Canadian Election

1…678911

Comments

  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    reborncareerist wrote:
    Sure, at least with regards to the second issue. The current system does not favour the Cons a priori. It did on this occasion only because Harper enjoyed a plurality of support this time around. If anything, one could argue that because (historically) the current system has led to a huge preponderence of Lib governments, there may be something about the current system that favours the latter party. I woudn't argue this, but one could ... I think at the end of the day, the current system selects whichever dog leads the race, and that's what it is intended to do.
    I also do not really understand why you are arguing for a prop. rep. system because of the outcome of this election ... Your issue seems to be that all these other parties are "progressive" ... The issue is not therefore the system itself. If all these merry progressives decided to band together to form one giant party, they'd win the next election easily. Its not the system you seem to have a beef with ... Its the current party structure. Am I wrong? I have also assessed a lot of folks today, my brain's fried ... Please explain to me how exactly a prop. rep. system would have led to a different outcome here?

    no ... i wouldn't want the ndp'ers and/or greens to compromise their values like the progressive conservatives did ...

    the current conservative party runs as a dictatorship and i won't support a party that governs as such ...

    i believe a minority gov't with a progressive agenda is best for canada - that is harder to obtain with our crrent electoral system ...

    i don't have a problem with the current party structures except for the fact the electoral system favours the conservatives now ...
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    Thecure wrote:
    wow Roland i agree with you on this one, but i woudl say that we don't just need teh news to report this stuff what we need is to get out more.


    The media when controlled by a select few (which it is) can be used, and is often used as an apparatus to control people's daily thoughts and realities. An individual can travel the world all they like, but if the water is tainted and exported and linked to various other international depots i.e. media outlets, it's not going to make much of an overall change unless tomorrow everyone started traveling the globe learning about other cultures first hand. And as a limiting factor, I'm not sure how many are comfortable with heading in to war zones to actually see for themselves. Most veterans speak out against the war, and wind up homeless and broken in the head because of it. The adage politicians start wars not people comes to mind, and they have to sell a war (using lies and deceit via the media) on top of it.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    reborncareerist wrote:
    All Canadians do not share the same values! Why do you think there are four so-called progressive parties instead of one?

    exactly!! ... with proportional representation we would get those voices heard ... right now - we are going to have a large majority of the population not being heard ...
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    Thecure wrote:
    i remember once someone saying something along teh lines of the winners write history. kindof believe that.


    Victors write the history books, which becomes mainstream ideology taught in schools and broadcast by the media. It's at the level now where people who question it are labeled either stupid or crazy, or both. However many are beginning to realize that repeating patterns are emerging across generations. Most of what is going on now is becoming predictable. See Naomi Wolf, Naomi Klein. None of what is going on right now is new. It's a refined formula taken from past failed democracies.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • haffajappa
    haffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    polaris wrote:
    where are all the pot smoking hippies when ya need them?
    i tried my best.
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    polaris wrote:
    exactly!! ... with proportional representation we would get those voices heard ... right now - we are going to have a large majority of the population not being heard ...

    I don't know how much to believe them, but the Cons have been the party who has been most vocal about democratic reforms.
    As for the issue of not being heard ... I believe that even under a prop. rep. system, we'd STILL have a Harper minority government. I still take odds with the view that the Libs and Bloc represent a good agenda for Canadians, but even assuming that's true, you'd have to get these people together, on the same page, for this 62% of Canadians to get their way on environmental issues. Again, the issue is that there are many opinions in Canada, such that this 62%, while they may like a carbon tax, still cannot agree on other issues (sovereignty of Quebec, how to manage the corporate sector in Canada, extent of taxation, etc. etc.).
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    reborncareerist wrote:
    , but even assuming that's true, you'd have to get these people together, on the same page, for this 62% of Canadians to get their way on environmental issues. Again, the issue is that there are many opinions in Canada, such that this 62%, while they may like a carbon tax, still cannot agree on other issues


    The thing is though it is not 62% of Canadians, it is 62% of Canadians who voted, which based on the percentage of people who voted is actually only around 35%, the other 65% of eligible voters are either happy with what they got, or don't care.
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    The thing is though it is not 62% of Canadians, it is 62% of Canadians who voted, which based on the percentage of people who voted is actually only around 35%, the other 65% of eligible voters are either happy with what they got, or don't care.

    Possible, yes. I was just using that figure because polaris did. One could question the validity of the 62% figure in other ways, too. Did all those people vote the way they did because they support a progressive agenda, or do they want Quebec to split, or did they buy into Danny Williams' rhetoric about Harper (I love how he's willing to "get past" the dispute but he still has to get his potshots in, the guy just comes off as a douchebag lately), or did they just buy into the fearmongering that surrounds the Tories every election? Who really knows?
    One could of course make the same sorts of arguments about the Con voters too.
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    polaris wrote:
    harper's plan is nothing but another cutting on services for the sake of tax cuts ... NO ONE related to early child learning or day care support the conservative plan ...

    $1.60 a day to help care for a child so parents can work is useless ...


    I never really understood at what point daycare became the equivalent of health care in that it should be something the government should pay for. I mean eventually everyone will need a doctor in a lot of ways getting sick or getting hurt is totally out of a person’s control. Having a baby on the other hand is something that is pretty easy to control, so if you can make a choice to have a kid, why should you expect the government to pay for its daycare (on top of all the other tax breaks you get for having a kid). I chose to buy a new car last year, should I expect the government to make my car payments? I would happily take $100 month if they wanted to give it to me, but I don’t expect it.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    I never really understood at what point daycare became the equivalent of health care in that it should be something the government should pay for. I mean eventually everyone will need a doctor in a lot of ways getting sick or getting hurt is totally out of a person’s control. Having a baby on the other hand is something that is pretty easy to control, so if you can make a choice to have a kid, why should you expect the government to pay for its daycare (on top of all the other tax breaks you get for having a kid). I chose to buy a new car last year, should I expect the government to make my car payments? I would happily take $100 month if they wanted to give it to me, but I don’t expect it.

    it's a social service ... like community programs ... the idea being that by subsidizing child care (and that's what we're talking about) - it will allow parents (single or otherwise) the opportunity to work and thus be able to live and not potentially work off other programs ...
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    reborncareerist wrote:
    I don't know how much to believe them, but the Cons have been the party who has been most vocal about democratic reforms.
    As for the issue of not being heard ... I believe that even under a prop. rep. system, we'd STILL have a Harper minority government. I still take odds with the view that the Libs and Bloc represent a good agenda for Canadians, but even assuming that's true, you'd have to get these people together, on the same page, for this 62% of Canadians to get their way on environmental issues. Again, the issue is that there are many opinions in Canada, such that this 62%, while they may like a carbon tax, still cannot agree on other issues (sovereignty of Quebec, how to manage the corporate sector in Canada, extent of taxation, etc. etc.).

    they are only interested in senate reform ... their fixed election date thing pretty much went out the window ...

    under a proportional representation system - we'd have green seats and a lot more ndp seats ... to the point that the liberals and ndp could form a coalition gov't possibly ...

    yes - there are differences of opinions and strategies but if you look at the core issues and approach ... those 62% are far more similar than they are different ... which is pretty much opposite from the conservatives ...
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    polaris wrote:
    it's a social service ... like community programs ... the idea being that by subsidizing child care (and that's what we're talking about) - it will allow parents (single or otherwise) the opportunity to work and thus be able to live and not potentially work off other programs ...


    But what I find kind of annoying is that parents all ready get a ton of tax breaks, credits and other bonuses for having kids (which is a choice they make), why do they need free, or almost free daycare on top of that. If your logic is that free daycare will allow parents to work, well when I bought my new car it was because my old car was pretty much dead and I needed a car to get to work, but I don't expect the government tu subsidize my car payments because it was my choice to have a new car.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    But what I find kind of annoying is that parents all ready get a ton of tax breaks, credits and other bonuses for having kids (which is a choice they make), why do they need free, or almost free daycare on top of that. If your logic is that free daycare will allow parents to work, well when I bought my new car it was because my old car was pretty much dead and I needed a car to get to work, but I don't expect the government tu subsidize my car payments because it was my choice to have a new car.

    your car is essentially subsidized through the price of gas ... which is subsidized ...

    again - if you don't think affordable day care (which still is around $20 a day - not free) is a program the gov't should not help fund - then you should probably vote conservative ... i on the other hand - feel differently ... i believe in a social infrastructure that doesn't create a prosperity gap because i believe i am better off if the rest of canadians are better off ...

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/daycare/daycarecosts.html
  • haffajappa
    haffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    I never really understood at what point daycare became the equivalent of health care in that it should be something the government should pay for. I mean eventually everyone will need a doctor in a lot of ways getting sick or getting hurt is totally out of a person’s control. Having a baby on the other hand is something that is pretty easy to control, so if you can make a choice to have a kid, why should you expect the government to pay for its daycare (on top of all the other tax breaks you get for having a kid). I chose to buy a new car last year, should I expect the government to make my car payments? I would happily take $100 month if they wanted to give it to me, but I don’t expect it.
    polaris wrote:
    it's a social service ... like community programs ... the idea being that by subsidizing child care (and that's what we're talking about) - it will allow parents (single or otherwise) the opportunity to work and thus be able to live and not potentially work off other programs ...

    when i was really small, my mom had my brother and I in daycare while my dad was still in Japan... she said she spent nearly all her paycheque on gas, food and daycare and had nothing left.

    luckily, it was only temporary and my grandparents took care of us when my parents were working...

    but i don't think everyone has the luxury of grandparents or relatives to look after their children... but how do you make ends meet then to feed your kids?

    i mean, don't get me wrong, i'm one of those people who is easily disgusted at people having 30 kids (cos i cringe at the amount of diapers alone that is wasting, not to mention the fact that humans are populated enough) and i'm even more disgusted when people keep popping out children when they can't afford them...

    but for the average family of one or two or even four children to feed, it can be a HUGE chunk of your wage just dishing out for childcare, and like polaris said, that just equals government support in other areas.
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    sooo ... harper basically follows dion's plan for the economy after berating him for the final weeks on it ... do people not see the phoniness in this guy?
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    doin'the-evolution wrote:
    but i don't think everyone has the luxury of grandparents or relatives to look after their children... but how do you make ends meet then to feed your kids?

    i mean, don't get me wrong, i'm one of those people who is easily disgusted at people having 30 kids (cos i cringe at the amount of diapers alone that is wasting, not to mention the fact that humans are populated enough) and i'm even more disgusted when people keep popping out children when they can't afford them...

    but for the average family of one or two or even four children to feed, it can be a HUGE chunk of your wage just dishing out for childcare, and like polaris said, that just equals government support in other areas.

    I think for me what bothers me about it is that when I do my taxes every year I see all those legitimate tax credits and breaks you get for having kids, which seem to be quite a bit (not to mention all of the extra sneaky tax things you can do when you have kids). But on top of that money people are already getting some people think they should get government funded daycare too. When does it stop? I think I read somewhere that the cost of raising a child to 18 years is around $180,000-$200,000. So why not just have the government cut the parents a cheque for 200 grand each time they have a kid?

    I agree that child care is a significant expense, but I think that is something that parents need to consider before they have kids, and if they can't afford it maybe put off having kids until they are able to pay for them, rather than having them and assuming that things will be taken care of.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    I think for me what bothers me about it is that when I do my taxes every year I see all those legitimate tax credits and breaks you get for having kids, which seem to be quite a bit (not to mention all of the extra sneaky tax things you can do when you have kids). But on top of that money people are already getting some people think they should get government funded daycare too. When does it stop? I think I read somewhere that the cost of raising a child to 18 years is around $180,000-$200,000. So why not just have the government cut the parents a cheque for 200 grand each time they have a kid?

    I agree that child care is a significant expense, but I think that is something that parents need to consider before they have kids, and if they can't afford it maybe put off having kids until they are able to pay for them, rather than having them and assuming that things will be taken care of.

    well ... you're talking about a larger issue here ... the issue is whether or not having kids is good for the country ... someone somewhere decided it was ... possibly in order to ensure there are people that will contribute to the gov't coffers as the population grows older ...

    again - if you feel benefits for children that are wide ranging is not something you care about - vote conservative as you have done ...
  • haffajappa
    haffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    polaris wrote:
    well ... you're talking about a larger issue here ... the issue is whether or not having kids is good for the country ... someone somewhere decided it was ... possibly in order to ensure there are people that will contribute to the gov't coffers as the population grows older ...

    again - if you feel benefits for children that are wide ranging is not something you care about - vote conservative as you have done ...
    or if you'd rather support the tar sands than support being able to breathe... vote conservative.
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    doin'the-evolution wrote:
    or if you'd rather support the tar sands than support being able to breathe... vote conservative.

    it's why we focus on US politics ... if bush didn't get elected in 2000 - there wouldn't be nearly the development in the tar sands now ... our only hope on that front is to see oil drop in value ...
  • haffajappa
    haffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    polaris wrote:
    it's why we focus on US politics ... if bush didn't get elected in 2000 - there wouldn't be nearly the development in the tar sands now ... our only hope on that front is to see oil drop in value ...
    drill baby drill! :rolleyes:

    harper only briefly touched on environmental issues because he knew he HAD to ...it was one of the main issues of this election... but hes got no big plans for trying to save anything... i'm sure he's got this 'god made the earth for humans to leech off' bull shit attitude.. of course that's an assumption... but he's given me no inclination that he wants to help the earth....

    urgghhh the guy just pisses me off, but i knew he'd get in. at least no majority, so i'm thankful for that.
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam

Categories