Jack Layton

[Reverend Blair]

I don't mean to paint all Albertans as rednecks, playfullfellow. I know several members of the NDP from your province. There is a real preponderance of statments coming out of your province that refuse to address the realities in the rest of Canada though. They come from Ralph and Stevie and they come from people on the internet.

I got out of the reno business a couple of years ago because my arthritis reached the point where I couldn't do the physical labour anymore and I hated the quoting/paperwork part. I went to the photographic industry which runs year round.

Part of the reason that I got into renovations when I started my business was because there is more work in the winter. The only other part of residential construction that has decent hours in the winter is new home building. Both slow down drasically in Winnipeg in the winter. Workers get laid off.

We did a lot of painting (interiors) and rec rooms in the winter. We did almost exclusively outdoor work (fences, decks, porches, sunrooms...whatever) in the summer.

I know a lot of landscapers though. Guys who have been in that business since they were kids. Most of them are on pogey in the winter at least part of the time. Most clean parking lots or drive snow-clearing equipment for the city or rural municipality if they can, but that work is spotty at best. They do not have an alternate industry they can go to and their employment depends not only on the weather, but on their bosses getting enough contracts to keep them busy.

[maplesyrup]

Fixing Liberal mindset on the environment

There will be new chairs and committee members appointed. But what will be needed is zeal for changing the mindset, and that wasn't apparent among Liberal candidates during the election.

Happily, in a minority government, zeal for change can come from outside the Liberal party, and both the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois have shown they are capable of supplying it.

NDP Leader Jack Layton, in particular, comes to Parliament like a breath of fresh air. He has a long and effective history both on Toronto City Council and with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities as an advocate for treating the environment and the economy as complementary.

In two specific ways, he's in a stronger position than Caccia and company were.

The New Democrats, together with the Bloc, will hold much more persuasive power over the government; and Layton can be a potent voice in raising the profile of the need for change in environmental thinking prior to the next election.

This is solid — very solid — progress.

Is Jack Layton Canada's new vision guy?

[Hjalmar]

A few years ago I was watching a TV show where they were interviewing two young men in Iceland. These two had just returned home after spending two years in Canada attending university. Their fishing season in Iceland was just over and the interviewer asked these young men what they planned to do now that the fishing season was over. One of them said that they would move on and seek work elsewhere until the next fishing season opened. Then the other one piped up and said

"I don't see how you people in Canada expect anyone to work when you pay them for doing nothing"

Wake up Canada!!! Scrap this insane welfare handout so that our citizens can once again start to learn how to fend for themselves. People today are mobile enough and should be prepared to relocate wherever work is to be found. We have created a society of dependency [thanks mostly to Trudeau -- with help from the NDP] which will take a whole generation to undo.

[falling leaf]

We have created a society of dependency [thanks mostly to Trudeau -- with help from the NDP] which will take a whole generation to undo.

I agree with you Hjamar. Trudeau (Liberals) and Jack Layton ( NDP) ( two birds of a feather) .

Past and present, different parties but they both over spend .

If layton is allowed any influence in government affairs it will take at least 3 generations to correct.

If we have too many people on social dependency , we will become a nation of losers.

Doesn't bode well for the future.

[idealisttotheend]

In modern societies, people fend for themselves by working together, pooling their resources through centerally delivered programs. Humans are social animals.

Hjarmar, you're invective against easterners is quite misinformed and, as usual, you didn't bother to provide any proof. You tell me where these jobs are. You tell me which companies are looking for unskilled workers at wages high enough to make moving worthwhile and I will believe that they should move.

If you can't do that then you're argument is spurious (sometimes I wish I believed in personal attacks).

[Hjalmar]

, you're invective against easterners is quite misinformed and, as usual, you didn't bother to provide any proof. You tell me where these jobs are

Show me where I have attacked easterners. You don't have a scintilla of evidence to back that up. Would you direct me to that post please?

I think people all across Canada should be prepared to fend for themselves and not rely on government handouts.

Are you one of these people that collects EI while sitting at home at your computer? If you aren't on EI, would it bother your conscience if you were? Just wondering!!

People in this country exercised far more responsibility for themselves before Trudeau, with a minority government and support from the NDP, quadrupled UIC benefits overnight back in the early 70"s. It was back in 1972 that I first heard the comment "You can't find people that want to work today", and this coincides with the overly generous UIC benefits that were now available. Now employers have to compete with this monster.. and the monster has a huge advantage -- less effort.

You subsidize poverty and failure and you get more of both. It's a good thing that Jack Layton doesn't have enough seats to give the Liberals a majority.

[caesar]

People need roots; especially when they have children to educate so they will be able to find employment in the future. EI is not a handout from the government; it is a insurance that we all pay premiums for. It is not that easy to collect EI these days. That encourages employers not to give out raises as you are not eligible for EI even if you quit for good reason.EI doesn't pay enough to live on; it just enables one to get by until they find employment. Why shouldn't one sit at his computer when on EI. It is one of the best tools for seeking employment.

[playfullfellow]

got out of the reno business a couple of years ago because my arthritis reached the point where I couldn't do the physical labour anymore and I hated the quoting/paperwork part. I went to the photographic industry which runs year round.

I left agriculture to do the renovations business. I am lucky to work for a developement company that does both new and old housing. We are also lucky to have a booming economy so the construction industry has to pretty well go year round to keep up. It has been that way for about 5 years. I also give you credit changing careers (though it sounds like it was out of necessity rather than deep choice). More people should have your perserverance.

[Cartman]

Hmmm...Reverend. I gotta take issue with a statement or two you made. I am a so-called Albertan dog!%@#er who wears a tie and I also lived in Winterpeg for four years. I spent many years working in the BC coal industry getting dirtier than you can imagine with coal dust and grease from cleaning electric shovels. It was well paid, hard work but had serious risk of injury (cheap Mexican cable can blow your chest or arm off). Maybe I have things pretty good now I admit, but I paid my dues (work and education) and was always willing to go after the jobs. I believe that UI/EI and unionizing in certain industries is important, but personal ambition is also essential.

[Hjalmar]

Caesar

EI is not a handout from the government; it is a insurance that we all pay premiums for.

Insurance rates are based on the element of risk. EI premiums are all the same and therefore do not fall into the insurance category. Is it fair that someone who collects EI every year should be paying the same monthly premium as someone that has paid into the system for 20 years without ever collecting a penny? Therefore EI is nothing but a form of welfare.

[maplesyrup]

Caesar

EI is not a handout from the government; it is a insurance that we all pay premiums for.

Insurance rates are based on the element of risk. EI premiums are all the same and therefore do not fall into the insurance category. Is it fair that someone who collects EI every year should be paying the same monthly premium as someone that has paid into the system for 20 years without ever collecting a penny? Therefore EI is nothing but a form of welfare.

Government's priority is to redistribute the wealth.

I can see the greed factor is alive and well on the right.

Isn't this a distortion of what Jesus was all about?

[Hugo]

Government's priority is to redistribute the wealth.

A thief's priority is also to redistribute the wealth.

[maplesyrup]

Government's priority is to redistribute the wealth.

A thief's priority is also to redistribute the wealth.

So you don't believe in public schools, health care, justice system, pension plans, etc. I'm not sure I would be bragging about those things if I were you.

[Hugo]

So you don't believe in public schools, health care, justice system, pension plans

That doesn't follow, because none of the above are redistributions of wealth.

[Black Dog]

So you don't believe in public schools, health care, justice system, pension plans

That doesn't follow, because none of the above are redistributions of wealth.

They are publiclly provided services, paid for by taxation, which is a form of wealth redistribution.

But then, I assume you are of the Randian "taxes are theft" school?

[Hugo]

They are publiclly provided services, paid for by taxation, which is a form of wealth redistribution.

In the way that they are provided now, that has a ring of truth to it. However, they are services which are paid for, and the strength of the argument varies from case to case. Healthcare, for instance, is currently a case of wealth redistribution because many who don't benefit from it pay for it. But for police forces, everybody benefits from it even if they have never been a victim of crime (crime prevention, land values, economic benefits etc) so taxation is fair as it is a simple provision of services in exchange for a fee.

But then, I assume you are of the Randian "taxes are theft" school?

Not that taxes are theft, but that they are a necessary evil that should be kept to a bare minimum. I believe that the individual citizen should be the ultimate agent of his own destiny as far as possible, and not the State. That includes how his property and wealth are used and disposed of.

[Hjalmar]

MS

Government's priority is to redistribute the wealth.

You and Jack Layton are from the same school. You want an equal standard of living for everybody. That is absolutely wrong. I believe in equality of opportunity for all and not equal standard of living for all. We are not all created equal and therefore the more productive should be entitled to a better standard of living. Are you with me so far? Now tell me, how are you going to redistribute the wealth as you say, without creating a disincentive to work and get ahead? Think that over carefully before responding.

[maplesyrup]

MS

Government's priority is to redistribute the wealth.

You want an equal standard of living for everybody.

You need a lesson in logic:

Statement 1; A government's priority is to redistribute the wealth.

Equals:

Statement 2; You want an equal standard of living for everybody.

This is fallacious bunk.

Go back to school and learn something about logic.

[noelandmero]

Statement 1; A government's priority is to redistribute the wealth.

Since when is this the governments responsibility, other than in the wonderful workers paradises of Cuba and China.

[Black Dog]

You and Jack Layton are from the same school. You want an equal standard of living for everybody. That is absolutely wrong. I believe in equality of opportunity for all and not equal standard of living for all. We are not all created equal and therefore the more productive should be entitled to a better standard of living. 

I gather you cannot see the contradiction at the heart of this statement. If we are, as you say, not created equal, then its safe to say that many, through circumstances beyond their control, are constrained from achieving or pursuing the same oportunities as others. That's the idea behind a progressive social system and wealth redistribution: levelling the playing field so everyone gets a fair shot while helping those who have got a bum hand.

The flip side of course is why should those who are born in to fortuitous circumstances not of their own making benefit more than others?

[Cartman]

Reducing taxes as a result of efficient gov't is fine by me, but eliminating the redistributive function of government altogether? Are you willing to pay tolls for every privatized road you take? Are you willing to lose subsidies for education which range from 70-80% while a year of university already costs about $5,000? At 29 my wife died from cancer after living a perfectly "clean" life. Thank goodness that I did not have to pay that bill out of my pocket 'cause I can't even imagine what it would be! In order to pay entirely for the destructive effects to the environment caused by your car(s), you would be looking at several times the price of fuel. What would a fully privatized police force act like? Any benefits from government safety regulation of business? Trust me, you guys are most likely receivers of redistribution.

[Cartman]

A charitable person's priority is also to redistribute.

Donating to starving children across the globe (as my family does for 2 kids) is not the same as robbing a liquor store.

Redistribution is not the same thing as theft.

[Hugo]

Redistribution is not the same thing as theft.

No, but theft is the same thing as redistribution.

Reducing taxes as a result of efficient gov't is fine by me, but eliminating the redistributive function of government altogether?

The more you redistribute, the poorer we all become. Look at Cuba and China, and for a more moderate example look at Sweden or Norway. Sweden has not had any economic growth for 8 years (which means, good luck finding any work). 25% of Norwegians do not earn enough to feed and house themselves. You need to understand economics before you start talking about this. It's counter-intuitive. Trying to help people and redistributing wealth ends up making them poorer and worse off.

A good quote for you to ponder: "It's amazing how an idea can look so good on paper that it can be proven wrong 9 times out of 10 and still be widely believed, like state interference in the economy. It's also amazing how an idea can be proven right 9 times out of 10 and still be widely disbelieved, like the concept of free markets." (Thomas Sowell)

[maplesyrup]

Hugo.......if you are going to throw out statistics like that, back them up with URLs so that we can all verify them otherwise we might suspect you made them up, if you get my drift.

[Hugo]

Swedish data: Henrekson, Magnus, 1996. "Sweden's Relative Economic Performance: Lagging Behind or Staying on Top?," Economic Journal, Vol. 106 (439) pp. 1747-59. Royal Economic Society

No URL, however, it's publicly available information.

Norwegian data: http://www.nationbynation.com/Norway/

Note that Norway publishes no official figures on poverty levels. These are unofficial analyses.