for_liberty
-
Posts
65 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by for_liberty
-
-
Assume I am talking in abstract with out making any assumptions about you personally. If we eliminated taxes and expected people to donate to charity then most people would consider themselves generous if they donated 10-15% of their income - a fraction of what is collected in taxes today. This would mean that charities would have a lot less money to work with. Further, the administrative costs of charities competing with each other would eat up a lot of funds. In addition, important but less media friendly causes would be starved for cash while the sexy causes got all of the donations: compare tsunami relief to AIDS prevention.Well thank you for not labeling me. I must be greedy because i don't agree with you. The difference between me and you is i would never want my ideals forced on you. You feel you're more compassionate because you want the government to take and spend other people's money the way you feel it should be spent. Wow what compassion.Lastly, the everyone benefits from charity - keeps the people off the street and reduces crime. In a purely voluntary system a significant number of people would donate nothing (because they think they need it more). This would mean these people would be parasites that receive the benefit of other people's charity without paying. To me that is a much much greater unfairness than collecting taxes from everyone according to the same set of rules.
What you say about less media friendly causes happens with government too.
-
[
You did not even address my point about how any purely voluntary system would lead to another type of unfairness which, IMV, is worse than 'forcing' people to pay that don't want to pay.All the while raising my taxes and forcing me to pay them or go to prison or confiscate my assets.Yes that is your view. But with charity i have a choice. with government i do not. I either pay or go to jail.
-
And by assuming that i am greedy is the same thing as republicans assuming people are un-american because they appose the war on terror.
And to be fair Bill Clinton said the same thing after the Oklahoma city bombing.
I don't understand what you are saying above.
One thing about Canadians, and it may have something to do with living next to the elephant, is that we root for the underdog a lot of time. Perhaps that is one of the reasons redistribution to protect the less fortunate is so important to us. I also see it as good principled living to share what one has with others. I believe there is enough research to show that if you leave too much to your offspring you can damage them. And you can't take it with you, can you? So in a sense government intervention is doing your a favour. Consider it tough love.
Oh sorry if i wasn't clear. I am in the middle of doing something so my mind is in 2 places at onece.
What i was saying is by using an argument like you must be greedy to not want to pay taxes is just trying to get someone to shut up. IMO. To me it is the same thing as someone saying that you are not patriotic because you question government.
And i don't think intervention is in my favour. I don't want the government to get my cash, i would much rather a charity got it instead. But thanks to government for taking my decisions away for me.
-
Well i can't recall the last time a charity misplaced 1 billion dollars like the HR department did a few years ago. In my opinion governments don't really help people, they make them dependant on the system. How much money has been pourwed into the system to battle poverty and yet nothing changes. There is no incentive for a bureaucrat to do a good job. If they do a good job there department will then have their budget cut because there would be less people in need of help so they could not justify their budget. Where alot of charities work with volunteers so their jobs don't depend on it. And if i find a charity not doing a good job or spending to much money on administative costs, then they don't get my money. I don't have that say with government. Government does not have the same checks and balances that a charity needs to have. They just launch an investigation and say everything is better now and repeat this process over and over again. All the while raising my taxes and forcing me to pay them or go to prison or confiscate my assets.
-
And by assuming that i am greedy is the same thing as republicans assuming people are un-american because they appose the war on terror.
And to be fair Bill Clinton said the same thing after the Oklahoma city bombing.
-
'Let private charity take care of it' is a greedy person's cop out. I agree that government does not do everything as efficiently as it should and that certain social programs have unintended consequences and need redesign, however, on average, government does a better job delivering social services at a lower cost than charity.So it is ok to have people pay into a system they don't want to. What about charity? Alot of them provide a great service and they receive money on a volantary basis. I don't think force is the answer, there are other ways of doing things.Well thank you for not labeling me. I must be greedy because i don't agree with you. The difference between me and you is i would never want my ideals forced on you. You feel you're more compassianate because you want the govenment to take and spend other people's money the way you feel it should be spent. Wow what compassion.
-
So it is ok to have people pay into a system they don't want to. What about charity? Alot of them provide a great service and they receive money on a volantary basis. I don't think force is the answer, there are other ways of doing things.
-
Why don't we just make it so all social services are voluntary. If you would like to use them you shopuld pay for them, if you don't pay you can not use. SOunds fair to me.
-
The Cons are the party of rural Canada and Calgary.
the majority of Canadians are not rural nor Calgarian.
Get used to it: It's called Progress. I know that's an alien concept in Conservative circles, but thankfully, the Cons arn't able to Con Canadians that often.
Harris, Klein, and Mulroney. Stand Tall Conservatives!
So what is progress? Is it forcing socialist ideals on people?
Why do you spite out the word socialist like it is some dirty word in Canada? Sorry to disappoint you but we live in a social democratic society here, where some folks are more socialist than others. I think having a good balance is key to Canada's success.
Because socialism is always force. People who do not want to participate in social services are still forced to pay for them. How is this fair?
-
The Cons are the party of rural Canada and Calgary.
the majority of Canadians are not rural nor Calgarian.
Get used to it: It's called Progress. I know that's an alien concept in Conservative circles, but thankfully, the Cons arn't able to Con Canadians that often.
Harris, Klein, and Mulroney. Stand Tall Conservatives!
So what is progress? Is it forcing socialist ideals on people?
-
No i don't think the majority should rule but that is always the explanation people
give when they want government to do what they feel is right. And i didn't compare your political views with George Bush, what I said that it is the same thing for you to want a guy like Jack Layton to enforce his ideals on society as Repubulicans to have George bush do the same. They both do it by force. It is the majority ruling the minority. I know you don't see it that way because you feel you are being compassionate, but it is still force.
Jack Layton didn't enforce his ideals on our society. He just helped keep Paul Martin honest. Paul Martin promised to do all of these things in his election campaign... he did not promise additional tax cuts for corporations. A lot of people presumably voted for Paul Martin due to his left-leaning platform. Jack Layton just kept Paul Martin honest.... Doing the things that he promised to do to make our society a little better....
But Jack Layton did help keep Paul Martins ideals on all of us. If all of these social programs are so great why don't we make payment to them voluntary?
-
Here is a link for those of you who want to see Donald Rumsfeld sweat. She asks Donald about the missing trillions, thats right trillions from the pentagon.
-
I think it is obious that there is a problem. All you have to do is look around, but i think the BMI inflates the numbers. About 5 years ago i was 185lbs to 190lbs and I am just under 6 feet tall. Acording to the BMI chart at my doctors office i was over weight. Yet i was working out with weights alot back then and my body fat percentage was only 13%. That is far from fat. And i was really healthy. All my numbers from my blood tests where good.
-
Sask tels infastrucute was paid for by the tax payer.
So is every Natural gas company and power companies infrastructure. Those things wouldn't have been built,out west, if not for the governments of the time.
They had the foresight to see that no private company was going to run these industries here but now that the infrastructure is there , it is more cost effective for these companies.Do they owe the tax payer? How is the tax payer different from a share holder?
Is profit not a private tax? How does private business finance their projects ?
I'm giving you the reason why sask tel is cheap. They didn't pay for the infustructure. How do you explain Air Canada and Perto Canada? They where a mess untill private industry took over. Air Canada was also paid for by the tax payer and West Jet is way cheaper and they turn over a nice profit.
Also are you happy that private industry came in?
And how is private industry diiferent form government? I can chose not to buy from a industry. Government forces me to pay for their services.
-
Now you say Mike Harris harmed a large segment os society, but it wasn't the majority. So really it isn't that you want an elected official to represent the people that elected him. You want someone to dictact what ever you think is correct. Now if that forces other people to do things they feel isn't right it's ok because you feel it is right. Doesn't that sound alot like the current US president. You have different ideals but want to achieve them the same way.
The fact that you could compare my views with George Bush's actions astounds me.
Hitler put forth policies that aimed to help the majority of the Germans who elected him. He created Volkswagon to manufacture a car that everyone could afford, and he "got rid of Jews that were wrecking their economy". The Jews were not in the majority that elected Hitler, so do you think that his actions were OK.??? I should hope you would think not.
Our government should look at all of its people, and not target segments as Mike Harris and Adolph Hitler did. Harris hurt targeted segments of Ontarians to provide a large tax return for the wealthiest group of Ontarians...... Without any care about how much he hurt Ontario's poorest....
The language in your comment (above) would suggest that you believe that once elected with a majority goverment, the government should be able to "do what they want".... I beg to differ in opinion with you.... Where your statments would back the actions of both Hitler and Harris, I think our goverments should be responsible to hold a higher moral position.
(Note: Cybercoma, thanks for the inspiration. Do you have any more Hitler quotes you can share with us...
No i don't think the majority should rule but that is always the explanation people
give when they want government to do what they feel is right. And i didn't compare your political views with George Bush, what I said that it is the same thing for you to want a guy like Jack Layton to enforce his ideals on society as Repubulicans to have George bush do the same. They both do it by force. It is the majority ruling the minority. I know you don't see it that way because you feel you are being compassionate, but it is still force. If i didn't want to participate in the services i would go to jail or have my assets siezed by government. So it might as well a gun to my head, i have to pay because the majority says so. And that is not right.
Please don't use the argument that if i don't like it i should leave. The same can be said to americans about George Bush and I don't think that is right either.
-
Sask tels infastrucute was paid for by the tax payer. Industry has to raise the capital on it's own. Unless of course they pay of politcians to help them out. Oh yes isn't government grand?
-
Dear BHS,
Yes, by definition a 'conservative, resisting change,' would therefore want to keep Martin in power!Besides, what is a conservative? It has generally become a bi-word for people who oppose socialist policies (and that is it's de facto modern political meaning, as I take it), but a conservative is someone who opposes change in favour of the status quo. In this light, the Liberal Party of Canada is one of the most conservative organizations on EarthThere are a good many things that need to change in Canada, because there are many things industry can do better than the gov't, and a few things that industry cannot be trusted to do (fairly) that a gov't must.
I don't think there is a thing government can do better than industry unless government hands industry a monopoly. If they do that there is no incentive for industry to do better and that is why we have expensive and ineffecient services from the government now, they have a monopoly.
-
Now err what do you mean "put people first". Do you mean someone who will come in and impose their ideals on you.
....I don't want to force any of my ideals on anyone, I am not sure you can say the same.
What's wrong with a government saying "health care for everyone"... "Nobody's left out"....
My statement that a government should "put people first" should be obvious.... The governement is elected by the people, and is supposed to represent the people who elected them... However, if those elected officials go down a path that harms large segements of the population in order to please business interests, I think we have a problem....
One simple example. Do you remember the Harris government's mean-spirited policy of reduction of aid to single mothers. When some of the "lefty" crowd pointed out that the goverment had cut their welfare benefits to below the levels that one could eat every day, the Harris goverment published a diet that these single mothers could eat and feed their kids with.... And they could meet the budget if two of their dinners were were "Pasta, cooked with no sauce"....
I have a hard time thinking of a more mean-spirited government than Mike Harris's government.... He would have single mothers starve so he could give a larger tax return to the millionaires of the province....
Now you say Mike Harris harmed a large segment os society, but it wasn't the majority. So really it isn't that you want an elected official to represent the people that elected him. You want someone to dictact what ever you think is correct. Now if that forces other people to do things they feel isn't right it's ok because you feel it is right. Doesn't that sound alot like the current US president. You have different ideals but want to achieve them the same way.
-
I would consider myself an Individualist also. I don't think anyone elses rights trump mine and vice versa. To many people now think about the "common good".
Excellent. I take it Jack Layton can be counting on your vote next election !!!
Jack Layton? He wants to take even more of my money and spend at he see's fit. I do agree with him on social issues, but there is no way i could vote for him because of fiscal issues. He doesn't want economic freedom.
-
l. Look at it this way: government intervention to redistribute the wealth is like a teacher stopping the school yard bully who is beating up on little kids.
That isn't correct because the government bullies me into doing what you think is right.
-
Yes i saw that episode, it was great. It was very funny to hear the President of Greenpeace say that there is no goverment regulation on GM foods and then have the truth come out that it is heavely regulated. It is regulated ny the FDA, USDA and a couple others i can not remember.
cybercoma you might enjoy a sight by Patrick Moore. He was co-founder of greenpeace and left them in the 80's. There is a article in the site on why he left.
-
It's not punishment? What it is, is force. You want the government to force everyone to pay for what you think is right. It's like George W Bush taking away people's liberrty with fear, except you try to guilt people. Different ideals forced onto the public very idealastic people. I know you will see it different the same way Republicans see it different. But like I said it is Force.
-
I would consider myself an Individualist also. I don't think anyone elses rights trump mine and vice versa. To many people now think about the "common good".
-
I get most of my news online. There is lewrockwell.com and antiwar.com I also get some news from mp3 downloads of radio shows i like.
I would agree with the person who before said The globe and mail seems the most balanced. The Toronto Star is very left wing, oh sorry progressive. And to the people who say the National Post is not balanced and very right wing i ask, is Buzz Hargrove and Sheila Copps right wing? Because they both write for the National Post.
Latest National Opinion Polls
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
Well then i am lucky that governments don't take more? And we do have few options that is correct, but not many.
And the HRDC budget isn't 400 billion a year. That is what government collects in total.