A conservative vs. a socialist (NDP) government

[jbg]

How is anyone to make sense of an opinion that smoking pot should be legal but selling or growing it should be a crime?

How about decriminalizing possession and smoking but not legalizing it? In New York, possession/somking are treated much the way traffic violations are. On one hand the stuff isn't pouring out of vending machines. On the other hand, people don't become branded for life as "criminals" for a petty offense.

It was implemented back in 1977, and has been successful here.

[eyeball]

It's the same sort of rationalization and inconsistency we see in people who see no problem with governments selling and taxing dangerous drugs like alcohol and cigarettes while outraged at the thought of government

selling and taxing marijuana.

I know, its like when people that don't trust science listen to what scientists say.

[eyeball]

How about decriminalizing possession and smoking but not legalizing it? In New York, possession/somking are treated much the way traffic violations are. On one hand the stuff isn't pouring out of vending machines. On the other hand, people don't become branded for life as "criminals" for a petty offense.

It was implemented back in 1977, and has been successful here.

I suppose. It sort of makes a mockery of the law which is probably more unhealthy to society than any amount of drugs, but sure, what the hell. What sort of fines are handed out and what happens when people challenge them in court?

[normanchateau]

How about decriminalizing possession and smoking but not legalizing it? In New York, possession/somking are treated much the way traffic violations are.

The Angus-Reid poll I posted above revealed that a majority of Canadians favour legalization and a majority of Canadians also opposed Harper's decision to scrap the Liberal government's decriminalization legislation. So the Greens ands NDP favour legalization and the Liberals decriminalization. Harper as usual is off to the far right of most Canadians, hardly what you'd expect of someone once described as libertarian.

[jbg]

I suppose. It sort of makes a mockery of the law which is probably more unhealthy to society than any amount of drugs, but sure, what the hell. What sort of fines are handed out and what happens when people challenge them in court?

$50-$100 fines, I think. As far as what happens to those who challenge the charges in Court, they are beheaded.

[Wild Bill]

How is anyone to make sense of an opinion that smoking pot should be legal but selling or growing it should be a crime?

Monty is on the right track, if you're really serious about stamping out marijuana use you have to stop the demand by rounding up all the dope smokers. All you'd need to do is make drug testing mandatory and throw everyone who fails into prison.

End of problem. Focus only on the supply however and the problem will never go away...ever.

Wouldn't that mean over a million new prison inmates? Leaving aside the political optics of imprisoning that many people for such a trivial "crime", what about the logistics and costs of constructing that much extra prison capacity?

Doesn't matter. The Drug Lords would never allow it. I am convinced that they and their money are behind the war on drugs. It keeps them rich. It is the only thing that makes sense. Al Capone is laughing in his grave.

[madmax]

"Have-nots" don't vote Conservatives because they know any other party will keep giving them handouts thus its a way of keeping the vote of the "have-nots". Liberals have mastered this concept.

For one thing, the Federal Liberals Cuts under Martin were harsher then any under the Current Conservative Government. (They can't because they have already blown the bank with Corporate Giveaways and weak economic policy)

Regardless....

Many of those "have nots" who do vote, vote Conservative. Many Have Nots whom you cite as receiving handouts haven't a clue where the money comes from, or understand that Political Parties represent different values. They are simply viewed as political liars who will do what they want. The view held is no different then the majority of working middle class people. The vast number of whom don't vote and don't believe in any of the partys.

It is only the "Conservative" activist who believes this clap trap. The most active people looking for handouts from government are closely tied to the government regardless of the party in power. The Liberals and Conservatives have master this concept, but not as well as those whom know how to take advantage of the Government in Power.

On the other hand, Conservatives believe "have-nots" can become "do-haves" given the proper incentives and those who cannot become "do-haves" through no fault of their own, well, they will receive the help they genuinely need.

Well, this line written above comes from the Liberal Playbook. Infact, from the vast majority of Conservatives that I know, they would completely disregard your statement as pure socialist welfare and not Conservativism at all.

What you have written above is a socialist viewpoint, one that was adopted by all Political Parties nearly 100 years ago and most of which was adopted as policy after the Great Depression and WW2. If you should think that the Conservatives have a monopoly viewpoint on the statement above, you are incorrect.

[capricorn]

Many of those "have nots" who do vote, vote Conservative. Many Have Nots whom you cite as receiving handouts haven't a clue where the money comes from, or understand that Political Parties represent different values.

The most active people looking for handouts from government are closely tied to the government regardless of the party in power. The Liberals and Conservatives have master this concept, but not as well as those whom know how to take advantage of the Government in Power.

Madmax, as I read over those two comments you made, I see them as contradictory. Let me know if I am reading you wrong.

Well, this line written above comes from the Liberal Playbook. Infact, from the vast majority of Conservatives that I know, they would completely disregard your statement as pure socialist welfare and not Conservativism at all.

What I wrote needs to be looked at in the context that I was replying to a poster who said:

Money given to the have-nots is a poor Conservative investment as the have-nots tend not to vote and when they do vote, they tend not to vote Conservative.

The point I attempted in make in response to normanchateau is that Conservatives will provide opportunities for those who want to improve their lot in life instead of relying on the government for their subsistence. Additionally, a Conservative government is not so cold hearted as to sweep aside those who are truly in need and makes provisions to give them the help they genuinely need. The poster introduced the term "have-nots" and in my reply I used "do-haves" to make the link that one can lead to the other given the proper incentives.

The policy statement closest to the statement I made are found in the most recent Speech From The Throne. This is from the section titled "Providing Effective Economic Leadership for a Prosperous Future".

As part of ensuring economic security for Canadians, our Government will bring forward a long-term plan of broad-based tax relief for individuals, businesses and families—including following through on its commitment to a further cut to the GST.

------

The bedrock of our workforce is middle-class Canadians and their families. These families worry about the rising costs of higher education and the expense of caring for elderly parents. They worry about affordable housing and the number of homeless people on our streets. Our Government is committed to helping Canadian families meet their needs. The Working Income Tax Benefit will help Canadians get back into the workforce, and the registered disability savings plan will help families care for children with severe disabilities. Our Government will continue to invest in our families and our future, and will help those seeking to break free from the cycles of homelessness and poverty.

http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2888/

(bolding is mine)

I am far from leftist or socialist in my thinking and beliefs, so I was rather surprised that you categorized me as such based on that one sentence you quoted. BTW I am presently a Conservative supporter, a fact which is not lost on the majority of posters here.

[Kitchener]

Money given to the have-nots is a poor Conservative investment as the have-nots tend not to vote and when they do vote, they tend not to vote Conservative.

Is there evidence for this claim?

It might be true, I suppose. But there's a lot more than wealth in the equation. "Have-not" fundamentalists, I suspect, are likelier to vote Conservative than for any other party in contemporary Canada. So too are anti-gay folks, of whatever income level, I expect. This is all conjecture without some data; but the received view of the neo-con success in the USA is that it harnessed the lobbying/advertising power and influence of the corporate-class conservatives in order to gather the votes of the religious right -- many of whom are have-nots. We shouldn't minimize the prospect that the same strategy isn't also successful in Canada.

[Zachary Young]

Where is option C :

I have no faith in either government?

[Qwerty]

Even Dion would rather see Harper than Smilin' Jack in office I am sure. Canada would be bankrupt within 2 years with the NDP at the helm.

[jbg]

Even Dion would rather see Harper than Smilin' Jack in office I am sure. Canada would be bankrupt within 2 years with the NDP at the helm.

I doubt that. Glen Clark and Bob Rae were quite proficient managers of the public fisc from what I understand.

[Qwerty]

Yes more Rae Days. I want Canada to really turn into a third world cesspool. Then Canada can look like some sh thiole that those immigrants came from. We'd really be making strides towards multiculturalism. Making them feel at home. That's our goal as Canadians. To make ourselves feel guilty and make immigrants feel good....makes ense to me lets all vote Liberal or NDP next election.

[Wild Bill]

I doubt that. Glen Clark and Bob Rae were quite proficient managers of the public fisc from what I understand.

Check your history books! When Bob was in office here in Ontario we were going into a recession. Bob decided in typical socialist bonehead fashion that we should increase government spending and buy our way out!

So they spent $10 Billion dollars! It went down a rat hole, of course. By the time he was voted out we had gone from a provincial surplus to a deep deficit.

Bob was even so naive as to think he could balance his government's payroll by getting all his public sector union buddies to voluntarily put in some workdays for free! That they would cheerfully take no pay to help things out! Of course, like all good socialists they flatly refused and threatened to go on strike. The province could go bankrupt but they didn't care, as long as they got theirs! This coined the term "Rae Days" and it is still in use today.

This is why the big fear for the Liberals about having Bob as leader is that it might cost them badly in Ontario. They've been putting on a brave face but my take from talking to folks on the street is that people have NOT forgotten. Bob Rae's government made a bad situation far worse. It HURT!

[Qwerty]

Yes more Rae Days. I want Canada to really turn into a third world cesspool. Then Canada can look like some sh thiole that those immigrants came from. We'd really be making strides towards multiculturalism. Making them feel at home. That's our goal as Canadians. To make ourselves feel guilty and make immigrants feel good....makes ense to me lets all vote Liberal or NDP next election.

Edited April 23, 2008 by Qwerty

[Qwerty]

Yes more Rae Days. I want Canada to really turn into a third world cesspool. Then Canada can look like some sh thiole that those immigrants came from. We'd really be making strides towards multiculturalism. Making them feel at home. That's our goal as Canadians. To make ourselves feel guilty and make immigrants feel good....makes ense to me lets all vote Liberal or NDP next election.

I wonder if Richard Warman and his thought police gestapo will come after me?

Edited April 23, 2008 by Qwerty

[jbg]

Yes more Rae Days. I want Canada to really turn into a third world cesspool. Then Canada can look like some sh thiole that those immigrants came from. We'd really be making strides towards multiculturalism. Making them feel at home. That's our goal as Canadians. To make ourselves feel guilty and make immigrants feel good....makes ense to me lets all vote Liberal or NDP next election.

So I guess you liked Glen Clark (BC Premier)?

[madmax]

Check your history books! When Bob was in office here in Ontario we were going into a recession. Bob decided in typical socialist bonehead fashion that we should increase government spending and buy our way out!

So they spent $10 Billion dollars! It went down a rat hole, of course. By the time he was voted out we had gone from a provincial surplus to a deep deficit.

Bob was even so naive as to think he could balance his government's payroll by getting all his public sector union buddies to voluntarily put in some workdays for free! That they would cheerfully take no pay to help things out! Of course, like all good socialists they flatly refused and threatened to go on strike. The province could go bankrupt but they didn't care, as long as they got theirs! This coined the term "Rae Days" and it is still in use today.

This is why the big fear for the Liberals about having Bob as leader is that it might cost them badly in Ontario. They've been putting on a brave face but my take from talking to folks on the street is that people have NOT forgotten. Bob Rae's government made a bad situation far worse. It HURT!

Bob Rae was not a socialist but a Liberal in a Socialist Party. He did an excellent job of making himself electable. Keynesian Economic policy is not socialism. It also will have limited to little effect in an open economy. Bob Rae did not react well to the structural change of the economy.

Keynesian Economic Policy is to combat Deflation, something that was problematic in the 30s. Hasn't really showed its head since.

Keynesian economics (pronounced /ˈkeɪnziən/, "kane-zeean"), also Keynesianism and Keynesian Theory, is an economic theory based on the ideas of twentieth-century British economist John Maynard Keynes. The state, according to Keynesian economics, can help maintain economic growth and stability in a mixed economy, in which both the public and private sectors play important roles. Keynesian economics seeks to provide solutions to what some consider failures of laissez-faire economic liberalism, which advocates that markets and the private sector operate best without state intervention. The theories forming the basis of Keynesian economics were first presented in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, published in 1936.

In Keynes's theory, some micro-level actions of individuals and firms can lead to aggregate macroeconomic outcomes in which the economy operates below its potential output and growth. Many classical economists had believed in Say's Law, that supply creates its own demand, so that a "general glut" would be impossible. Keynes contended that aggregate demand for goods might be insufficient during economic downturns, leading to unnecessarily high unemployment and losses of potential output. Keynes argued that government policies could be used to increase aggregate demand, thus increasing economy activity and reducing high unemployment and deflation. Keynes's macroeconomic theories were a response to mass unemployment in 1920s Britain and in 1930s America

Rae used the wrong approach, one in not identifying the problem, and two in adopting Public/Private models, many of which are still being created today, but Liberal and Conservative Governments.

The FTA and NAFTA created the Jobs Exodus and 1st Wave of Manufacturing Fallout in Ontario as companies left to take advantage of the new economy. It did not provide the Jobs the Conservatives were promising, and it had a devastating effect as Ontario was in a recession. Compounded on top of the structural changes, the new jobs were not ready to arrive nor where there trained people to do the new jobs should they come. Jobs Ontario was created but nobody new what they were doing and these services were all private, but government funded. Not a Socialist Program. The Social Contract was in name only, and while providing some relief to the government, overriding traditional collective bargaining wasn't the problem. It was opening already negotiated contracts and having no bargaining.

Could someone do more things wrong at the same time, affecting non supporters and supporters alike?

Bob Rae had neither the courage or conviction of a Tommy Douglas, Roy Romanov. But he did have leadership and overuled his elected Socialist counter parts. People such as Peter Kormos had to eat crow.

No, Bob Rae is quite possibly, the only NDP premier to have no lasting policy of anykind. The weakest and only thing he speaks of is creating affordable housing. Had he had economic reasoning, he would have realized that industry was in transition and relocation, vs a slowdown waiting for an upturn.

He should have been seeking out new jobs, not spending money on Capital Projects. The only way for him to seek new jobs is to locate or create markets. Only markets create jobs.

Bob Rae is the black mark in NDP/CCF leadership.

However, he makes a good fit for other Provincial Losers, including Grant Devine, who destroyed the Conservative party so badly they had to change their name.

Every now and then an economic Turkey is the leader.

Trudeau,

Mulroney,

Devine,

Rae,

The is evidence to suggest that Provincial NDP governments have been more responsible fiscal managers then their counterparts. The cost for fiscal Mismanagement is often a term or generation in the wilderness, or the disappearance of your parties BRAND name from the electoral ballots of most voters minds.

Such as the Provincial Conservatives in BC.

Now, there was no Provincial Surplus in Ontario when Rae took power. Peterson didn't inherit one after 40 years of Conservative rule under the Big Blue Machine. Bob Nixon said it was balanced, but it was not. In any circumstances their was never any claim of surplus.

Had Bob Rae performed as a Socialist in a Depression, he may have made out like those Socialists who brought their provinces out of oblivion. Ideas that then became part and parcel to every party platform. But that would require coming up with new solutions for a new problem. Not using an economic solution from the 30s to combat the problem of Deflation. He would be like the Premiers of Alberta and Sask who first had to deal with the depression who had no solutions of their own, and believed that the economy would sort itself out. Rae Believed in Capital Spending as a solution to Industrial Relocation.

All parties then started adopting Socialist models. Many of these models were already implemented in the US and the UK.

Bob Rae was not of this kind. He was a silver spooned elitist who wanted to be a big fish in a little pond. In getting elected he was successful. As an Economic and Provincial Premier. A complete and utter failure.

To think that so many Liberals would even consider him as leader.......

Choices were so bad, that they choose Dion.

Their is little reason to believe that Dion would be a good economic Prime Minister. He probably wouldn't , which means you have to go down the bench to see who would perform like P Martin as the Economic Minister. Certainly NOT a post for BOB RAE.

Could you see it.....

Dion as Prime Minister and Bob Rae as Finance Minister.

And I thought Flaherty was a little loose.

I have no idea how Jack Layton would handle the economy. He has a record in T.O. but that is alot of people involved in the process.

Then you have to go down the list to see who if elected would be finance minister?

But no matter who I see on the list, I know it couldn't be Bob Rae, because he is a Liberal.

Now.....

If I were to dream.....

I would have Preston Manning and Ed Broadbent in the same room running the country.

Why? Because both men respect Parliment, and it is clear that Parliment is no longer respected by either the Liberals or the Conservatives.

Both men believed in Debate and Solutions, even though they are ideologically opposed, and work hard to form positional papers on their ideology, I still see both men as able to be rational and reasonable.

Today I see lots of hype, phony outrage, phoney debate and posturing.

I don't see any strong leadership running the country.

I don't see RAE running the country either.

Unless you mean running it bankrupt, because, while he is a great speaker, and successful at getting elected. Even successful in saying he has learned his lesson, he only says this because he is a politician.

He wouldn't behave any differently, then when he ran Ontario into the ground.

If he had accomplished anything in his career, we would be able to point at it.

[mcqueen625]

Since the NDP stands for socialist policies similar to the Liberals, I want nothing to do with either. The little bit of money I have left after taxes, I want to decide where to spend it, and it certainly won't be on expensive and unsustainable socialist policies. It was quite telling when both the Liberals and the NDP came out against tax cuts, because they supposedly had already made plans where that money and more should be spent.

It's my money, and I want to decide where it will be spent, not some socialist with an agenda, and not some bureaucrat who's only existance depends on a larger and larger share of tax tollars.

[punked]

Since the NDP stands for socialist policies similar to the Liberals, I want nothing to do with either. The little bit of money I have left after taxes, I want to decide where to spend it, and it certainly won't be on expensive and unsustainable socialist policies. It was quite telling when both the Liberals and the NDP came out against tax cuts, because they supposedly had already made plans where that money and more should be spent.

Yah can you imagine making a plan to spend tax money. Wait we do that it is called budgeting I almost forgot.

[MontyBurns]

It's my money, and I want to decide where it will be spent, not some socialist with an agenda, and not some bureaucrat who's only existance depends on a larger and larger share of tax tollars.

Socialism is stealing in my opinion. Socialists steal money and spend that money that doesnt belong to them.

[madmax]

Socialism is stealing in my opinion. Socialists steal money and spend that money that doesnt belong to them.

Governments collect taxes. What do you suggest they do with the money?

Conservatives Collect Money....

Conservatives have been in power switching between them and the Liberals since 1867. Collecting Money..

Conservatives were in charge of Alberta since driving out the Social Credit and Conservatives Governments

COLLECT MONEY.....

So if you are suggesting that Governments collecting money is Stealing.... then many would agree with you.

What Governments do with those COLLECTED/Stolen Funds... Is disperse them for Capital Projects, Corporate Friends, and Social Services, such as Military, Judges, Courts, Health Care, Firefighters, etc....

I still recall the scene in Gangs of New York, with the Private Firefighting Companies fighting each other and stealing from the homes while the homes burned.

[segnosaur]

Governments collect taxes. What do you suggest they do with the money?

Conservatives Collect Money....

Conservatives have been in power switching between them and the Liberals since 1867. Collecting Money..

Conservatives were in charge of Alberta since driving out the Social Credit and Conservatives Governments

COLLECT MONEY.....

So if you are suggesting that Governments collecting money is Stealing.... then many would agree with you.

What Governments do with those COLLECTED/Stolen Funds... Is disperse them for Capital Projects, Corporate Friends, and Social Services, such as Military, Judges, Courts, Health Care, Firefighters, etc....

I think what you're doing there is illustrating a Strawman fallacy.

I don't think anyone here really believes in a no-tax situation. (That would best be defined as anarchy.) However, there is a difference between wanting a government to collect taxes for basic services (e.g. military, courts, etc.) and the socialist ideal where there is even greater government spending (in some cases in areas that are already served by private interests).

Saying that a socialist "steals money" doesn't necessarily mean that all taxes collected by a socialist government are stolen, only the part that goes to spending areas that are considered excessive.

As an anology... lets say you agree to fix my car. You charge me $1000, even though the amount of work done is only worth $500. In that case, you have not stolen $1000, you've only 'stolen' $500... the rest of the money was a valid charge for the work done.

[gc1765]

As an anology... lets say you agree to fix my car. You charge me $1000, even though the amount of work done is only worth $500. In that case, you have not stolen $1000, you've only 'stolen' $500... the rest of the money was a valid charge for the work done.

I guess that depends on whether you agreed to pay $1000. If you agreed to pay $1000, then I don't think you can call that stealing.

[charter.rights]

As an anology... lets say you agree to fix my car. You charge me $1000, even though the amount of work done is only worth $500. In that case, you have not stolen $1000, you've only 'stolen' $500... the rest of the money was a valid charge for the work done.

You've just condemned yourself. Paying $1000 for a $500 job isn't theft. It's capitalism - what the buyers are willing to pay. You might be upset at being overcharged, but you have a choice not to patronize the guy the next time you need your car fixed.

Socialism however, would have you paying $250 for a $500 repair and taking money from the government to artificially support the repairman because he employs many people. Socialism at is worst is bailing out failing companies using taxes collected for other purpose. Funny isn't it that it is exactly what Flaherty has been demanding Ontario do, yet he claims to be a small 'c'onservative looking out for the best interests of Ontarians.

On the other side of that equation, we can see how fascism is intrinsically in extreme right wing thinking. The CPC is refusing to acknowledge the importance of Elections Canada in maintaining democratic rules governing fair elections since they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. By condemning and refusing to co-operate with the investigation into far election practices, the CPC has exposed itself as leaning towards the extreme. Removing controls and rules and supplanting them with absolute oligarchy rule is fascism that Musselini would have been proud of.