cgarrett

what you will never see on the conservative agenda... a discussion of wealth distribution! from Statistics Canada's Survey of Financial Security: "The wealthiest ten percent of family units held 53 percent of the wealth in 1999. The wealthiest 50 percent of family units controlled an almost unbelievable 94.4 percent of the wealth, leaving only 5.6 percent for the bottom 50 percent. " "The poorest ten percent of family units have negative average wealth or more debts than assets. Average wealth adjusted for inflation for the poorest ten percent actually declined by 28 percent from -$8,031 in 1970 to -$10,656 in 1999." "Average wealth adjusted for inflation for the richest ten percent of family units increased from $442,468 in 1970 to $980,903 in 1999--an increase of 122 percent ." the fact is... if you are a rich canadian then you should vote conservative. its in your best interest. if you are not in the top ten percent and you vote conservative... well, why would you do that?

hjalmar an intelligent post! i'd like to respond... a big piece of right wing rhetoric is the idea of 'globalization' and that 'canadian workers must compete on a global level'. have you ever wondered why that is? has any explanation been given as to why canadians must compete with people in india or china? how can canadians compete with people who can feed an entire extended family on a few dollars a day? the reality is that we don't need to compete... my wife is japanese. let me tell you, getting to know japan was one of the biggest wake up calls ever! this country is the second most powerful economy in the world. and i would argue that it is the most powerful economy in the world seeing as the united states bases so much of its wealth on being the largest producer of oil in the world. in any case, japan is a country completely without natural resources! how do they do this? japan is self sufficient! if they do not produce a good that they need then they build a factory to produce it! government, communities and private interest all work hand in hand in this process. and government does not participate by offering tax cuts to all corporations! if they need to explore certain markets then they offer tax relief to those markets only until those industries are established. the japanese are interested in lower trade barriers to expand their markets but they are NOT interested in opening their own markets! japanese people are extremely proud of their industries and will buy japanese products before buying anything at all! work is not outsourced.. they compete in world markets because they have productive industry. they have productive industry because their work force is highly trained and highly paid! when workers are highly paid then they have money to invest in capital markets... which further fuels the economy. workers who are paid minimum wage do not have money to invest. most importantly, while the united states and britian entertain 2-3% foreign ownership, japan has almost no foreign ownership. the most critical of canadas industry and resources are foreign owned to the tune of 35%!! and conservatives in this country keep requesting that we sell more!? these foreign companies are like huge vacuum cleaners sucking wealth off shore...

august1991 monopolies! a great subject but maybe best left for another post... suffice it to say for now that while there is lots of lip service paid to the subjects of capitalism and democracy, there is very little discussion regarding the quality of capitalism and democracy that we have and how we can be constantly improving the quality of these institutions of our society. a capitalism that is entrenched with monopolies is no better than state run economies and it is easily argued that a democracy with two candidates is not much better than a democracy with one (ie. communism)! in any case regarding your post, yes there is nothing preventing anyone from investing in publicly traded companies. but how much do people who make minimum wage have to invest?! statistics cited by economists regarding the recent bush tax plan that made dividend earnings tax free projected that these tax savings would be enjoyed almost exclusively by the richest 5% of the population! don't even get me started on the stock market! look at the rise of 'dumb money' via rrsps and the subsequent feeding frenzy on that money by insiders during the tech bubble! again, another post... please be more specific regarding how 'technological advances' produced the middle class of the twentieth century... or how these advances created the economies of growth experienced during this time period...

not of an intellectual nature, dennis?! and this from someone who admits not knowing the difference between 'regressive' and 'progressive' taxation?! well let me be of some service... these are not political terms! these are terms used in economics! progressive taxation is the system that we current employ. it is an indicator of a socialist society i hate to tell you dennis. in fact, most functioning democracies in the world employ the same system. it is a socialist indicator because it makes a statement regarding who is to control the wealth of a nation. it says that a certain lifestyle can be maintained before greater portions of that made wealth must be returned to all of a nations citizens. regressive taxation is where the less money one makes, the greater as a percentage of that income one pays in taxes. british columbia hydro has made money for the public since its creation! and the right wing gordon campbell liberals have sold it to americans! this is what i am talking about when i discuss public privatization of profitable public entities. dennis, you seem oblivious to the policies of the party you support... look at the conservative web site! last time i looked they supported the flat tax (regressive taxation). harper recently endorsed the idea of a US medical system! when will you decide that its in your best interest to actually KNOW what a parties policies are and how they affect you before you decide to support them!

dennis, have you read my post 'left vs right'? most of my posts are not two liners... so if all of my posts are just puff? then lets hear it?! come up with some actual facts? some actual arguments?! in fact, i have found this whole forum to be lacking in any intellectual thought?! most of my posts that have real arguments are rarely countered? so dennis, please explain how: - regressive taxation does not concentrate wealth or that the concentration of wealth is good for canadians - how the privatization of profitable public entities is good for canadians - how the privatization of health care is good for canadians etc... enough with the name calling... put up or shut up!

i've mentioned in other posts about the right wings reliance on jealousy of unionized labor by non-unionized labor. again, the labor movement is based on the idea that workers are not just slaves. that if money is being made using canadian labor and raw materials then workers get a piece of the action. so why is it that workers who participate in profit should not expect a fair share of this profit? why should it be concentrated to the "owners"? more importantly, why would a voting public vote to have this wealth concentrated? they do so because the are duped! what people who support this union bashing seem to be ignorant of is that organized labor have made north america what it is today! they are the success of north america! before organized labor in north america we lived in a time when 90% of the continents wealth was in the hands of 5% of the people. this was a time of the Hearst's, the Rockefellers and the Vanderbilt's! have you seen the mansions that these families left behind! they were kings and queens! labor lived in complete poverty. there were no laws protecting labor. there was not minimum wage. the rise of labor meant the rise of the middle class. more of the population had more money and were spending it. economies grew directly proportional to this money! economies have been dwindling proportionate to the disappearance of organized labor ever since! a process that has been taking place over the past thirty years as the right wing attempts to take more control of the nations wealth. most importantly, working people who are union bashers have no concept of the idea that unionized labor produces a pressure to keep non-unionized labor wages higher! without unionized labor then wages would plummet for everybody! my own theory on the success of this hysterical union bashing is that our grandfathers and great grandfathers who lived before organized labor are gone! they were our social memory. just to let everyone know... i am not a member of a union. no, i am an incorporated individual! my accountant ensures that every year i pay less effective tax than the poorest of canadians!

all of this discussion by people who have the mentality that politics is a hockey game run by cartoon characters is extremely tiring... harper will attempt to avoid a debate with layton for two reasons: 1) a debate with layton would legitimize him with those canadians who have a brain 2) it is never strategically beneficial for the right wing to operate in an arena of lengthy discourse and reasoning. its not at all likely that harper could convince canadians that the priorities of his party, namely: - the support of regressive taxation designed to concentrate wealth to a few - the movement of profitable public holdings into private hands such as energy production - the movement of social safeguards such as health care into private hands to be operated for profit (thus distancing that service from those who cannot afford it) - the further selling of canadian resources to foreign interests etc... are in the best interests of the majority of voters! it is in his best interest to continue to wage his war using 'sound bites', 'name calling' and other proven tools of ignorance! don't vote with your gut! vote with your brain!

i've mentioned in other posts about the right wings reliance on jealousy of unionized labor by non-unionized labor. again, the labor movement is based on the idea that workers are not just slaves. that if money is being made using canadian labor and raw materials then workers get a piece of the action. so why is it that workers who participate in profit should not expect a fair share of this profit? why should it be concentrated to the "owners"? more importantly, why would a voting public vote to have this wealth concentrated? they do so because the are duped! what people who support this union bashing seem to be ignorant of is that organized labor have made north america what it is today! they are the success of north america! before organized labor in north america we lived in a time when 90% of the continents wealth was in the hands of 5% of the people. this was a time of the Hearst's, the Rockefellers and the Vanderbilt's! have you seen the mansions that these families left behind! they were kings and queens! labor lived in complete poverty. there were no laws protecting labor. there was not minimum wage. the rise of labor meant the rise of the middle class. more of the population had more money and were spending it. economies grew directly proportional to this money! economies have been dwindling proportionate to the disappearance of organized labor ever since! a process that has been taking place over the past thirty years as the right wing attempts to take more control of the nations wealth. most importantly, working people who are union bashers have no concept of the idea that unionized labor produces a pressure to keep non-unionized labor wages higher! without unionized labor then wages would plummet for everybody! my own theory on the success of this hysterical union bashing is that our grandfathers and great grandfathers who lived before organized labor are gone! they were our social memory. just to let everyone know... i am not a member of a union. no, i am an incorporated individual! my accountant ensures that every year i pay less effective tax than the poorest of canadians!

well, if and when there will be popular uprising is yet to be seen. i don't think that bush, martin, harper or campbell will see consecutive terms. it takes the power of fanaticism to turn people off and people forget so easily past fanatics. i am disappointed that this post doesn't get more response. the post regarding the conservative leadership race is so much more popular! it seems that people are more interested in the sport of politics then what it actual can do for them personally... or maybe its just to long... the intellect of sound bites! ha!

i stand corrected by anyone who knows more about the situation in haiti than do i... so what you are saying is that the democratically elected president was forced out because of progressive policies that he attempted to enforce... not at all unusual. see chile 1973 etc... now known to have direct u.s. support due to declassification...

there have been a great deal of quaint explanations of the differences between the right wing and left wing, republicans and democrats, socialism and conservatism or whatever names one chooses. but unfortunately these explanations rarely point to the heart of the matter. we live in a nation with borders and we are citizens, at times unwillingly. we are governed by a democracy in which every person has an equal say, or so we choose to think. most people if given the opportunity have used democracy to decide that the wealth of a nation is the property of everyone who lives within its boundaries. that the wealth of a nation should be enjoyed by all. and why wouldn't they? anyone who has ever worked for a living knows that it is impossible given any talent to amass a fortune being paid by the hour. true fortunes are only possible by the manipulation of resources whether they be natural resources or labor. the idea is to benefit from the work of others or the wealth of some commodity that is not tied to the hours that one works but to the efficiency of the system that manipulates that commodity. private ownership is also key because without it then one does not own the benefits of such a system. but private ownership is not a right even though those who "own" large portions of our nations wealth would have you believe that it is. it is a system supported by our democratic choices. it can be removed at any moment. the most blatant example of this is the annexing of wealth, property and lives in the time of war. yes, even ones life is the property of a nation in bad times. we need entrepreneurs. we need the movers and the shakers to make our economy move. but to what extent? the progressive tax system which is also a product of our democracy makes a statement regarding this. it says that after a certain income then portions of the wealth of an individual that was made manipulating the wealth of the nation must be returned back to its citizens. our present day economically powerful are very wealthy indeed! the average holdings of the top ten percent of the united states is ten million dollars while the bottom forty percent is fourteen hundred! the thirteen thousand richest families have the same economic holdings of the poorest twenty million people! unfortunately, it is simply human nature not to want to give back what you believe you have rightfully taken. given the chance, a person will amass great wealth and then feel that it is their right to remove that wealth from the country altogether! to move it to a tax sheltered environment! it is in a wealthy persons best interest to manipulate our democratic environment to their own ends and they are in the best position to do so. to donate to political parties and shape the ideals of those parties. to own newspapers and television stations and publishing houses that promote those same ideals. right wing politics is dominated by the ideals of the wealthy. the support for regressive taxation, the downsizing of government, the removal of regulation, the movement of wealth across international boundaries without penalty. so, why would anyone who is not one of the wealthiest of a nation vote for conservatism or the right wing? any talk of socialism is always met with accusations of communism by the right and their paid mouths! how is japan, germany, sweden, denmark like china? they have national health care in common. they have post-secondary and vocational education supported by the government. now, what does the united states have in common with china? the fact that the countries wealth is concentrated and controlled by a minute fraction of the population! the current situation in Haiti should be a warning. there is a point where wealth is held by such a small percentage of the population that even a democracy is only democratic in name. when those who have had no opportunity to share in this wealth rise up and take back a nation, often violently, then the ensuing havoc may give rise to non-democratic forms of government. forms of government just as susceptible to the greed of a few.

who care!!!! estimates in the press recently stated that 8 million iraqi men, women and children have been slaughtered by carpet bombing, distruction of health and utility infrastructure, anti tank missles etc, etc... my my count this puts bush ahead of the holocaust by 2 million souls! trillions of dollars into the u.s. military industrial complex because of less people being killed by "terror" ever than die in work related accidents in the u.s. each year!? enough money in one year to finance health care for everyone in the u.s. for a decade! the "war on terror" is just another perpetual conflict like bush sr's "war on drugs"... its so like george orwells 1984 that its not even funny!

its too bad that "trust" has nothing to do with it. as i mentioned in another article... a recent study of the californian electorate found that when blinded to political party support, voters consistently picked policies supported by democrats. when asked who they voted for... they said republican! also part of the study showed that neo-conservatives have are thirty years ahead by spending billions on think tanks and media infrastructure. too bad that they can't help a fanatic like bush get back in no matter how hard they try to make people trust him! the lesson is... vote for policies not the face! harper's web site states that they support regressive taxation (where the less someone make the more as a percentage of their income they pay in taxes). today in the news he states that he is a fan of the u.s. medical system. we don't have to attract corporations to canada! its a lie! we can create our own corporations! the u.s. and britian entertain two percent foreign ownership while we have 35%! all of our nations wealth leaving the country!

it is always so disconcerting to see such pre-programmed talk feeding on the jealousy of unionized labor. the fact is that unionized wages help pressure non-unionized wages to be higher! yes, the middle class (those making a minimum of $65k per year) has made north america what it is today! and unionized hospital employees who are about to be cut are only making half of whats required to be considered middle class. socialism is a very easy concept... its the idea that all people of a country get to participate to some degree in the wealth of a nation. conservatism is the idea that that wealth should be concentrated in the hands of a few. as an IT contractor for the bc government what i see the liberals doing is truly horrifying. we are loosing our health care system. the education system is being handed over to private universities from the united states without even a discussion. we lost our money making public electrical utilities. we sold bc rail to americans. most government is being moved to private "authorities" in order to avoid freedom of information acts. 3 billion dollars of tax relief was given mostly to the top five percent of the population. the government has raised msp premiums (a regressive form of taxation) and is looking for more "user fees". a sixty year contract to a private firm to run bc ferries with guaranteed revenues (where was i when they handed this sweet deal out)! and they are doing this with unbelievable haste! and we will never, ever get out of some of these deals... its gone forever! what happened to campbells promise that a referendum would precede any major decision the government made! and what screw ups did the ndp have? fast ferries?! recently i saw an interview with a professor of media in the united states. they ran some focus groups that asked californians about political policies without telling them what political entity supported which policy. they found that people consistently selected policies supported by democrats. and when asked who they voted for... republican!