pay (taxes, premiums, direct cash outlay etc) to subside to those that use it. To those not as healthy, you would want the chaepest syatem to you personally. We stad, I think is by matter of degree.  I think it was amistake when medicare came in that Dentists and Optomtrists were not included. for those who don't have company insuance, do forgo going to the dentist because of the cost? 

Okay, another topic that sepaetaes the left and right:

Social Welfare-  How many out there are only 1-2 pay cheques away from the poor house. We are a lot closer to it then we would like to think if we are honest with ourselves. Of course if we lost our livelihood, we would like to think we would do everything possible to get back into the job market. But suppose you can't because you don't have the necessary tools, or due to age (over 45 and you are probably over the hill in getting another job). Is this your fault? 

As before, where you think is where you fall on the spectrum. There are this that feel we have an obligation to look after the less fortunate, and those that feel that with motivation and hard work you will get ahead and if you don't its your own fault. Although there are glaring cases of those that milk the system, I think these are the minority, even though they get the lion's share of the media and politicians attention. What about those that are on social welfare, get a part time job to get ahead, and have the wages are deducted from the assistance cheque. My feeling is that a majority needs theses services. So it comes down to, do we punish all because of a few well-published abuses. I know the counter argument is that let private investment (though tax cuts and less gov't interference) create economic growth which increases jobs that these people can get. But the private sector motive is profit not social policy; the jobs are just a by-product and can come as go as the bottom line dictates.

Here is food for thought. Economics implies that we should not have a fully employed labour market. There must be some slack. There is no way that all able-bodied persons between 18 and 65 can be employed. We would have a flooded market, which would drive wages downward. As well, companies that slash their labour costs (through not hiring or laying off) are rewarded by higher shared prices. Therefore we will always have members of this society that are not employed, not will be. This, as well as the move to lower wages (another labour cost saving), means the private sector pushes the problem of subsistence on to the gov't to solve or ignore. 

I feel that we have a moral obligation to look after those less fortunate. This is where I fall on the political spectrum. I think when some say that the welfare bums should get out and be productive, it may not be as easy as it sounds. As for workfare, is that really productive and what are the differences between that and a chain gang? 

Here's another proposition.  You take a cut in pay and/or hours, so that your company can hire someone else and make them productive members of society. Honestly, I am not willing to do that. And I am not confusing EI with Social Assistance. My feeling on that is instead of cutting benefits, they should be increased to recipients, so as they are able to put more back into the economy while they look for work.  

This is another long-winded post, but this being an election, issues should be discussed and debate. This is my view, and I admit is flawed in places but it is food for thought.


----------



## Andyboy (3 Jun 2004)

Who gets to decide who is "less fortunate"?


----------



## Infanteer (3 Jun 2004)

> Social Welfare-  How many out there are only 1-2 pay cheques away from the poor house. We are a lot closer to it then we would like to think if we are honest with ourselves. Of course if we lost our livelihood, we would like to think we would do everything possible to get back into the job market. But suppose you can't because you don't have the necessary tools, or due to age (over 45 and you are probably over the hill in getting another job). Is this your fault?



The military is looking for a few good men (and women).  It infuriates me to see these kids with funny coloured hair sitting infront of cups on Robson street, squeegeeing peoples windows, and complaining about the lack of free housing when this country has so many things a fit, young person could be doing.



> As before, where you think is where you fall on the spectrum. There are this that feel we have an obligation to look after the less fortunate, and those that feel that with motivation and hard work you will get ahead and if you don't its your own fault. Although there are glaring cases of those that milk the system, I think these are the minority, even though they get the lion's share of the media and politicians attention. What about those that are on social welfare, get a part time job to get ahead, and have the wages are deducted from the assistance cheque. My feeling is that a majority needs theses services. So it comes down to, do we punish all because of a few well-published abuses. I know the counter argument is that let private investment (though tax cuts and less gov't interference) create economic growth which increases jobs that these people can get. But the private sector motive is profit not social policy; the jobs are just a by-product and can come as go as the bottom line dictates.



Yes, there are the glaring errors.  However, it is the systemic drains in the social welfare system that worry me.

For example, Canada's Native population is actually better off living on the dole.  By staying on their reserve, which often offers no oppurtunity for employment, they can retain many of their benefits (which other Canadians do not enjoy) and as such make more by living on welfare than actually going out into the workforce, where a low skillset would force them to accept minimum wages.

Its broken situations like this that lead me to criticize social spending, and I could find many more examples.  Obviously, we cannot just say "Stop Social Spending", because it would leave many people hanging.  But constructive ideas must be built into the system to move them from a drain on society to a productive member.



> Here is food for thought. Economics implies that we should not have a fully employed labour market. There must be some slack. There is no way that all able-bodied persons between 18 and 65 can be employed. We would have a flooded market, which would drive wages downward. As well, companies that slash their labour costs (through not hiring or laying off) are rewarded by higher shared prices. Therefore we will always have members of this society that are not employed, not will be. This, as well as the move to lower wages (another labour cost saving), means the private sector pushes the problem of subsistence on to the gov't to solve or ignore.



Your right, unemployment is unavoidable.  There will always be structural unemployment (persons must upgrade their skills to be employed at an available job) and frictional unemployment (unemployment due to people switching jobs for personal reasons, moving, interests, etc.).  For cyclical unemployment, we do need a safety net so that people who are in dire straits are not forced onto the streets; the Great Depression has shown us that we also need a safety net for when the rug is pulled from under the government as well.

I have seen good ideas of limiting welfare payments to a culmulative of 2 or 3 years in total.  That way, the net is there for those who need it, and those who wish to not work out of laziness can squander it if they so chose, but the tap will eventually run dry on them.



> I feel that we have a moral obligation to look after those less fortunate. This is where I fall on the political spectrum. I think when some say that the welfare bums should get out and be productive, it may not be as easy as it sounds. As for workfare, is that really productive and what are the differences between that and a chain gang?



I feel we have the moral obligation to look after those who have been put out of work for reasons beyond their control.  However, I am against the idea that I should give over a quater of my wealth to others just because they are "less fortunate".  Human beings are remarkably different in abilities and ambitions. Should someone who manages to make $100,000 be penalized for his success by making him support someone who doesn't seem interested in doing anything else then working in a 7/11 and making babies.  A free and open society such as Canada allows for people to maximize their potential; it is not my fault if they chose not to.



> Here's another proposition.  You take a cut in pay and/or hours, so that your company can hire someone else and make them productive members of society. Honestly, I am not willing to do that. And I am not confusing EI with Social Assistance. My feeling on that is instead of cutting benefits, they should be increased to recipients, so as they are able to put more back into the economy while they look for work.



Punish people for success?  EI is something I see routinely abused; two examples are military reservists returning from a class C contract overseas and going onto EI instead of returning to civilian employment; the other is employees of my family business, who take advantage of a situation in order to go on EI instead of staying at work.

A system that allows for laziness will breed laziness.



> This is another long-winded post, but this being an election, issues should be discussed and debate. This is my view, and I admit is flawed in places but it is food for thought.



Long-winded or not, its best we get these issues these issues to the fore and better educate ourselves on what we a really voting for; otherwise we are just falling pray to demagouges.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Jun 2004)

It is normal for people to be one or two paydays away from crisis, although not necessarily the poor house.  Yet we seem to be able to muddle along pretty well.  At least we are no longer one late spring, dry summer, or early winter away from famine.

I agree that the fraud artists and the perennially lazy are a small minority, and they will always be there.  We should accept that there will always be water in the bilges and just make sure we make a reasonable effort to pump it out.  I also agree that the system is not optimally designed to encourage people to move up the income spectrum.  There are a couple of points I would cherry-pick out of the NDP's shopping list, one of them being (if I understand it) to increase the basic personal exemption to $15K (and the other is the desire to push more money down to municipalities).

The bigger you make the social cushion, the more people sit on it and the longer they stay on it.  The normal level of unemployment should probably be around 2%.  It is mostly socialist policy, not capitalist policy, that tends to inflate unemployment numbers.  I would choose to wholly eliminate minimum wages.  Welfare rates are a de facto minimum wage.  Maybe reduction of benefits should be scaled non-linearly to gains in employed income (ie. not 1:1, but initially 1:n - I have no idea what would be optimal for "n" - and increasing to unity in stages).  This would make welfare nearly indistinct from a guaranteed minimum income, but it should be a very low income and there may be other conditions to be met.

Reducing the work week isn't very effective unless we simultaneously eliminate all, or nearly all, of the financial impediments to job creation.  I would prefer to eliminate all of the employer-paid payroll taxes and move them over (along with, initially, an equivalent increase in gross pay) to where we can see them as deductions.  If the cost and continued burden of creating new full-time jobs is near zero, employers will be less likely to seek dodges such as part-time and overtime hours.


----------



## Marauder (3 Jun 2004)

I would also pose the question of who we should consider "less fortunate". What about the punks who have Mommy and Daddy coddle them and pay for everything they have, and then have the brats decide to "run away" to "be their own person" or whatever bullshit. They wind up as unemployable transients, but they are hardly "less fortunate". What about the teen mom who had the opportunity to finish high school and go to college, but decided she'd rather whore herself out to whatever guy came along that fit her idea of making up for Daddy not loving her. Is she "less fortunate" or did she just throw her life away because she chose to make a stupid mistake?
The only people I *want* to keep on their feet and happy are my family and friends. I am my brother's keeper, but not Joe down the street's keeper. The only people who should be subsidized from my tax dollars are those who have a mental illness or physical disability that precludes them from being able to work in any capacity. With the opportunity to finish a high school education for free and however many bursaries & scholarships are out there, and the ROTP program, there are less and less excuses to not become a recipient of a secondary and post secondary education. I don't mind some sort of "safety net", but wholeheartedly agree it should be capped. In my estimation, you should not be able to live off Uncle Maple without returning an investment of work (insert NDHQ joke here ) for any longer than 60 months TOTAL (cumulative). There's helping a fellow Canadian out, and then there is ripping me off blind with taxation to keep slugs on their fat, happy, ignorant ass for generation after generation. Unsat, end stop. As for being one paycheck away from being in crisis, there's been more than one month that I've had to settle for paying rent, utilities, food, and gas and foregoing anything else (like renting a movie or buying some shiny kit from Lightfighter or going out to the pub) in order to be in a position to pay next month's rent. Too many people buy Caddillacs when they can only afford Chevys, and too many people blow extravagent amounts of money on dumb crap like going bar hopping and clubbing, or buying the hot new XBox game, or buying a $2000 watch they can't afford. I've seen all these examples from other uni students, and they never fail to wonder why I would call them jackasses when they were whining they had no cash in the bank. There are times when people get a horrificly bad break, but that's a drop in the pond compared to people who go broke through simple, blatant fiscal irresponsibility. Balancing a checkbook and keeping track of income vs expenses and knowing how much your credit card is burdened are not nuclear physics level stuff. It's all just one more sign of the times where some dickhead would rather have an icy wrist and go rolly in the Benz that have the cash to pay their next goddamn rent check.

And in case it hasn't been made obvious yet, I'm all for the death penalty for murderers (DNA, postitive forensic evidence, and multiple eyewitness needed), child molesters, and kiddie pornographers, and traitorous pieces of shit like the Khadrs. Fasttrack the appeals, then take them out back and tell them to face the ditch. Won't happen even with the Conservatives (too worried about reelection and such, same for all politicans), but just thought I'd clear the air. I do like Harper's idea of canking the faint hope clause, having full sentences being served,   and having sentences served consecutively instead of concurrently (no more volume discounts on crime was the phrase he used that I particularly liked). Wish he'd lower the Young Offender max age to 14 or 13, but again, snowball's chance I know.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Jun 2004)

So Marauder, are you still planning on voting for the NDP?


----------



## Marauder (3 Jun 2004)

Greeeeezy fooking civvys, I swear..... <grumble grumble grumble> Your hair past your shoulders yet? You are going indig arn't ya?  I'll have to mail you some patchouli to drown in when you meet my girl when I get to Van City on Labour Day. 

I'd rather swallow a Browning and take the 9 mil pill than vote for Comrade Organizer Layton and his singing, dancing Commie Revue.

Uhhh, see, now I have to go and wash my hands just for typing his name. Bleah.


----------



## RCA (4 Jun 2004)

I pretty sure that Marauder and I can agree to disagree as we   fall left and right of centre of arc. I won't vote for Harper and what ever party that has evolved as I feel they are the party of intolerance.   However, as said before, one party does not represent a person's total views. For instance, the NDP's instance that military personal increases only be devoted to peacekeeping I find nonsensical.

   No surprise, but I am opposed to the death penalty, just for the simple reason the system isn't perfect and there is no way to justify putting the wrong person to death. And if we were to have the death penalty, there must be an appeals process just to ensure justice is done correctly. No problem with streamlining the process, but if it takes 2 or 10 years, so be it as it behooves us to get it right. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but are not consecutive sentences in the system now. If not then yes, they should be, but they should not mandatory but at the judges discretion. Making anything mandatory in the sentencing ties judges hands as each case is and should be judged separately. Witness the outcry WRT Latimer. As to serving full sentences, is this for all crimes? Is there a place for rewarding good behavior or rehabilitation? Parole has its place (and I agree it shouldn't be mandatory but earned) in that a person can be monitored on the street for a period of time before the actual sentence is completed. The fault in the system in not putting enough resources to do the monitoring, not the actual concept of parole. It is better to have someone on the street being productive, rather then in jail draining resources. And I do believe in longer sentences for certain crimes. For instance pedophilia is incurable and therefore a person cannot be rehabilitated. However, in the scale of things, taking a human life is a worse crime because it is the ultimate crime. The problem it is such an emotional issue. Just remember the system, to be fair and objective, can not be designed by victims, just as much as it can not be designed by criminals.

   Social welfare is a touchy issue with no perfect solution. I am not naÃƒÂ¯ve to believe that it can be a disincentive to work. In Canada, we have decided that we look after the collective as to the oppose to the US concept of individual rights (hence the difference of good government vs. the pursuit of happiness.) Therefore we have decided to be "our brothers keeperâ ? (us opposed to me). As to limiting the amount of years to collect. What happens at the end of that period? Will this individual miraculously decided it is now time to become productive. Or will this person turn to crime as the easier route. Criminals, being stupid in the first place, will get caught and sent to jail for longer periods of time (in keeping with the law and order program) so we end up paying anyway.

   Getting rid of minimum wage and letting the market decide? Good or bad. If companies would pay sustainable wages on there own without being having legislated, I would be all for it. But companies owe their loyalty to their shareholders before their employees. They are rewarded for keeping labour costs as low as possible and it is not their problem whether that employee is below subsistence level or not. 



> "I would prefer to eliminate all of the employer-paid payroll taxes and move them over (along with, initially, an equivalent increase in gross pay) to where we can see them as deductions.â ?


     First the increase in gross pay wouldn't happen. Secondly, WRT EI anyway, since it can only now be normally be collected through layoffs, companies should bare some of the costs of unemployment. CPP, could be eliminated if more companies moved to a system of assisted RRSP programs and they were portable. In this case, it would be fair to shift CPP to the employee.



> "Too many people buy Cadillacs when they can only afford Chevys, and too many people blow extravagant amounts of money on dumb crap like going bar hopping and clubbing, or buying the hot new XBox game, or buying a $2000 watch they can't affordâ ?


     Unfortunately you are probably right, but consumer demand drives this economy, and consumer spending is what untimely creates jobs.



> "What about the teen mom who had the opportunity to finish high school and go to college, but decided she'd rather whore herself out to whatever guy came along that fit her idea of making up for Daddy not loving her.â ?


     Do you honestly believe that enough of these cease that actually exist. Single parenthood is a major issue and teen motherhood is definitely a case of losing opportunities, of which the prick who impregnated her usually gets a way scott-free to carry on with his life.   I don't believe they should marry the girl, but should carry som eof the financial burden for not keeping it in his pants.

The election will be decided on the bread and butter issues such as Health, Education, Law and Order, Defence, etc. Issues such as same sex marriage, abortion are not policy areas, but ones of personal preference with no middle ground to move to and should be ignored as they just become inflammatory and rhetoric.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Jun 2004)

Brother's keeper is one thing.  Brother's controller is another.  If we want wholly public health care and education, fine.  Unfortunately, the proponents then argue that it should give them the right to control what I own and what risks I may take.  If there are to be restrictions imposed with the "gift", I don't want the "gift" in the first place.


----------



## girlfiredup (4 Jun 2004)

Hmmm ok this is really bugging me.   I'm not much of a political individual with highly knowledgeable insight into the political world but a few things cross my mind when I think about those in leadership roles, mainly those running for leadership of a country and how we can ensure that the citizens of a country are all in agreement with a leader and the plan he brings forth for the country prior to being elected.

First off, I think the citizens of a country should be able to vote on the said plan of action and then that plan becomes a covenant agreement between the people of the country and the leader.   Still with me?   I know, maybe this is crazy but it's a slow day at the office.   

So.. let's take ever popular Paul Martin as an example.   He comes up with a "plan" for our country on how he can reduce the deficit while providing us citizens with tax breaks and some other lovely perks (as an example).   His "plan" of action is made public and we, the good citizen, get to view his plan and vote on it prior to the election.   If the vote is unanimous (we like the plan) then he gets to proceed with the running and if elected and he does not follow through with his plan, I say he gets tried in a court of law for treason, breach of contract.. or whatever. Sounds crazy but I think someone needs to be accountable for my tax dollars and millions of other tax dollars going astray.   Make the plan a legal binding document between the cabinet/gov and the canadians or else face the people.


----------



## RCA (4 Jun 2004)

Problem I see is you have 30 million people and 30 million ideas of how things should be. 

The reason behind the political party is that they represent a certain spectrum and people vote for the party that most closely theirs. Majority wins.The minority get to wait 4-5 more years. Not a perfect system but has stop us from anarchy.


----------



## casing (4 Jun 2004)

RCA said:
			
		

> ...30 million ideas of how things should be.



Not really.  Most people can't think for themselves.  One of the reasons for lack of voter turnout.  Also a reason why the same already-proven-to-be-a-liar politicians keep getting voted in over and over.


----------



## girlfiredup (4 Jun 2004)

I'm not saying that the 30 mill ppl with 30 mill views are the ones responsible for implementing those ideas into the plan but they should be able to vote on the plan that the party represents.   We are essentially doing that now but blindly.   How many canadian citizens that actually vote really know what they are voting for?   We have some general idea but we all know that it subject to change. Let's say Harper gets elected and he doesn't come through with his promise to fund the military but instead decides to provide only a 1/4 of what he promised or perhaps nothing at all.   Don't you all think he should be held accountable?   Bottom line is, he really doesn't have to come through with his promises at all and we need a system that will ensure a plan is carried out.


----------



## casing (4 Jun 2004)

GirlFiredUp, I agree with you on the accountability aspect. A problem arises in how best to implement that sort of thing.


----------



## muskrat89 (4 Jun 2004)

Back in the old days C.O.R advocated recall procedures. I think there should be a system where, if the populace feels they have been given a snow-job, they have the ability to "fire" that elected official (see California). It shouldn't be a cakewalk, by any means, and would need to be well thought out. You don't want a system that has "the people" recalling politicians, willy-nilly, for every little thing....on the other hand, it may be a good incentive to a) keep your promises and b) don't make promises if you are not sure that you can keep them....


Note - Don't want to start a "COR-War", but to my knowledge, has been the only party that had an actual platform item, to that effect...


----------



## Infanteer (4 Jun 2004)

Girlfiredup, you are referring to putting public policies to a referredum of sorts.   Many American states practice this quite frequently (California being the most significant case) where bills are put on the ballots, often when local elections are held.   I am not sure that it has proven to a great success, as many people are bombard by a series of bill numbers on their ballot form, or don't have the time to properly educate themselves on the issue.

I don't think I like the idea of sending most issues to the public to vote on.   The key word in the term "representative democracy" is the term represent.   I vote on a Member of Parliament to represent my interests in the legislative matters of the state.   I trust in him as a public figure to explore the issue deeply (which most Canadians have neither the time nor the will to do) and vote in my best interests.   Direct democracy tends to collapse when it is taken beyond the local level, there was complaints about too many citizens with too many diverse opinions in Ancient Athens, so I doubt anything would have changed by now; that is why we have a representative system, it services the Nation State better.

I never really hold politicians to their election promises, because it's easy to say you'll buy an Aircraft Carrier or curb free trade when your running for office, but it's a different story when you're in the hotseat.   Rather than blusterous statements which pertain mostly to ideology, I'd like to see some hard figures in an "action plan" which looks realitisically at statistics and available resources and goes from there.   RCA commented correctly that political spending is a zero sum game, and if politicians promise big changes, you know they have to come from somewhere.

As for the accountability issue, I fully agree.   More stringent auditing of the terms of politicians couldn't hurt.   In Athens, citizens appointed to offices were audited at the end of their one year term; if they were found to be incompetant or corrupt, they were punished accordingly.   Perhaps we could use something like this.   However, we would want to be careful not to stifle innovation and reform for fear of a jail sentence.   Another possiblity I've seen was an interesting idea on how to bring accountability into government spending by reinstating the position of Comptroller General for Canada, which Diefenbaker axed following the Glassco Commision.

Canada's _Receiver General_ takes all funds in for the government.

Canada's _Comptroller General_ signed off on all government expenditures.

Canada's _Auditor General_ makes sure the books are balanced and that nothing fishy is going on.

Checks and balances, the foundation of good democratic order.


----------



## RCA (4 Jun 2004)

The problem with our system is that for those that didn't vote for the winner are not represented fully. Don't see any around that. 

 Recall would be a fine tool   but I feel that it would tend to be used as a weapon and tie up resources better used else where. For every one   hat is in favour, there is another with an axe to grind. (witness California)

 Referendums are a gimmick to so call empower people. Thats what the vote is for We elect and pay people to make decisions. Not t o keep throwing back to us when they the decision is difficult or potentially difficult. As a leader do I make all the decisions in garrison, but when life threatening, take a consensus. I think not.

 Political promises are not contracts. If a politician were  to say he was going to iincrease the military by 5 billion, and have tax cuts of 7 billion would you vote for him. It is up to the voter to get educated. Learn, take everthing with a grain of salt, and believe everything has a spin.

As too a decentralized system, the richer provinces would be for that as it would be in there own best interest to keep as much of their own resources as possible. More people would grgravitite to these provinces because with better economies because of better health care, better education, job prospects etc. Why is Ontario so strong now and we still have a farly centilized system depsite Mulroney. Should hese provinces reap the benifits just because of an accident of geography.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jun 2004)

Not to be too tendentious here but the reason some of my folk went to the Maritimes and stayed was to take advantage of accidents of Geography... Land, trees, fish, coal, the Navy, a bit of Freedom from clan chiefs more interested in sheep than kin.  

They made out not too bad for a while...

Some of them actually made enough to start papers, railways, shipbuilding companies, shipping lines, and even make it to the house of Lords.

Based on their exploitation of accidents of geography.

Sorry aboot the natives.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Jun 2004)

The whole point is to permit (1) and encourage (2) people to migrate.

1) Indeed, not everyone will be satisfied with the result of a federal election.  Heavily centralized Canadian federalism is ultimately "Pay taxes to provide our benefits and shut up.  You were outvoted.  Your job is to provide us with privileges.  Get over it."  (If you don't think some socialist-leaning Canadians enjoy expressing Canadian trends in government that way, think again.)  Some people would like government to have a greater role in their lives, and some would like less.  There will be greater satisfaction overall if we shuffle federal-provincial powers to enable provinces to provide these different environments.  People who want to run their own lives can move to a libertarian-leaning province and enjoy their selfish liberty.  People who want to pay lots of taxes rather than be bothered with premiums and fees can congregate in a socialist-leaning province and enjoy their altruistic comradeship.

2) It reduces unemployment wherever they left, changing the dynamics of the local labour market.  The more migration, the more likely we are to reach unemployment equilibria between regions.  Sitting around waiting for things to get better is not a solution.


----------



## muskrat89 (5 Jun 2004)

So, Mr. Sallows - (and I'm not being argumentative, as I understand your point) Hypothetically speaking, should everyone in the Maritimes migrate? Or, just the unemployed, or the   unemployed as well as those seeking a higher standard of living? I migrated to Maine, and then to Arizona out of economics (and women) but they were for better, more stable jobs. What form do you envision the ideal migration taking?

I do not know the current unemployment figures in Canada, but how would you address it if employment levels were relatively the same between provinces, but not the standard of living? Does migration address that as well?

Just curious. Thanks.


----------



## girlfiredup (5 Jun 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I don't think I like the idea of sending most issues to the public to vote on.   The key word in the term "representative democracy" is the term represent.   I vote on a Member of Parliament to represent my interests in the legislative matters of the state.   I trust in him as a public figure to explore the issue deeply (which most Canadians have neither the time nor the will to do) and vote in my best interests.   Direct democracy tends to collapse when it is taken beyond the local level, there was complaints about too many citizens with too many diverse opinions in Ancient Athens, so I doubt anything would have changed by now; that is why we have a representative system, it services the Nation State better.



Ha.. this sytem has spiraled into one scandal after another with millions of dollars disappearing.   I would like to see the representative I vote for carry out his plan of action and be held accountable to it.   Too many unanswered questions in my opinion.



> I never really hold politicians to their election promises,



So what's the point in casting a vote then?   Might as well just toss the dice or flip a coin.



> I'd like to see some hard figures in an "action plan" which looks realitisically at statistics and available resources and goes from there.



Wha?   You mean to say they aren't operating this way?   So where are they pulling their numbers from?   The sky?   How reassuring.



> As for the accountability issue, I fully agree.   More stringent auditing of the terms of politicians couldn't hurt.



Indeed!   I'm all for that and the sooner the better because one of the 3 stooges and his circus freaks are about to be elected.

Anyway, I should have known better than to get involved in a political debate... I'm way over my head (sort of).


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Jun 2004)

I have no idea, nor do I really care except in the sense of an interested observer who is curious to see how things play out.  I am one of those fools who continues to believe the "invisible hand" can achieve overall better results than government when it comes to determining where people live.  It may not work the way I suggested above.  All I propose is to reduce the money being paid out to cushion people from the consequences of remaining in depressed areas.  About the only thing of which I am completely confident is this: reduce the unidirectional money flow, and something useful is likely to happen.

"Dare to dream, Arnold.  Dare to dream."


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (5 Jun 2004)

Just a quick update for those who do have Healthcare as their number priority.   Harper has just upped the ante big-time by guaranteeing the additional funding Martin has been unwilling to commit to.   More importantly he has identified the absolute need for the Provinces to measure 'results' (which neither the Liberals or NDP are demanding) rather than just throwing money at the problem.   This is essential as the Provinces have a history of diverting Federal Funds to pet projects, or worse simply flushing the money down the toilet by bloating bureaucracy.

Being in the Medical Industry, I'm tellling you that this type of oversight is absolutely essential and it is refreshing that at least one of the party's has finally taken an official stand on it.

I would add, that if they are planning on demanding accountability for expenditures in Healthcare by the Provinces (which is an indirect expenditure), I would also look for demanding greater accountability in the direct expenditures of the various departments in Ottawa.

As a final note, I would just mention that the Conservatives are the only party who has indicated they would dramatically increase the power,   scope and budget of the Auditor General (Sheila Fraser).   I mention this because the media did not really pick up on it, and it's important to recognize that even after Adscam, the Liberals have fought this proposal tooth & nail.   This is important because you have to ask yourself "Why is it a governing party would not want increased transparency in government spending if that spending is in fact kosher?"

In any case, enough editorialization, here's the article...

Enjoy,


Matthew.   

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See Link: *http://hispeed.rogers.com/news/national/story.jsp?cid=n060453A*

Conservatives would spend billions more on health care, Harper says
at 19:01 on June 4, 2004, EST.

Harper outlines his health platform in London Friday. (CP/Jonathan Hayward)LONDON, Ont. (CP) - Stephen Harper says a Conservative government would pump billions of dollars into the health-care system. 

Harper announced Friday that he would boost health transfer payments to the provinces by between $2 billion and $3 billion a year - on top of the $37 billion in extra health funding promised in last year's federal-provincial health accord. The money would come with one condition: that the provinces agree on a list of health indicators that would determine whether health services were improving. 

"We will ensure that health indicators and a list of home-care services are developed as quickly as possible," Harper said, adding that waiting lists are one example of an indicator that would be used. 

"Spending alone is not the solution." 

The Conservatives would also spend up to $800 million a year for a new "catastrophic" drug plan. It would cover prescription drugs costs above $5,000 a year for an individual, and would be federally funded. 

"It is really a federal proposal, but we've said it has to be negotiated with the provinces," Harper said. 

"They may or may not like this model. This is the proposal we will take to them." 

The types of drugs covered under the plan would be worked out with the provinces, Harper said. 

The Liberals accused Harper of copying their platform, but he argued the government has left health care in a sorry state since taking office. 

"When the Liberals were elected in 1993, it took nine weeks from seeing a general practitioner to receiving treatment from a specialist. Now it takes 18 weeks. In 1993, it took five weeks to get radiation treatment for cancer. Now it takes eight weeks." 

Earlier in the day, Harper promised more help for farmers hurt by the mad-cow fallout, but the specifics were scarce. 

At a farm near Hamilton, Harper accused the Liberals of setting up "complex and confusing" aid packages that have provided little direct help to farmers. 

Harper did not promise new programs, but said a Conservative government would ensure that aid flowed more quickly. 

Harper said the most important thing is to have better relations with the United States, which is still limiting beef imports from Canada. 

He said the Liberals have been anti-American, adding that is partly why the U.S. still has restrictions. 

STEVE LAMBERT 


© The Canadian Press, 2003


----------



## Gunnar (5 Jun 2004)

I sometimes hear the question, "Why are you a Liberal?" and
frankly, I have to laugh. Laugh and laugh, because perhaps this
person may tire of my laughing, and he will eventually wander off.
Sometimes I ponder seriously when I hear this question, because I'll
look around and around and there's nobody there asking the question.
Why am I a Liberal?

I am a Liberal because I believe everyone deserves a chance. And if
necessary, a second chance. And if, by the eighth or ninth chance,
this guy needs another chance, I mean, come on. This guy is due.

I am a Liberal because I believe in helping those in need. All of us,
you and I, have an obligation to those less fortunate. You go first,
okay? I'm a little short this week.

I am a Liberal because I believe in the equality of all people,
regardless of their race. That is why I think we should give free
medical degrees to minorities because, well, duh. Like any of those
types are going to make it through medical school.

I am a Liberal because I fervently believe in tolerance. Tolerance is
critical in our diverse society, and if you have a problem with that,
mister, then I will inform the authorities and I bet that after a few
hours in their "special room" you too will agree that
tolerance is critical.

I am a Liberal because I believe that we should take our noses out of
other people's bedrooms. I say we move the noses to their banks and
storage sheds and scout troops, and so forth.

I am a Liberal because I hold sacred freedom of the press, as well as
freedom of the TV and freedom of the movie. Where I draw the line is
freedom of the talk radio, and don't even get me started about that
damn Internet business. 

I am a Liberal because I recognize that education is important. Very,
very, extremely very important. We must increase spending on
education and enact important education reforms, such as eliminating
standardized tests. Because we can never hope to measure this
beautiful, elusive, important thing we call education.

I am a Liberal because I believe in the separation of church and
state. We must stop the religious extremists who want
school-sanctioned prayers. Now, you tell me - with all that chanting
and praying and incense-burning going on, how can our kids
concentrate on the big condom-and-banana midterm?

I am a Liberal because I believe in the rights of women, be they
lawyers or housewives or skanky interns. For too long women have been
the victims of discrimination, and we must target programs to help
these women, and also the various people who have descended from
women.

I am a Liberal because I believe in women's right to choose. I mean,
not a church school or a tax shelter, or something like that,
obviously. Let's be reasonable.

I am a Liberal because I believe in the rule of law. Or, at least,
lawyers. Because hey, according to my attorney, I could have been on
the Number 7 bus when it crashed yesterday. As far as you know.

I am a Liberal because I believe a healthy economy depends on good
jobs at good wages. So fork 'em over, you fat bastard boss man.

I am a Liberal because I believe the government should step in to
create good jobs when that fat bastard boss man moves my good job to
Mexico. Hey, I know! Maybe we can take all the money that boss man
spends on non-job-creating stuff, like solid gold yachts and mink
spats, and use that money to create jobs.

I am a Liberal because I fear the power of giant unrestrained
monopolies, such as Microsoft, Nike, Parker Brothers, Univac and the
Erie Canal Company. The government must wage an unrelenting, all-out
war to crush these scary monopolies to a pulp before they get too
powerful.

I am a Liberal because I believe in a strong military. Strong, yes,
but caring and thoughtful too, and ready to face new challenges. A
military that enjoys long strolls on the beach, cuddling in front of
a warm fire, unafraid to show its vulnerable side. Must be NS/DDF.

I am a Liberal because I believe there is too much violence in
society, especially in our schools. To avoid another Columbine
tragedy, we should have mellow "rap" sessions with at-risk
teens, such as the Goths. The violence will only end after the teen
Goths see that we adults really care, and are "hip" to
their groovy teen Goth scene.

I am a Liberal because I believe in campaign finance reform. Sadly,
our politics are dominated by advertisements, paid for by the
contributions of giant corporations. All too often, these drown out
legitimate grassroots opinions, like the kind heard on
TimeWarner-AOL-CNN, TimesCorp, or Disney-ABC.

I am a Liberal because I believe in public support of the arts. By
"the arts," I of course mean those things made by, or
excreted by, an artist of some sort. It is especially important that
art be provocative and take controversial stances, like opposing
Conrad Black, and so on.

I am a Liberal because I believe in the environment and conservation.
For instance, we must raise the price of gasoline, like they do in
Europe, to increase conservation. If we don't, there will soon be a
big gas shortage, and this will mean higher gasoline prices for you
and me. 

I am a Liberal because I detest greed. Especially the sickening greed
of those who struck it rich in the 1980s, and greedily refuse to give
me any of their stuff.

I am a Liberal because I... hey look! A new episode of Survivor!
Geez, I hope they don't vote off Jenna, she's my favorite.


----------

