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 ...
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.
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 ...
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 ...
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.
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?
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.
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 ...
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.
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 ...
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.
Actually the population, or at least 44 percent of them don't seem to give a shit either way. If parties (uncluding the Greens and their 7%) want more representation, chase after 44% and find a way to reach and inspire them, rather than going through all the effort to change the system which wouldn't really make much of a difference anyways.
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.
I think the thing that pissed me off most about the environmental issues of this election was actually the green party. May had a national commercial where she talked about how important the pulp and paper industry was to the economy. Now I agree with this, but you would think that the leader of the green party would recoginize that pulp mills are also some of the biggest polluters in Canada. I was surprised there was no mention of that or at least some sort of qualifier that there has to be a comprimise.
I think the thing that pissed me off most about the environmental issues of this election was actually the green party. May had a national commercial where she talked about how important the pulp and paper industry was to the economy. Now I agree with this, but you would think that the leader of the green party would recoginize that pulp mills are also some of the biggest polluters in Canada. I was surprised there was no mention of that or at least some sort of qualifier that there has to be a comprimise.
I didn't see that commercial, nor do I know much about pulp and paper or what the issue and context of the issue was... so it would be unfair for me to say anything on that matter.
One of my biggest problems with Harper having a majority is -though i'm seeing things simplistically- I find Harper to be very stuck in the past and the direction he could take this country would be going in a backwards direction as far as certain political decisions are concerned... What I mean is, this is a guy who is more focused on trying to criminalize marijuana completely and ban same sex marriages because the bible says so, than he is focused on doing something constructive to work on environment issues. We're having a huge salmon crisis on the northwest coast... and because of it a lot of marine life is in critical danger... or the entire problem with the alberta tar sands...
What else makes me question his motives is the fact that he was ashamed Canada didn't go to Iraq... he full on backed W and was disgusted we didn't go. Is that someone who I want with a majority government? He cut 45 million dollars to arts funding, and doesn't acknowledge artists as 'real people'.
So, war mongering culture stifling dolt, arrogantly calling an election to go for majority government? Thats the question I've started to ask about this guy.
And for the record, this was my first time voting... I've never been tied to a political party at all, I never actually took interest. I started researching all the parties without bias - because, I knew nothing about them anyways and never even took interest... What I mean is, I was a fresh slate, and this is the impression that the Conservatives have given me.
Comments
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 ...
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
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.
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 ...
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 ...
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.
Feel free to explain it to me if you think you do.
I think the thing that pissed me off most about the environmental issues of this election was actually the green party. May had a national commercial where she talked about how important the pulp and paper industry was to the economy. Now I agree with this, but you would think that the leader of the green party would recoginize that pulp mills are also some of the biggest polluters in Canada. I was surprised there was no mention of that or at least some sort of qualifier that there has to be a comprimise.
One of my biggest problems with Harper having a majority is -though i'm seeing things simplistically- I find Harper to be very stuck in the past and the direction he could take this country would be going in a backwards direction as far as certain political decisions are concerned... What I mean is, this is a guy who is more focused on trying to criminalize marijuana completely and ban same sex marriages because the bible says so, than he is focused on doing something constructive to work on environment issues. We're having a huge salmon crisis on the northwest coast... and because of it a lot of marine life is in critical danger... or the entire problem with the alberta tar sands...
What else makes me question his motives is the fact that he was ashamed Canada didn't go to Iraq... he full on backed W and was disgusted we didn't go. Is that someone who I want with a majority government? He cut 45 million dollars to arts funding, and doesn't acknowledge artists as 'real people'.
So, war mongering culture stifling dolt, arrogantly calling an election to go for majority government? Thats the question I've started to ask about this guy.
And for the record, this was my first time voting... I've never been tied to a political party at all, I never actually took interest. I started researching all the parties without bias - because, I knew nothing about them anyways and never even took interest... What I mean is, I was a fresh slate, and this is the impression that the Conservatives have given me.