2011 Canadian Election Thread

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

So are you not going to vote or vote for another party?

It's mind boggling how Anders is still the CPC rep and it seems like Harper will bend over backwards to keep him there. Why boogie woogie man? what does Anders have on you?

Of course I'm going to vote. that's just stupid not to.

[Matty81]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Yes, it's fine for the Liberals to push their social agenda on everyone, but even though the Conservatives have done nothing of the sort its the 'Hidden Agenda' that's a real problem.

Personal memory, but I don't ever really feel like the Liberals in my lifetime (Chretien/Martin years) pushed through a lot of social legislation that the vast majority of the country was against - honestly asking for some examples of that - their whole approach seemed to be about doing what the majority wanted as a means of maintaining power.

I honestly don't know if the conservatives have a hidden agenda these days - I did study under Ted Morton and co at U of C during the reform/alliance years and I know for a fact that there were some extreme dudes in that camp who most Canadians aren't in line with socially. The quiet prevent kind of campaign when you have that sort of background isn't real reassuring.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Ah. Vote along party lines. Gotcha.

I just always found this mentality surprising. It's like saying someone would hypothetically have no problem voting for the selfish, brainless d-bag with no concept of leading people over an educated, qualified professional because of the color of t-shirt he's wearing.

I'm not saying your candidate is a brainless d-bag, but I'll never understand the 'party line' mentality. I would prefer to vote for the person best able to represent the needs of your ward, regardless of shirt color.

In a perfect democracy I would agree with you. But in a party system (that I wish was banned) I will vote for the party that would best represent the needs of my ward.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Matty81

Personal memory, but I don't ever really feel like the Liberals in my lifetime (Chretien/Martin years) pushed through a lot of social legislation that the vast majority of the country was against - honestly asking for some examples of that - their whole approach seemed to be about doing what the majority wanted as a means of maintaining power.

I honestly don't know if the conservatives have a hidden agenda these days - I did study under Ted Morton and co at U of C during the reform/alliance years and I know for a fact that there were some extreme dudes in that camp who most Canadians aren't in line with socially. The quiet prevent kind of campaign when you have that sort of background isn't real reassuring.

So you are saying people of Christian backgrounds shouldn't be allowed to be in politics? Or shouldn't be allowed to express their opinions? Confusing.

Most recently the Liberals passed legislation allowing gay marriage (a policy I happened to agree with) but it was a very divisive policy. It certainly wasn't supported by 'a vast majority' of Canadians at the time. Their policies on Abortion were certainly not supported by a 'vast majority' of anyone either. The Conservative Party under Harper has promised time after time to stay away from these subjects purely because of the split among Canadian opinion.

In the current Lib platform, pushing for a national daycare program is a clear attack on those parents who may choose to stay at home to raise children; another example of a left-leaning social engineering type of policy. Contrast this with the CPC which offers tax cuts for people with children, a much more Libertarian approach allowing all parents to benefit equally.

I only see one party continually trying to shape the social policies of the federal Government, and it's not the Conservatives.

[MarchHare]

In the current Lib platform, pushing for a national daycare program is a clear attack on those parents who may choose to stay at home to raise children

¿Que? How exactly is a national daycare program a "clear attack" against stay-at-home parents? Nobody is proposing that your kids are taken away by the state and forced into the daycare program. You'll still be perfectly free to have one parent stay at home if that's your choice.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Doesn't the government often interfere with the BoC? If I remember my Canadian history correctly, Mulroney via Crow forced them to keep interest rates *HIGH*, which ultimately lead to a home-grown recession.

BTW - I know most of the NDP platform and policies and never read anything about abolition of the stock market. So I just googled it to see if I could find anything and I did. Slava's post on CP.

OK fair enough....I was wrong on the stock market abolition. I take that back.

I know that I'm right about the BoC though and its need to be independent. It was set up decades ago to be just that; independent of the politicians and their grubby little hands.

I could tolerate an NDP minority in a lot of ways, just as long as someone credible and fiscally conservative were in charge of the finance and had enough power to reign in the spending/stop the spending in first place where its necessary. I think that is also known as a Liberal majority though!

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

¿Que? How exactly is a national daycare program a "clear attack" against stay-at-home parents? Nobody is proposing that your kids are taken away by the state and forced into the daycare program. You'll still be perfectly free to have one parent stay at home if that's your choice.

It just further lends to this whole Liberal way of thinking where "the State can take better care of your children than you can." Let's not forget that when the CPC first proposed the tax cut alternative to a national daycare program, the Liberals dismissed it by saying that parents would just waste that money on "beer and popcorn." The Liberal agenda has always been: "we know better than you do when it comes to raising your family."

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Slava

OK fair enough....I was wrong on the stock market abolition. I take that back.

Are you sure you're not a politician? You certainly like to throw around a lot of unsubstantiated claims...

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Are you sure you're not a politician? You certainly like to throw around a lot of unsubstantiated claims...

Well I did run for public office about 6 months ago!

I seriously thought that they had a policy about that though....not that you would believe me, but that was an honest mistake!

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

So you are saying people of Christian backgrounds shouldn't be allowed to be in politics? Or shouldn't be allowed to express their opinions? Confusing.

Most recently the Liberals passed legislation allowing gay marriage (a policy I happened to agree with) but it was a very divisive policy. It certainly wasn't supported by 'a vast majority' of Canadians at the time.

On the contrary: support for same sex marrieage has historically been higher in Canada than other countries. In 2001, Leger found that 71% of Canadians felt that same sex couples should have "the same rights" as heterosexual couples. Support for gay marriage has historically been between 60 and 75 percent nationwide, though I'll grant it was higher out east and in BC than in the prairies.

Their policies on Abortion were certainly not supported by a 'vast majority' of anyone either. The Conservative Party under Harper has promised time after time to stay away from these subjects purely because of the split among Canadian opinion.

Without your being more specific, this is harder to address. I will say, however, that Canadians seem to feel that abortion rights are a settled issue, though I'll grant it's way more divisive than gay rights. I'd argue it's because abortion is a much more complex issue, and unfortunately the debate over it is beset by way too much daffiness on both sides.

In the current Lib platform, pushing for a national daycare program is a clear attack on those parents who may choose to stay at home to raise children; another example of a left-leaning social engineering type of policy.

OK, you're going to have to help me out with this one: how is an entitlement program for one group discriminatory against another? This makes--I'm sorry--no logical sense. Harper's tax credit plan--while a nice idea for people who have cash to pay for day care in the first place--is an apples and oranges comparison.

You could say that a national daycare program is too expensive, or that it's an entitlement the government shouldn't be offering for whatever reasons... but to say that it's unfair to people who choose not to use it? That's just silly. Is public welfare unfair to me because I don't need it? Is it unfair that my neighbour gets government funding for his heart bypass because I'm healthy?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Ark2

It just further lends to this whole Liberal way of thinking where "the State can take better care of your children than you can."

That's not it at all. Many parents would like to continue working after having children, but the cost of daycare makes it economically impractical, particularly for couples with multiple young children. It's not a question of "the state being able to take better care of children than their parents" but one of parents wanting an affordable option so they can continue working and contributing to the economy after having kids.

Let's not forget that when the CPC first proposed the tax cut alternative to a national daycare program, the Liberals dismissed it by saying that parents would just waste that money on "beer and popcorn." The Liberal agenda has always been: "we know better than you do when it comes to raising your family."

The Conservative $1200 per child per year wealth redistribution plan is an absolute travesty and a blatant attempt to buy votes. My parents are close friends with a doctor who has two young children. He makes >$300k per year, yet he's receiving $2,400 from the government that he absolutely doesn't need. I know for a fact that one year he put the money away each month and bought a new HDTV with it at Christmas thanks to the generosity of the Canadian taxpayers.

If the NDP had proposed the exact same policy, CPC supporters would be crying bloody murder over an obvious socialist wealth redistribution scheme, but because Harperbucks came from the party you support, you'll overlook the many flaws of the program.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well I did run for public office about 6 months ago!

I seriously thought that they had a policy about that though....not that you would believe me, but that was an honest mistake!

Fair enough. I believe you.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

That's not it at all. Many parents would like to continue working after having children, but the cost of daycare makes it economically impractical, particularly for couples with multiple young children. It's not a question of "the state being able to take better care of children than their parents" but one of parents wanting an affordable option so they can continue working and contributing to the economy after having kids.



The Conservative $1200 per child per year wealth redistribution plan is an absolute travesty and a blatant attempt to buy votes. My parents are close friends with a doctor who has two young children. He makes >$300k per year, yet he's receiving $2,400 from the government that he absolutely doesn't need. I know for a fact that one year he put the money away each month and bought a new HDTV with it at Christmas thanks to the generosity of the Canadian taxpayers.

If the NDP had proposed the exact same policy, CPC supporters would be crying bloody murder over an obvious socialist wealth redistribution scheme, but because Harperbucks came from the party you support, you'll overlook the many flaws of the program.

Wealth redistribution? That money is going to rich and poor alike. I don't call that wealth re-distribution at all. Nice try though.

[MarchHare]

Wealth redistribution? That money is going to rich and poor alike. I don't call that wealth re-distribution at all. Nice try though.

The money is going from one group of taxpayers (people without children younger than 6) to another (people with children younger than six). That's the very definition of wealth redistribution; the term doesn't strictly mean a transfer of money from the rich to the poor, only the transfer of money from one group of people to another.

[Shazam]

If the Liberals had their way, your friend would've gotten two HDTVs.

If it weighed on his conscience that much, he could've given the money back.

[burn_this_city]

Putting the money back in taxpayers pockets sure beats funding a destined to be bloated national program. Let the private sector run programs like daycare, its a lot more efficient. Perhaps the tax break should instead be a funding allowance for people in lower income brackets, rather than an arbitary $1200 credit per child.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Putting the money back in taxpayers pockets sure beats funding a destined to be bloated national program. Let the private sector run programs like daycare, its a lot more efficient. Perhaps the tax break should instead be a funding allowance for people in lower income brackets, rather than an arbitary $1200 credit per child.

I don't disagree with this, and if we must have some kind of parental wealth redistribution plan, I'd rather it be in the form of increased tax credits for low-income parents than the government sending $100 cheques in the mail each month.

Also note that I'm not exactly in favour of a taxpayer-funded national daycare program either. Having children is a lifestyle choice; my tax dollars should not be used to subsidize your lifestyle.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

The money is going from one group of taxpayers (people without children younger than 6) to another (people with children younger than six). That's the very definition of wealth redistribution; the term doesn't strictly mean a transfer of money from the rich to the poor, only the transfer of money from one group of people to another.

So all tax credits are forms of wealth redistribution... Riiight. Under this logic, I'm not sure how you could argue that a national daycare program doesn't achieve the same thing. Tax payer money funds this program, yet it only benefits those with children. So, as I don't have children, my tax dollars would have gone towards funding something that saves parents from having to pay for daycare, thereby saving them more money, which increases their wealth. See, works out the same way and yet I somehow doubt you'd call a national daycare program wealth redistribution.

[Shazam]

Everything's a fataing lifestyle choice.

Please, you don't live a life that's any less tax-guzzling than the rest of us.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Also note that I'm not exactly in favour of a taxpayer-funded national daycare program either. Having children is a lifestyle choice; my tax dollars should not be used to subsidize your lifestyle.

Now this I completely agree with. I don't see why it's the government's responsibility to raise your kids, but if we have to choose from one or the other, I'll take the tax credit option.