NDP policy convention this weekend...

[Kobasew fan]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Increasing taxes isn't obvious at all. In fact it was the Conservatives with the GST who last increased our taxes and Mulroney is still hated for it today. Even if our taxes are increased, not that I want this, if it is accompanied by increased services, we have chance to vote on what we want. Try to quit repeating dogma without thought and your ideas will go farther.

As for getting out of Afghanistan, I don't agree with it, but it has nothing to do with gutting the military.

So if increasing taxes isn't obvious, than how will all these proposals by the NDP be accomplished. They all cost more money. The only other things I can think of how to fund these programs are to either cut other programs (highly unlikely under an NDP government) or to stop paying down our debt. Unfortunatly under an NDP government I can see this being done, which is not fiscally responsible at all.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Increasing taxes isn't obvious at all. In fact it was the Conservatives with the GST who last increased our taxes and Mulroney is still hated for it today. Even if our taxes are increased, not that I want this, if it is accompanied by increased services, we have chance to vote on what we want. Try to quit repeating dogma without thought and your ideas will go farther.

As for getting out of Afghanistan, I don't agree with it, but it has nothing to do with gutting the military.

Well lets not get to carried away here. The PCs dropped a hidden tax and instituted the 7% GST...in retrospect they should have left things as they were. To suggest the Liberals of the last decade didnt raise taxes is ludicrous.
The purpose of the national sales tax was to replace the 13.5% Manufacturers' Sales Tax (MST) that the federal government imposed at the wholesale level on manufactured goods. Manufacturers were concerned that the tax hurt their international competitiveness. The GST also replaced the Federal Telecommunications Tax of 11%.

Every Government whether its Conservative, Liberal or NDP tries to grab our cash in any way possible. Even Conservative Alberta has Government fees for everything...not to mention the silly slot machines that grab millions of dollars a year from willing participants.
Taxes take many different forms.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Every Government whether its Conservative, Liberal or NDP tries to grab our cash in any way possible. Even Conservative Alberta has Government fees for everything...not to mention the silly slot machines that grab millions of dollars a year from willing participants.
Taxes take many different forms.

Yup--a sales tax is a tax on the poor. A VLT is a tax on the stupid.

As for the NDP and their policy planks, a few thoughts:

For Azure: the Canadian health care system has its problems, not least of which is that it's kind of a grab bag of fee-for-service and double billing, etc. etc., depending what services you need. But the US system is far worse. Not only is the US failing to provide affordable health care to its citizens (a prerequisite for a civilized country, IMO) but the health care they DO provide is unconscionably expensive. Per capita, Canada's health care system is cheaper and far more efficient--and so yes, I think the US would do well to follow our example. Whether the current system is too entrenched is another issue--as always, there's what should be done and what can be done in the world of politics, and they're not always the same.

On the issue of electoral reform: moving toward a U.S. style system is a mistake. Canada's electoral system isn't perfect, but it does have one thing going for it: simplicity. In the long term this reduces the infrastructural cost of running elections and makes fraud easier to police.

Military spending: my view is that with the U.S. ever more brazenly pursuing its own self-interest, Canada has no choice but to do the same. This means we need to have the military might to act unilaterally in our own interest if we see the need. Moreover, we've depended for too long on the protection of the big stick of our neighbours to the south--we clearly can't do that any longer, in part because the U.S.' military is dangerously overcommitted. For these reasons I actually favour vastly more military spending than we have currently. Europe is starting to understand this problem--so should we.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Increasing taxes isn't obvious at all.

Sure it is. How else would they provide the numerous services the NDP outlines in their party platform?

The farther left you go, in theory, the more taxes there are. How much tax does Sweden pay?

In fact it was the Conservatives with the GST who last increased our taxes and Mulroney is still hated for it today.

Yes.

Even if our taxes are increased, not that I want this, if it is accompanied by increased services, we have chance to vote on what we want.

And I hope we always vote against it.

As for getting out of Afghanistan, I don't agree with it, but it has nothing to do with gutting the military.

It shows the stance of the NDP regarding the military. If said in their party platform that Canadian troops will be sent abroad according to international security and peace organization wishes, why do they want to pull out of Afghanistan?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

I would like to know where this money, you claim is being thrown at the problem, is coming from? Because it sure isn't coming from the government...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/

Read here...

41 billion over the next 10 years. EDIT: My bad.

And you do realize that it would obviously cost the same per capita, if not less, as it does for Canadians?

It already costs the US per capita more then it does Canada. It also costs the US more as a percent of their GDP, and more US government revenue as a percentage is spend on health care, then any of the other top 7 countries in regards to life expectancy.

So if the US spends around 14% of their GDP on Health Care, and provides only 44% of the people in the US with that health care, they would have to almost double the amount they spend as a percent to the GDP. So from 14% you get 28%, and around 3-4 trillion dollars. Talk about going a rising debt and deficit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada

You're making predictions without looking at history or the facts. This first province in Canada that installed medicare was governed by the NDP and balanced the budget. For the past number of years Canada has maintained it's public health care while LOWERING the defecit. If there is a country on this planet that CAN afford public health care, it is the US.

I never said they couldn't afford it. The cost would just be huge.

Right, and Canada is a much more socially progressive nation so raising taxes to strengthen the military doesn't bode well with many citizens.

What does socially progressive have to do with supporting the military?

And it's for reasons like this I am glad there is an NDP, so people like you will never gain complete control of this country and everything that is great about it.

And I'm also glad the NDP will never get into power.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

On the issue of electoral reform: moving toward a U.S. style system is a mistake. Canada's electoral system isn't perfect, but it does have one thing going for it: simplicity. In the long term this reduces the infrastructural cost of running elections and makes fraud easier to police.

Agreed.

We could used elected senators though. And proportional representation would be nice as well.

For these reasons I actually favour vastly more military spending than we have currently. Europe is starting to understand this problem--so should we.

Agreed as well.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Azure

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/

Read here...

41 billion over the next 10 years. Thats more then 1 billion per person in Canada.

There's less than 40 people in Canada?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by octothorp

There's less than 40 people in Canada?

Whoops.

My bad.

[JimmytheT]

Originally Posted by evman150

I would say they are, in fact, the opposite.

Norway, Sweden and to a lesser extent New Zealand are three of the best countries in the world.

In the early 90s these countries were in such a fiscal inbalance that they could no longer borrow funds. As a result a public construction was ptu on hold, and general maintenence on things such as sewer lines was not able to get done.

No it was not "hell on earth", but there was instances in New Zealand for example, where a sewer would back up, behind somebodies house and the government had no money to do anything about it.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

It already costs the US per capita more then it does Canada. It also costs the US more as a percent of their GDP, and more US government revenue as a percentage is spend on health care, then any of the other top 7 countries in regards to life expectancy.

So if the US spends around 14% of their GDP on Health Care, and provides only 44% of the people in the US with that health care, they would have to almost double the amount they spend as a percent to the GDP. So from 14% you get 28%, and around 3-4 trillion dollars. Talk about going a rising debt and deficit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada



I never said they couldn't afford it. The cost would just be huge.



What does socially progressive have to do with supporting the military?



And I'm also glad the NDP will never get into power.

All your American health care figures show is that their present system is horribly ineffecient. They are paying top dollar and can only provide care for 44% of the population. They are in a bigger crises by far than we are. If they followed our system, without private companies raking off their profits, their 14% of the GNP should drop. Our health care system isn't perfect, but like democracy it's the best alternative.

Socially progressive, to me, means not having to settle our disputes with force. The military is force, so it should be a last resort, not used and funded with out thought.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

All your American health care figures show is that their present system is horribly ineffecient. They are paying top dollar and can only provide care for 44% of the population. They are in a bigger crises by far than we are. If they followed our system, without private companies raking off their profits, their 14% of the GNP should drop. Our health care system isn't perfect, but like democracy it's the best alternative.

Socially progressive, to me, means not having to settle our disputes with force. The military is force, so it should be a last resort, not used and funded with out thought.

I think it's been shown that a two-tier model is best like they have in alot of European countries.

[White Doors]

[quote
Socially progressive, to me, means not having to settle our disputes with force. The military is force, so it should be a last resort, not used and funded with out thought.[/quote]

Like in Afghanistan that was sanctioned by the UN?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by JimmytheT

In the early 90s these countries were in such a fiscal inbalance that they could no longer borrow funds. As a result a public construction was ptu on hold, and general maintenence on things such as sewer lines was not able to get done.

No it was not "hell on earth", but there was instances in New Zealand for example, where a sewer would back up, behind somebodies house and the government had no money to do anything about it.

I'd just like to add that socialist govt.s don't have a monopoly on going in debt. Just look south to the neocons in the States.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by White Doors

[quote
Socially progressive, to me, means not having to settle our disputes with force. The military is force, so it should be a last resort, not used and funded with out thought.

Like in Afghanistan that was sanctioned by the UN?[/quote]

No, I'm in favor of staying in Afghanistan at present, but as a general rule I feel man should strive to eliminate war. You don't?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I'd just like to add that socialist govt.s don't have a monopoly on going in debt. Just look south to the neocons in the States.

Neocons didn't create the debt.

They just aren't fixing it.

[longsuffering]

I am NOT an NDP supporter or a supporter of many of the proposals listed in the original posters link but I am confused as heck by JimmytheT's comment.

What exactly does this mean? Learned what?

Originally Posted by JimmytheT

... haven't they learned from New Zealand, Norway or Sweden?

Economist magazine rates Norway 3rd, Sweden 5th and New Zealand 15th (one notch below Canada) in their 2005 Quality of Life index, so I'm not sure what lessons you're referring to.

Originally Posted by Azure

The farther left you go, in theory, the more taxes there are. How much tax does Sweden pay?

And Azure my young friend, don't get so caught up in the notion that taxes are bad. Taxes, if well spent, obviously can play an important role in the quality of life for a countries citizenry.

I recall reading a poll (I'm too lazy to look for the link but I'm sure someone will correct me if my memory is faulty) which stated that a majority of citizens in many of the EU countries feel that higher taxes are a fair price to pay for a higher overall standard of living, including better access to education and health care.

[Azure]

All your American health care figures show is that their present system is horribly ineffecient. They are paying top dollar and can only provide care for 44% of the population. They are in a bigger crises by far than we are. If they followed our system, without private companies raking off their profits, their 14% of the GNP should drop. Our health care system isn't perfect, but like democracy it's the best alternative.

The US would never follow our system.

As a country, they value the idea of choice more then us Canadians.

But lets for the sake of agreeing say they DO follow our system. I'm pretty sure they would spend more on Health Care then they do on the military. Probably around 1 trillion dollars.

Socially progressive, to me, means not having to settle our disputes with force. The military is force, so it should be a last resort, not used and funded with out thought.

Sometimes the only way to settle a dispute is through brute force.

Also, the military is not always used as 'force.' There are many branches within the military that do other things. Army Corps of Engineers, Parajumpers, etc, etc.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Like in Afghanistan that was sanctioned by the UN?

No, I'm in favor of staying in Afghanistan at present, but as a general rule I feel man should strive to eliminate war. You don't?

Does that mean we should strive to eliminate the military as well?

Which branch do we gut first?

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Azure

Neocons didn't create the debt.

Check your facts. The US defiicit has increased substantially during GWB's tenure.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

And Azure my young friend, don't get so caught up in the notion that taxes are bad. Taxes, if well spent, obviously can play an important role in the quality of life for a countries citizenry.

I realize that. But people in Canada go crazy over such things as the GST. I don't think a huge tax increase would pass without problems.

Plus, we are not a socialist country.