Hicksey

Has anyone bothered to listen about this appointment? It is temporary pending legislation requiring the senate to be elected at which point he'll be required to run or relinquish the seat. If he loses he will have to be repalced in the cabinet. The only way he gets this seat permanently is if the opposition play the obstructionist and refuse to allow Harper to make the senate an elected body. I don't like how it happened either, but of all the surprises in the cabinet this is the one I am least concerned with.

Quick reply cause I have a class in a few mins but, why do thousands of people die everyday of malnourishment if the top 450 richest people in the world own 53% of the capital ? We can produce more than enough food for the whole population of this planet and have some left over. Just because you're born in a "developed" country doesn't entitle you to not care ! You've been made to think that whats best for transnational corporations is also whats best for you. Pick up a book from Leslie Sklair. You'll thank me when you're done. I'll reply to your other insightful comments later. If you read above, I do donate to worldwide charities like the Savation Army. If you want to help people around the world, don't give them a fish, teach them how to fish for themselves.

That's right. Don't you see this is a good thing? The law of supply and demand will force wages up. The average wages of a Canadian hasn't gone up in ten years. This will force employers to at least give us fair raises every year. In the trucking industry, with the demand for drivers, we have been able to gain advantage and force our wages up about 12% in the last two years as a result. Previously, jobs were few and far between and drivers were forced to take jobs at far less than we're worth or leave the industry as I did for a while. That corporations pay taxes is a myth. All the costs associated with doing business is passed down and paid for by the end consumer. Wages are only a small percentage of that. While excessive wages in certain sectors does create outsourcing (ie $30+ for unskilled labour) still more workers are horribly underpaid. This is something that a minimum wage cannot solve. However, what the exodus of a generation of workers that was largely unskilled to retirement is going to do is show employers is how valuable the lower end of the unskilled labour market is to their operations. This I agree with. But with our generation just not producing children at the rate of our parents, this was going to happen regardless. This underlines the need to not keep adding more programs and more taxes because we need to plan how to pay for what will undoubtedly be one of the most daunting financial challenges of our time. So many Canadians are living beyond their means already that there's just no wiggle room to solve these problems. We should be proactive in solving this. We need to be freeing up tax dollars to spend toward this end, not spending the surpluses on yet more programs.

Charity is very much a part of our culture and it grows out of sympathy for those who are lacking. This is at the base of Christianity as well. That's not that you should feel guilty for what you have, but there's nothing wrong with wanting to share your wealth. It's kharmic, or if you prefer: win-win. I have no problem with charity. When it's forced though, can you really call it charity? Or is it extortion? On my own, I give to the poor through the Salvation Army, and Habitat for the Homeless. I often forgo a day of meals on the road to throw in twenty when I see them about. Every western economy includes some measure of wealth distribution and social assistance. It might do well for those on the opposite side as the NDP if they told us what limits they would like to put on distribution. Often when these things are discussed it seems like it's an all-or-nothing option. I have no problem with social programs that are well-thought out and well executed. But do we really need our government to feed our children breakfast? or keep our children occupied after school? or take care of our kids? Or give drugs and alcohol to our transient population? We need to agree upon and set parameters which we should not go beyond. Done properly, public education is a great benefit to the population. And our health care system, however flawed, is still the envy of many about the world. There are things that are in the interest of society as a whole should be provided for all. Where the line needs to stop is definitely an area of contention. Where that needs to be I'm not sure. What do you mean here specifically ? People think that a new government program is the answer for every little problem.

Damn. Succinct. Concise. But damn cold. Support for the NDP can be best explained by one term. Feel-goodism. 1) Too many people have been programmed that when they have something they should be guilty that there are those that don't. They're taught that we live in a zero-sum economy wherein you have to take from others to do better for yourself. 2) Too many people believe that by redistributing wealth in a Robin-Hood-esque 'take from the rich and give to the poor' manner will solve all society's ills. 3) Too many people have been fooled into believing that the government can provide for us better than we can do for ourselves.

Although I disagree with almost every policy the NDP puts on the table I accept that a significant minority of Canadians do agree with NDP polices (probably close to 25% if you include left leaning Liberals and Bloquists). The last time I checked we live in a democracy so the only way to 'get rid of' the NDP is to provide a compelling alternative vision. Provding a compelling alternative is the biggest challenge facing Harper today - my biggest concern is he is not up to the task. I honestly believe that NDP supporters are mainly Socialists, Left Leaning Liberals, the Poor, and the STUPID... The point im trying to make is that Jack Layton thinks tax cuts are a bad thing... so he does not speak for the common man, because 9 out of every 10 people would agree that cutting taxes is never a bad thing, especially when you have a surplus. Believe it or not, Layton does have two things right. He has focused on making education cheaper for families and people seeking re-training as our society trends away from unskilled toward skilled labour. And his plan doesn't include tax cuts that will just end up getting taken right back by the provinces because they aren't being adequately funded. Only Albertans will really benefit from the tax cuts as they run a balanced budget and don't keep getting taxed more and more because of mounting deficits at the provincial and municipal levels. I'd be happiest if there was just no new spending allowed by any level of government in surplus while another is in deficit and no new taxation at any level until surpluses are redistributed to take care of deficit spending. If a government runs a deficit for more than two consecutive years, their mandate should be dissolved--majority or not--and their performance sent back in the form of an election for people to decide whether or not they are managing public interests properly. There should be no non-confidence motions. Terms should be 4 years, with certain performance parameters that have to be met. If after 2 years either a certain amount of election promises have been outright broken, or a certain amount haven't yet been filled, it is deemed their performance demands review and parliament is dissolved. This must be documented to the public and transparent. We also need term limits. The leader of any party can only be PM/Premier for two terms regardless of what party he leads while PM/Premier. Now that's accountability.

What makes you think the two concepts are mutually exclusive? Clealry, you don't have a problem with government programs: we've etablished that with your support of Harper's childcare plan. All this talk of personal responsibility is a red herring: we're really just quibbling over what government plan is best. Well, yes and no. I support Harper's plan because of the three options presented its the one that is the fairest to all parents and gives all parents a helping hand, as small as it may be. I only support Harper's plan because its the fairest presented so far in my eyes. However if we are to start such a programme, I think weighing the program toward single parent/income families is the way to go so they are the prime beneficiaries. Under the other 3 plans only people that can afford the child care to begin with really benefit whereas to parents that can't its like putting an impossibly small bandage on a large bleeding wound. This way we promote the family unit and allow parents that want to keep one parent home the chance and single parent families get daycare as well. But most of all, I think this should be done through creative taxation. I think that we need to engineer a way that single imcome/parent families at/below certain income levels get taxed less so this is not an issue to begin with. I think the government should be regulating things like daycare--not running them. Alas, this option hasn't been presented. I'll tell you what's wrong: the father. Maybe if that lazy sofd got off his fat ass and helped out with the kids and the house work instead of loafing around watching TV and then excpecting some action, the kids and everyone would be better off. Maybe if Dad didn't have to work 12+ hours a day to make ends meet he'd be working more around the house. Maybe if half Dad's paycheck didn't go past Go directly to CCRA, Mom wouldn't need to work. Maybe the family in question is just materialistic and is extending themselves beyond their means. To automatically blame the man, I assume BD that you're female?

What would you suggest then, we can't surely lock B&E people up for life? I'm in agreement with you but I don't see how this will improve things when they get out. We need to change the structure of punishment and rehab in Canada. I hear ya geoff. I agree that we can't lock people up for life for offences like B&E but longer jail terms for repeat offenders would keep them off of the streets...and keep them from commiting more crimes. Habitual/career criminals don't care about deterrents, it's civil society that cares about deterrents (...and we are civil after all). Maybe some kind of three strikes law? Very good idea. Once someone has not just committed, but been caught 3 times their behavior is obviously pathological. At that point I think that letting them back out into society is no longer an option.

Might the defection be a means to an end? Could it be that Emerson thought he may have a better chance to solve the softwood lumber dispute under a PM that is friendlier to the US? Could it be that the meeting between them was borne from Harper wanting to get it solved before the next election so he can make inroads into Vancouver? Here's a quote from an obvious right wing blog. Take it for what you will. I just thought the concept was interesting.

SO we're all on board. Dump the subsidy and bring in a proper daycare program that actually addresses the problem. The real question is: can we afford that?

If money is not an issue why do they need mine? Very good question indeed.

For a lot of Canadians, those are our work hours. Not off hours. That includes a large part of the auto sector.

What about people that don't work 9-5? That work midnights and afternoons? Daycare does nothing for them.

We weren't just talking about this one program though it was the major focus. You asked for examples of both half-baked and wasteful social programs, and I gave you them.

Your beliefs may tell you that a fetus is a human but you must accept that the majority of people living in this society do not share that view. If some radical shift occurred and suddenly there was an overwhelming consensus (>90%) that a fetus is human then government restrictions on abortion could be justified. However, that unlikely to happen in our diverse society so the only reasonable approach it to allow individual people to decide what is right for them and keep the government out of it. Let me figure this out. They're created by humans. They grow over 9 months and come out of the mother human. But apparently alien. [sarcasm]This makes all kinds of sense.[/sarcasm]

It doesn't surprise me at all. There was accreditation and they had to guarantee certain levels of service I wouldn't have to wait 8 hours for care, wouldn't have to watch the wait for my mother's chemo go so long that it allowed the cancer to spread and required further surgery to take half of her liver and last but not least ... fight with my mother in laws doctor for over a year about her sickness only to find out over a year later it was cancer and by the time it was discovered was now inoperable.

The only promise that Flip Flop McFly hasn't broken is his promise to tax cigarettes out the wazzoo. If he runs and the idiots that elected him re-elect him, they better stop complaining because they'll be getting exactly what they asked for.

There you go dictating to the scientists how to do their jobs again. You said it yourself. These people know more about it than you do. So why are you still insisting that they're wrong? What areas do we need to focus on? What programs are ineffective? We've got lots of programs already. I am saying that before we start new ones, we need to examine the ones we have to see if they can solve the problem. I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying that we should look to what we have first. There may be ways to help these people already built into the system. I'm no expert, but the knee jerk reaction in this country seems always to be more and more programs instead of fixing the problems within the ones we have so they can address the problem. Who said anything about raising taxes? Not Layton. Not me either. Your right that there is fat to be trimmed, but not from the social programs and low income earners. Layton was going to repeal a fat tax break that was given to big business with no strings attached (no incentive for employment, environment, community support.) Fancy dancing around the words tax hike. If you repeal a tax break, those people would pay more taxes, right? So, it is raising taxes. When we tax the rich they never get affected. We do. It always filters down to the end user. Whether it be job cuts, or higher prices--we lose. Child care? Where does this come from, we've been talking about homeless. Its an example of a new, not well thought out social program. I talked about real solutions because I believe, fundamentally, that giving more drugs to an abuser is never a good idea. I know that's not fact, but having seen drugs destroy families and friendships close to me I have come to the opinion that no drugs is the best solution. Well good then. But what are these "half baked programs" you speak of? General welfare. Its become a vocation. I've lived in a geared to income unit as a market renter and seen people on welfare, getting their rent geared to their income that were better off than I was working. That system breeds abuse. Its just not right that people on welfare can be rewarded for sitting on their butts and doing better than working people. Its not about them having more than me. I don't necessarily care what they have. I care about my paycheck going to pay so they can have a better life on welfare than I do working. Its outright wrong. It seems that people that try to help themselves get punished while those who choose not to work get a free ride. The entitlement is such now that people aren't even ashamed to admit that they're career welfare cases. I've even had one call me a schmuck for working when I could have done better on welfare. I watch them get breaks on their utility bills, while I have to live with my thermostat at 60 degrees so I can afford my gas bills because I make too much to get that same advantage. I watch them misuse daycare so they can go to bingo when they're supposed to be out looking for a job, but I can't access the same affordable daycare because I make too much. Some days I wonder why I bother going to work, but remember that I just could not stand to be such an irresponsible person. Its against everything I stand for.

True. But themn income suport programs have a preset criterea to qualify. There's no such prequalification for Harper's plan save for a functioning uterus. But Harper's plan (parents will be able to submit with their tax forms a bill worth up to $500 for each child under 16 for any organized activity that encourages physical exercise: they wil get up to 16 per cent back, or around $80) will only help those who already have $500 handy to put their kids into sports. And what about physical activities that aren't organized sports (like for example, dance)? If Harper wanted to make an impact and promote fitness, why not fund sports so that the costs are lower to begin with, instead of offering a meaningless sop worth a wopping $80? Can I ask you an honest question BD? This is not mean to be disrespectful. But is there any point at which you think people are responsible for themselves and that more government programs is not the answer?

And how do you suppose we build more flexibility into the system without more spending and programs? But your starting to understand The Managed Alcohol Program is a perfect example of building more flexibility into the system, and its responding to the challenges as we best understand them. We need to re-examine the system and check needs at certain intervals and re-divert resources toward programs that work the best from those that aren't effective. We need to focus our resources toward the areas we can best affect meaningful results. But I think at this point, considering there are many people like me that just can't afford more taxes, we need to focus on using the resources we have more efficiently before we consider injecting further funding. I don't think a vastly underfunded and in all likeliness ineffective daycare program (Harper,Layton,Martin they're all woefully inadequate) is the answer. If we're not going to fund real solutions, we should incentive the private sector to do so and start funding real solutions. I'm not averse to social programs if they're going to be run efficiently and they deal with the problems they're designed to solve with results. But to give us a bunch of half baked programs that in themselves solve nothing is think is counter-productive and generally wasteful.

Maybe what we need isn't more programs and more spending, but rather more flexibility built into the system to respond to the changing challenges to the system.

Feminism. The single-income family is no longer the norm. Two-income families have more money, so they're willing to pay more to get that dream house, etc. It's supply and demand, the market has reacted, and single-income families just can't compete. Ahhh. So it's wanting to have it both ways. Some couples postpone having children in lieu of getting their dream house first and getting established. I know. But I guess is just too much to ask everyone to be that responsible. I wasn't, but mine was a surprise. I was supposed to be sterile. But then again, even though things didn't go as planned I am still taking responsibility for my actions.

Feminism. The single-income family is no longer the norm. Two-income families have more money, so they're willing to pay more to get that dream house, etc. It's supply and demand, the market has reacted, and single-income families just can't compete. That's an interesting take on things. Feminism killed the prosperity of the single income family. So in giving women more power they chose to forsake the family in favor of material possessions. Interesting. Maybe this is a good example where progress isn't necessarily progressive.

All I can say is that with each new revelation I find myself to be nearly as disappointed in Harper as I was with the Liberals. I say almost because Harper hasn't found the opportunity to pilfer away a few hundred million taxpayer dollars to his friends and supporters ... yet.

Then what exactly caused the change whereas a single income cannot support a middle class family anymore? We didn't have a day care program back then.