maplesyrup Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 Political will needed to tackle a disaster "Everyone wants something to be done about housing. But among the voting public, health care and education affect all of us, so they tend to be higher on the agenda." And the government has other "electoral" priorities - like giving $1 billion in relief to ranchers and farmers affected by mad-cow disease and drought, in areas where Liberals need votes, Hulchanski says. "Is this a big social problem? Are farmers dying or catching tuberculosis in homeless shelters? I'm not trying to be insensitive, but it's not as serious as what a lot of families and homeless people are going through right now." Damm right we need a new government. One who cares about less priviledged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted April 5, 2004 Report Share Posted April 5, 2004 The prof is right but Martin has layed a minefield. What politician is going to say this Liberal vote-buy is wrong? The Western ranchers will say "Hey, everyone else gets a turn at the trough. Now, it's our turn." Will Harper say that it's alright to take Torontonian taxpayer money and give it to Western ranchers but not Maritime fishermen? It's wrong to encourage a culture of defeat but alright to help people survive disaster? The rancher pay-off is a political minefield. As to housing, our tax system includes an indirect (and large) bias in favour of homeowners. It amounts to a subsidy to homeowners not available to renters. The only way to correct the bias and make the subsidy equal would be to allow renters to deduct all rental payments from their taxable income. (That's what homeowners implicitly get now. Renters pay with after tax dollars.) Although it would be very good for the economy, I doubt Martin or Harper would ever propose such a tax policy Why? I suspect most Canadian voters think homeowners are "better people" than renters. Most voters, even leftish ones, would see this as a tax break for, in American speak, trailer trash. Even Layton wouldn't propose it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playfullfellow Posted April 5, 2004 Report Share Posted April 5, 2004 Giving a 1 billion dollar subsidy to the farmers may be a minefield but is it wrong? I think people forget that agriculture still plays a very big part in our national economy. Canadians also enjoy some of the cheapest food in the world, even though a trip to Safeway doesn't feel like it. How many people across Canada have been affected by the outbreak of 1 single case of BSE? It has not just been the beef farmers but also pork, chicken, grain and so forth that have been affected. How many billions of dollars have been lost because that 1 sole case of BSE? 1 billion dollars will seem small in comparison. I am not a big fan of any sort of subsidy but I do believe that there should be help in emergencies such as this. If there is no help, then we will see thousands of farmers lose everything they have spent their whole lives building. Is this the answer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted April 5, 2004 Report Share Posted April 5, 2004 I am not a big fan of any sort of subsidy It's a bail out, a vote buy. Martin is bribing a few voters with many other voters' money.Everyone is up in arms because $100 million was given to Quebec ad firms. But it's OK to give 10x that to Western ranchers. (I'm sorry, I forgot. Those Quebecers always have their heads in the trough while Western ranchers have had to make do on their own. Fair is fair - we should let everyone get a chance to pig out at the trough.) I think people forget that agriculture still plays a very big part in our national economy. I think barbers, video rental store clerks, bus drivers and BC winemakers play a very big part in our economy. Do they get handouts? What's your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderate Centrist Posted April 6, 2004 Report Share Posted April 6, 2004 Well vote buying is practised by all political parties so there's no use in getting uptight about that. Resentment against the farmers is of no use. I think they should get assistance. The effects of Mad Cow have been devestating and have put some farmers in jeporady of losing everything. As someone stated Agriculture does play and important part of the economy - farmers have to buy equipment, feed, hire workers, ship their goods, sell their goods etc etc. The difference between farmers and barbers is that the hair cutting industry wasn't brought to a standstill last year. The government should be there to provide assistance when it's needed. Is this really a hand out or help when it's needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o.i.c Posted April 6, 2004 Report Share Posted April 6, 2004 Well vote buying is practised by all political parties so there's no use in getting uptight about that. That is a scary statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playfullfellow Posted April 6, 2004 Report Share Posted April 6, 2004 Yes, barbers, video store clerks bus drivers and BC wine makers play a part of the economy but how of a big part would they play if grocery store shelves were empty? What if you had to pay 2-3 times more for a meal than you do now, would your paycheque help the national economy as it does now? In all reality, the crisis goes way beyond just helping a bunch of western farmers, this aid money will be distributed across Canada. I can't help it that the majority of farmers are west of the Ontario border. Also remember that if the farmers go, so will stock yard workers, processing plant workers, truck drivers, grocery store clerks and so on. Who do you think will have to make up for all the defaulted bank payments? It wont be the bank managers, it will be the average joe. In all reality, the money wont make much difference in farmers opinion on who they vote for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted April 6, 2004 Report Share Posted April 6, 2004 What if you had to pay 2-3 times more for a meal than you do now, would your paycheque help the national economy as it does now? I've got an idea. Let the government pay farmers completely through subsidies and then we can give away the food for free! Canada is a country of subsidies. We love 'em! That's why the Liberals will get re-elected. Yes, barbers, video store clerks bus drivers and BC wine makers play a part of the economy but how of a big part would they play if grocery store shelves were empty? Everybody claims to be important. Everybody has a reason to put their head in the trough first. Tell me though: Why am I forced to buy expensive Canadian food and I cannot buy cheaper imported food? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playfullfellow Posted April 6, 2004 Report Share Posted April 6, 2004 Might have something to with the fact that Canada has some of the lowest farm subsidies in the world. Other countries pay their farmers to keep prices lower to the consumer. Just wondering which country you would expect to import cheaper food from, Canada is a major exporter. The US is in no position to fill the plates of Canadians also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderate Centrist Posted April 6, 2004 Report Share Posted April 6, 2004 Hello o.i.c, Scary statement? Poticians by their very nature are all dishonest to various degrees. This is political reality and perhaps nessessity. This is why it's so amusing to hear people preach about the honesty and morals of the "New" Conservative Party. They'll be no better than the Liberals if they ever do take power which will be never. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.