A conservative vs. a socialist (NDP) government

[thermo]

What we have now is a Conservative government which spends like a NDP government but promotes bilingualism and social policies closer to those of a Liberal government.

well, if they spent just *like* an NDP gov't we wouldn't have seen all those little cut backs on various social programs that raised such a fuss a few months ago - and way less cash being funneled into the military. Although i guess you kind of already touched on my point.

Also let's not forget - the biggest tax hike in our nations' history came from a conservative gov't!

[M.Dancer]

Unless its squandered on someone like Bear Stearns, then its called sound public policy.

The new agreement also calls for the Federal Reserve — which helped broker the emergency deal to save Bear Stearns from failure — to provide a $30-billion term loan with portfolio assets put up as collateral. Those assets will be held by a newly created company managed by BlackRock Inc.

If any part of the portfolio defaults, JPMorgan will be on the hook to cover the first $1-billion in losses. As the assets are paid off, the Fed will receive principal plus any gains.

http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/st...y/Business/home

Socialists must have redefined the meanings of bailout and squandered...

[eyeball]

Only after conservatives redefined the meaning of free market discipline.

Edited March 24, 2008 by eyeball

[M.Dancer]

Only after conservatives redefined the meaning of free market discipline.

Don't get all pouty just because your throw away comments have no bearing in reality....

[eyeball]

So you think the wealth Bear Stearns created had a bearing on reality?

[normanchateau]

well, if they spent just *like* an NDP gov't we wouldn't have seen all those little cut backs on various social programs that raised such a fuss a few months ago - and way less cash being funneled into the military.

Also let's not forget - the biggest tax hike in our nations' history came from a conservative gov't!

What I meant by "like" is that they're big spenders:

http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/03/fla...ig-spenders.php

Of course they differ on what they spend money on. For example, the billions in transfer payments to Quebec in the 2007 budget is viewed by Conservatives as a good investment as it might yield votes and seats in Quebec in the next round of elections. 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.

[capricorn]

Of course they differ on what they spend money on. For example, the billions in transfer payments to Quebec in the 2007 budget is viewed by Conservatives as a good investment as it might yield votes and seats in Quebec in the next round of elections.

If it means another Conservative government maybe that's a good thing. I honestly think a Liberal government at this point in time would be detrimental to Canada. As it stands, they can't even be effective as the official opposition how in the heck will they manage the country? As for the NDP they have never governed so they can have the pie-in- the-sky policies they want 'cause they know they will never govern the country. It's easy to make promises you know you'll never have to keep.

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.

"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. 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.

[normanchateau]

If it means another Conservative government maybe that's a good thing.

Thank you for reinforcing my point. Conservatives think it's perfectly acceptable to transfer billions of dollars from the rest of Canada to Quebec, as they did in the 2007 budget, if they think that will buy them enough votes to form a majority government.

[capricorn]

Thank you for reinforcing my point. Conservatives think it's perfectly acceptable to transfer billions of dollars from the rest of Canada to Quebec, as they did in the 2007 budget, if they think that will buy them enough votes to form a majority government.

Not only am I reinforcing your point, I'm agreeing with you.

[M.Dancer]

So you think the wealth Bear Stearns created had a bearing on reality?

Absolutely.....and the wealth they lost has equal bearing.

Welcome to reality.

Edited March 25, 2008 by M.Dancer

[normanchateau]

Not only am I reinforcing your point, I'm agreeing with you.

Are you Tom Flanagan?

[Pliny]

Sure. A bank robber 'earns' his money - no question. So doe's a priest and a drug dealer and banks and Nigerian functionaries and even Taliban footsloggers. Everyone earns thier income. I understand that concept - Borg doesn't, talk to him.

edited to add: y'see Borg thinks he earns his money but 'Socialists' don't earn thiers. Socialists, according to Borg et al, steal other peoples money. But Borg doesn't steal anyones money.

So, since Borg can call me a thief and a jackal I think its just fine that I call him a Liar and a fraud.

Now you have to look up "earn" and compare that to "take" and the new word you learned "make". You have two types of "take" listed above. The bank robber uses force to "take" and government is the only agency that society tolerates using force. A Priest and banks, I think you are implying, all fraudulently "take" and offer worthless services in return. Nigerian functionaries "take" and give nothing in return. I don't know what Taliban footsloggers are so won't comment.

Soon you will be an Economist and have some understanding that "receiving" (a new word) makes you slothful and fat. Perhaps I will design a diet program around this concept. We must also differentiate between "taking", as in accepting, and "taking" using force and fraud. Remembering all the while that government is the only recognized legal entity in society that can use force and can thus legally "take". I believe this is why you tend to like the concepts of socialism. It can "take" and all you have to do is vote.

I think Borg feels he must give something to receive something. That's called "trading" and generally contributes to the happiness of both parties involved. "Taking", unless it is voluntary, using force or fraud doesn't make either party in the transaction happy.

PS:

I must also add that the only attractive aspect of Conservatism is stemming the tide of Liberalism - unfortunately it is a costly venture. That socialists, such as Mr. Chateau, complain about Conservative spending is merely a complaint about well - socialism. If Conservatives were not socialist they would dismantle healthcare, eliminate income tax and multiculturalism and welfare, make education private, and get rid of a whole slew of other programs and policies while it slipped below the radar of even the most anatagonistic anarchist.

Edited March 25, 2008 by Pliny

[Sean Hayward]

This thread is showing the very reason that a socialist government is a bad idea. Socialists see a market economy as a system that constantly screws over the workers (however they define that group) in favour of some mythically arrogant rich people whose only motivation is to retain their status and who never contribute to society. They don't stop to think about who generates the wealth in society, they just take it for granted. They talk about fairness, but they don't explain how it is fair to give everyone the same quality of life regardless of how much or little they contribute to society. Simply listening to Jack Layton for a few consecutive minutes shows that he doesn't understand reality.

[normanchateau]

That socialists, such as Mr. Chateau, complain about Conservative spending is merely a complaint about well - socialism. If Conservatives were not socialist they would dismantle healthcare, eliminate income tax and multiculturalism and welfare, make education private, and get rid of a whole slew of other programs and policies while it slipped below the radar of even the most anatagonistic anarchist.

Perhaps the title of this thread should be a socialist (Conservative) vs a socialist (NDP) government.

You are of course correct. Both are socialist. The question remains does one want a socialist (Conservative) government spending billions to buy the vote of Quebecois in the dim hope that this would produce a majority socialist (Conservative) government?

[MontyBurns]

Perhaps the title of this thread should be a socialist (Conservative) vs a socialist (NDP) government.

You are of course correct. Both are socialist. The question remains does one want a socialist (Conservative) government spending billions to buy the vote of Quebecois in the dim hope that this would produce a majority socialist (Conservative) government?

Yeah. It's pretty hard to be conservative with Canada so hooked on social programs. At least the Conservatives are socialist-lite.

[normanchateau]

Yeah. It's pretty hard to be conservative with Canada so hooked on social programs. At least the Conservatives are socialist-lite.

In terms of what they choose to spend it on, yes. In terms of how much they spend, no previous government has spent more:

http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/03/fla...ig-spenders.php

[Peter F]

This thread is showing the very reason that a socialist government is a bad idea. Socialists see a market economy as a system that constantly screws over the workers (however they define that group) in favour of some mythically arrogant rich people whose only motivation is to retain their status and who never contribute to society. They don't stop to think about who generates the wealth in society, they just take it for granted. They talk about fairness, but they don't explain how it is fair to give everyone the same quality of life regardless of how much or little they contribute to society. Simply listening to Jack Layton for a few consecutive minutes shows that he doesn't understand reality.

Thats good, socialists don't understand how wealth is generated in society.

A wealthy person has generated thier wealth. I will agree with that. A drug dealer (a wealthy one) has certainly put in a lot of time and effort generating his wealth. But that wealth was not created - it was simply transferred from others. A bit of reality many don't quite understand.

The great pioneering entrepreneur Mr Ford himself simply sold vehicles to other folks and generated a vast amount of wealth. His wealth was generated by other people giving him money - vast amounts of it - wich they had taken from somebody else.

Wealth is not generated - it is transferred.

[Pliny]

Perhaps the title of this thread should be a socialist (Conservative) vs a socialist (NDP) government.

You are of course correct. Both are socialist. The question remains does one want a socialist (Conservative) government spending billions to buy the vote of Quebecois in the dim hope that this would produce a majority socialist (Conservative) government?

Yes, Liberal or Conservative, both have have shoveled a lot of cash into Quebec. Pity, it remains a have-not province.

Although Stalin and the threat of Communism during the cold war kept us wary of turning into a socialist state overnight it hasn't been enough of a warning to social democracies to prevent a creeping toward it. After all, the reasoning that "if someone can vote themselves pork and privilege from the public trough why can't I", is a great justification for the aggrandizement of the State.

It is all an endeavor to have a better life without working for it. The common dream of all men, capitalist or socialist - the difference must be drawn between them though that Socialists feel the dream should be achieved at the expense of others while capitalists are not so willing to inconvenience others. It is true some socialists think of capitalists as greedy, fraudsters though which I think merely justifies them living at the Capitalist's expense.

[Sean Hayward]

Thats good, socialists don't understand how wealth is generated in society.

A wealthy person has generated thier wealth. I will agree with that. A drug dealer (a wealthy one) has certainly put in a lot of time and effort generating his wealth. But that wealth was not created - it was simply transferred from others. A bit of reality many don't quite understand.

The great pioneering entrepreneur Mr Ford himself simply sold vehicles to other folks and generated a vast amount of wealth. His wealth was generated by other people giving him money - vast amounts of it - wich they had taken from somebody else.

Wealth is not generated - it is transferred.

You are mistaking wealth for money. What is wealth? Is it a bunch of pieces of paper with words on them or small pieces of metal? No. They only have that meaning because we have place that meaning upon them. The money is transferred, but the wealth is generated. If there was a society somewhere that had piles and piles of cash but no goods or services for it to be spent on, would that society be wealthy? Of course not. The generation of wealth occurs through production of goods and performance of services. Money only exists because we need some kind of currency of exchange, since we no longer use the barter system.

[Peter F]

You are mistaking wealth for money. What is wealth? Is it a bunch of pieces of paper with words on them or small pieces of metal? No. They only have that meaning because we have place that meaning upon them. The money is transferred, but the wealth is generated. If there was a society somewhere that had piles and piles of cash but no goods or services for it to be spent on, would that society be wealthy? Of course not. The generation of wealth occurs through production of goods and performance of services. Money only exists because we need some kind of currency of exchange, since we no longer use the barter system.

Ah. So if the production of goods and performance of services occurred for no exchange of money or barter at all then what wealth would be generated? How is it that only businessfolks generate this wealth? Why then is wealth measured in $$$?

[MontyBurns]

Perhaps the title of this thread should be a socialist (Conservative) vs a socialist (NDP) government.

You are of course correct. Both are socialist. The question remains does one want a socialist (Conservative) government spending billions to buy the vote of Quebecois in the dim hope that this would produce a majority socialist (Conservative) government?

The Conservatives are in a strange position where they have to be socialist in order to make the country more non-socialist.

By the way people, in case you haven't heard, socialism does NOT work. I repeat, socialism does NOT work. This is the reason why the Soviet Bloc went to ratshit and the good ole USA reigned supreme. If you do not believe this then I suggest you take a trip to a former socialist country in Eastern Europe to open your eyes. Canada is absolutely foolish to take it's policies from such a completely failed system.

[Pliny]

Thats good, socialists don't understand how wealth is generated in society.

A wealthy person has generated thier wealth. I will agree with that. A drug dealer (a wealthy one) has certainly put in a lot of time and effort generating his wealth. But that wealth was not created - it was simply transferred from others. A bit of reality many don't quite understand.

The great pioneering entrepreneur Mr Ford himself simply sold vehicles to other folks and generated a vast amount of wealth. His wealth was generated by other people giving him money - vast amounts of it - wich they had taken from somebody else.

Wealth is not generated - it is transferred.

The drug dealers wealth was gotten illegally, Peter. Government should take his wealth.

I can't understand statements like, "His wealth was generated by other people giving him money - vast amounts of it". No one "gave" Mr. Ford vast amounts of money. They traded their money for a Ford. I know you understand that because you say he sold vehicles to other folks.

The idea behind society is not to transfer wealth but to exchange what is willing to be exchanged to satisfy the needs of those involved in an exchange. An unwillingness to exchange fairly or to just exchange is an unwillingness to participate in a society.

[Pliny]

Ah. So if the production of goods and performance of services occurred for no exchange of money or barter at all then what wealth would be generated?

Personal wealth.

How is it that only businessfolks generate this wealth?

Everyone in society is involved in the economy. Is the farmer a businessfolk? Is a manufacturer a businessfolk?

They wouldn't be farmer's or manufacturers if they couldn't trade or exchange their goods. They would only deal with themselves and make their own furniture and grow their own food.

Why then is wealth measured in $$$?

Wealth is measured in $$$ because we like measuring things. Can you think of another way to measure it so all of us have a yardstick we can use? Primarily it is a comparison we use in placing value. It is easier and more convenient to have a common yardstick, instead of saying a house is worth ten cars, or a pair of shoes is worth a bag of groceries, we express all of those things in $$$.

[jbg]

Yeah. It's pretty hard to be conservative with Canada so hooked on social programs. At least the Conservatives are socialist-lite.

Last spring I read an interesting book called Continental Divide, by Seymour Lipset. The book that explored the differences between English Canada and the US. He pointed out that Leftists and Rightists in the US agree on one thing; that they distrust and can't stand the government. In Canada Leftists and Rightists both agree on a big government, and disagree on what it should do.

The US is definitely a country of individualists. I'm not a Canadian so I can't say how Canada stands on individualism, but the US has an almost pathological distrust of social programs. Perhaps when we were burned badly by the waste and fraud of the "Great Society" of the mid-1960's we learned our lesson; poverty pimps took us to the cleaners.

[normanchateau]

The Conservatives are in a strange position where they have to be socialist in order to make the country more non-socialist.

So what you are saying is that the reason the Conservatives have (1) increased spending beyond that of any previous government in the history of Canada, (2) failed to reduce personal income tax rates since being elected, and (3) transferred billions from the rest of Canada to Quebec, is because they want to save the country from socialism? Those wily Conservatives sure fooled me by disguising their fiscal conservatism as unrestrained spending and out-of-control socialism.