We want more free money

[Flames in 07]

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...2f3156&k=50624

More news about the bonding of Canada through free hand outs

the Saskatchewan premier now wants to negotiate a "Saskatchewan Accord", similar to the Atlantic Accord, which was a one off gift to give Atl provinces more free money, above the free money they get through the equalization system.

He's appauled that the premier has not called him back. If I was in Saskatchewan I'd be appauled that my leader wants to focus more energy on freebies rather than running the province more responsibly.

Which part of equalization is good, absolutely nobody in the country likes it, either because they pay money into it, or because the benefiting provinces want more.

[Thunderball]

Somehow it just wouldn't be Canada if there wasn't mass redistribution of money to prop up inefficiency and incompetence. Without money transfers, the country would lose its policy on placating Quebec.

Don't be too surprised, Canada's real motto should be "where's my cheque".

[BlackArcher101]

You mean appalled?

[Agamemnon]

Wow... the generalizations/simplifications here are staggering.

If you really want to see this debate from both sides, take a look at a thread we just had discussing the same thing.

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...t=equalization

[Thunderball]

I'm not talking about equalization specifically... moreso, the way our Country is governed on mediocrity, and spending its way out of important issues that require more than a cheque.

Quebec federalism need a boost... here's a cheque... Natives are upset... shake the money tree. Never mind actually thinking about the issue...

Then come the "me-too" provinces. Atlantic Canada is guaranteed "relatively equal" infrastructure as Alberta or Ontario... fair enough, (even if "relatively equal" is very ambiguous) so when equalization doesn't provide enough money because many of these provinces are run by spendthrift politicians with incompetent policies... well, better give them more (Atlantic Accord). Now Lorne sees this, and says, "me too." Why not, right? If Atlantic Canada gets money since the economy is mediocre there, surely Saskatchewan should have its own payout, erm, Accord... I mean, it was a mediocre growing season. Never mind the fact that it is their own incompetent policy and constrictive taxation that keeps their economy in the toilet relative to Alberta, despite the fact that half the oilsands are on their side. But Saskatchewan won't get anything extra due to one reason... low population and a conservative stronghold. No need to buy votes there.

Liberals and PCs (really, thats what Harper is now) are exactly the same, because the Canadian political game is all about bribing people to be happy, complacent and satisfactory to 155/308 ridings. Why deal with contentious issues with the Aboriginals and the Quebecois when you have the financial ability to pour money down their gullet to shut them up. As Conrad Black said, "Canada is governed by compromise and ruled by mediocrity."

[worth]

Give me my money back Federal Government God Damnit!

[skins]

I thought this was going to be about "Ralph Bucks". I could use some more of those...

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

As Conrad Black said, "Canada is governed by compromise and ruled by mediocrity."

You put value in the words of Conrad Black?!?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

You put value in the words of Conrad Black?!?

He doesn't have to... that statement stands all by itself.

Great points by Thunderball. Fiscal equalization transfers do not exist for the sweet socialist purpose of promoting economic parity in this country. They exist to buy off ridings and make the tough problems of the seemingly disappear.

Great example of the extremities is our Aboriginal population. Kept silent in squalor for so many years. We haven't even tried to fix that issue on a societal/cultural basis.

[Devils'Advocate]

I'm afraid to ask what your "fix" is.

[Resolute 14]

:::Notes that Calvert is an New Democrat and disregards his complaints entirely:::

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I'm afraid to ask what your "fix" is.

Haha, the classic response from the left... Change must be racist and radical, right? Oh so comfortable with the status quo.

How about allowing aboriginals to take control of their lives, instead of near-totalitarian manipulation by the government. How about privatizing the reserves and actually giving title to the Indians living there. Allowing them to buy and sell land that they want.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by peter12

Haha, the classic response from the left... Change must be racist and radical, right? Oh so comfortable with the status quo.

How about allowing aboriginals to take control of their lives, instead of near-totalitarian manipulation by the government. How about privatizing the reserves and actually giving title to the Indians living there. Allowing them to buy and sell land that they want.

I'd say you and I should go run for federal office in 20 or so years, but what's the point. The average Canadian thinks a lot like Devils'Advocate... change is scary and must be racist, sexist and/or evil.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I'd say you and I should go run for federal office in 20 or so years, but what's the point. The average Canadian thinks a lot like Devils'Advocate... change is scary and must be racist, sexist and/or evil.

Did he say that in another thread...? Because he didn't say anything like that here... Do you guys honestly believe there's a dead-simple solution to the 'native problem', and you're among the few with the balls to do it? Nicely cut and dry.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by peter12

Haha, the classic response from the left... Change must be racist and radical, right? Oh so comfortable with the status quo.

How about allowing aboriginals to take control of their lives, instead of near-totalitarian manipulation by the government. How about privatizing the reserves and actually giving title to the Indians living there. Allowing them to buy and sell land that they want.

1) Indians?

2) They would be immediatly set upon by developer vultures.

The abuse that the Federal goverment is guilty of on the Aboriginals is more complicated to fix then just cutting them loose. They have massive social illnesses that need to be address before their culture can be able to stand on it's own.

In principal, I agree that they should be given full title to their treated land, but there are siginificant things to tackle before hand.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by llama64

1) Indians?

2) They would be immediatly set upon by developer vultures.

The abuse that the Federal goverment is guilty of on the Aboriginals is more complicated to fix then just cutting them loose. They have massive social illnesses that need to be address before their culture can be able to stand on it's own.

In principal, I agree that they should be given full title to their treated land, but there are siginificant things to tackle before hand.

1) Indians and aboriginals are both politically charged terms. Neither is more correct than the other. It's actually more respectful to refer to each band by their own name.

2) I never said the solution was going to be easy. It's a mess. Doesn't help that certain stakeholders have radicalized the movement for their personal gain.

Somebody does need the balls to do something. Any significant policy change must start with the political will. Who right now in Canada has that political will? Nobody.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Did he say that in another thread...? Because he didn't say anything like that here... Do you guys honestly believe there's a dead-simple solution to the 'native problem', and you're among the few with the balls to do it? Nicely cut and dry.

Its not cut and dry... in fact, quite the opposite. But throwing money at the problem and watching many reserves degenerate into 3rd world countries is not the solution either. It would be nice if Canada had the balls to elect a politician with the guts to sit down with the bands and actually figure out a long term solution that actually worked.

The "simple" part is recognizing that our politicians in the last 45 years have all followed the same game plan. Bribe regions, and peoples, and stuff their problems for a while.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by peter12

1) Indians and aboriginals are both politically charged terms. Neither is more correct than the other. It's actually more respectful to refer to each band by their own name.

2) I never said the solution was going to be easy. It's a mess. Doesn't help that certain stakeholders have radicalized the movement for their personal gain.

Somebody does need the balls to do something. Any significant policy change must start with the political will. Who right now in Canada has that political will? Nobody.

Aboriginals is a culturally approved term, Indians is just plain incorrect. You could be talking about two distinct and unrelated cultural groups by using it.

Of course nobody has the political will to do anything! It's Canada! I hate to say it, but I think the culture of hand outs is directly related to our transitory democratic government. Everyone has a set term of a few years, which means problems can be passed on to future governments. All the people in power need to do is throw money at people till they are happy, retire and watch the process occur all over again. In some ways, a more static government might be benificial, but we all know where that goes.

Unfortunately, problems like this need to be fixed from the bottom up. Perhaps as a society we should start focussing on promoting more social activism and participation?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by llama64

Aboriginals is a culturally approved term, Indians is just plain incorrect. You could be talking about two distinct and unrelated cultural groups by using it.

Of course nobody has the political will to do anything! It's Canada! I hate to say it, but I think the culture of hand outs is directly related to our transitory democratic government. Everyone has a set term of a few years, which means problems can be passed on to future governments. All the people in power need to do is throw money at people till they are happy, retire and watch the process occur all over again. In some ways, a more static government might be benificial, but we all know where that goes.

Unfortunately, problems like this need to be fixed from the bottom up. Perhaps as a society we should start focussing on promoting more social activism and participation?

The term aboriginal in my mind is absolutely not a culturally accepted term. It's meaning, basically "of origin", denotes cultural absolutism among the 100s of bands across this country.

As for everything else, we agree on something. However, it wouldn't be hard to for a majority government with a strong mandate to actually be able to initiate something quickly. I have a feeling that once good, meaningful solutions started coming about, the whole reserve system would fall apart quickly.

And of course there should be provisos in place to protect vulnerable bands from development vultures etc...

This isn't about making a "dirty problem" go away, it's about helping an impoverished, shackled people regain their culture and their pride.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by peter12

The term aboriginal in my mind is absolutely not a culturally accepted term. It's meaning, basically "of origin", denotes cultural absolutism among the 100s of bands across this country.

OffTopic:
Too true. I took a few History classes that dealt with this issue. I hated the term Aboriginal, but they beat it in to us that it was the accepted term. Personally, I prefer the loose generalization of "Native American", but when referring to actual people, what's wrong with calling them by their actual culture? Like Crow, Iroquois, Blackfoot... etc.