Ignatieff's rhetoric

[RNG]

What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it? He [Harper] was given a minority, and he refused to work with the other parties, he had 38% of the vote and he’s trying to govern like he had 100% of the power, he’s the one who’s got democracy wrong, not us.

What? He is in power. Power limited by the fact that he doesn't have a majority, admittedly. But he is the PM. Suck it up! So because he is a minority leader he is supposed to lie down and die? What are you trying to say?

[Smallc]

What? He is in power. Power limited by the fact that he doesn't have a majority, admittedly. But he is the PM. Suck it up! So because he is a minority leader he is supposed to lie down and die? What are you trying to say?

[Evening Star]

What? He is in power. Power limited by the fact that he doesn't have a majority, admittedly. But he is the PM. Suck it up! So because he is a minority leader he is supposed to lie down and die? What are you trying to say?

First, that regardless of whether or not one thinks the 2008 coalition plan (the context for the quote) was democratic or legitimate or not, Layton was not simply expressing disregard and contempt for the democratic process, which is what is suggested when the quote is taken out of context. He was expressing an interpretation of the democratic process by which he felt that Harper was in fact the one showing disdain for democracy.

In any case, however, the necessity for the sitting government to maintain the confidence of Parliament is pretty fundamental to our democratic process.

[punked]

What? He is in power. Power limited by the fact that he doesn't have a majority, admittedly. But he is the PM. Suck it up! So because he is a minority leader he is supposed to lie down and die? What are you trying to say?

Classic over reach keep it up and he wont be in power.

[William Ashley]

Why is food getting more expensive? Bigger demand? Smaller supply? Or is supply and demand relevant?

Supply and demand is relevant but there are issues such as petrochemicals used as fertilizers and pest repelents, soil depletion due to increased yeild thus requiring nutrients to be infused into the soils - then there are additive rules which requiring spraying of vitamins and nutrients into some foods - and food safety protocols - transport of course also increases with the cost of fuel to transport things - and at times the cost of gas can increase (but it is difficult to determine with the USD dollar deflation.) Populations are still increasing, in order for demand to be met - growth rates of food source have to meet or exceed population increase - also you must look at increasing purchasing power parity in various countries with high populations and or population growth - along side caloric intake and the foods that are being produced. Animals production requires more energy per head of animal but if pastures arn't provided it means feed stock has to be produced, adding to cost also. There are many factors -

It breaks down like this

1. cost of living for the workers (re equitable payrate - minimum wages)

2. cost of production

3. cost of bringing to market

4. cost of marketing and administration (tax rates / subsidy levels, packaging)

5. new markets that arn't based on dietary consumption - but this is minor example production of alchohol - fuel, more fabrics being grown in place of food to clothe people.

6. Increasing weather issues leading to crop failures - and pests leading to destruction of some crops in some areas. --- Tightening of export protocols with some countries - and wars and conflicts in others leading to disruptions (minor) --- stock piling? Most of these are minor effects. ---- Really though it is just how much land is being utilized and the price that is being set -- they are making enough for people to eat -- its all how much they can get for it. There are people starving but not because they can't be fed, but because it isn't efficient for the system to feed them. Money equates efficiency somewhat, if people don't have money they arn't contributing to the people controling the money - or means of money creation - it is the system rigged for them to determine who is supported either through charity or needs. There is unemployment that could be utilized, if only production was expanded - sadly though... it isn't in their interests to do it so it doesn't get done, perhaps because it dilutes the wealth and thus power of those holding - it - supporting those they don't want to gain power.

7. profit margins - retirement funds of aging farmers and workers - more baby boomers more people going into retirement - BUT the market sets the rate --- farmers can set their lowest sale point

If prices go up in any of these it spreads across the board.

People can make their own food though, places like russia grow 50% of their own food. That lowers your grocery bill in half.

Increased transportation and other production costs? Does it matter to those fortunates in the upper echelons? Does inflation and fixed incomes have anything to do with it?

Who has a feeling that the less fortunate should not be helped? What is "help"? What is the reason for this drop in a broader feeling that the less fortunate should be helped and the growing spirit of "learn to swim in the growing waves, or go sink by yourself, bye-bye"?

I think charity should only be a fall back on self sufficiency - it doesn't mean you can't teach people how to swim rather than just dropping them a few km out in a storm and asking them to make it to shore on their own. It takes work people are lazy and they want the world to be strong for them, not for alien values. Why teach devil worshipers how to kill? Or why would devil worshpers teach people how to expel demons? It is that sort of logic --- they have no use for them or don't trust them enough to enhance their life. Lets get it straight though, there are plenty of projects, there are lots of factors though such as even those countries trying to control aid to keep them as the power source rather than the people giving the charity - there is a certain amount of politics involved. The world is somewhat evil.

Are you part of the already-fortunate? A fitness tax credit is a Liberal idea and I don't approve. You see, if people are more fit then our health-care will cost less? Isn't that great? The guy stacking boxes all day so his kid isn't hungry at school is what everyone who has kids is basically doing. Sounds like he is learning to swim in the growing waves and not choosing to just float along with rebates.

Let's all vote ourselves a raise! Yay! We can do it if we just decide to act together. United we stand.

Collectively, we should just make a list and demand politicians give us all the things on the list.

If we all just don't work until they give us what we want that'll work.

I support giving every secondary school a public gym that can be used for the fitness of youth and those community members (who are screened to be school safe - for example sex offenders may not be suitable or people known for theft or property damage - if they are unrehabilitated or still deemed to have a potential to reoffend - of course cameras could be installed to and membership cards that have facial recogition matched with RFID or sign in cards - so that if anyone is in who isn't in the biometric database it would automatically be logged on the security system - the prices of this stuff are going down, and even students could be given the cards.. even a simple hand or other biometric scanner -- they don't cost that much anymore and they would improve school security dramatically, and cross referenced with a public database example citizneship cards for one or two biometric traits that are low or medium security - it could be effective - to give a higher level of public security in educational facilities making public use of facilities less of a safety or property damage/loss risk.) to have access to those facilities. Also I support a tax to health credit for people under the middle income level (on a family basis) but graduating down based on income --- meaning the lower the income the greater the credit because people in poverty are most succeptable to health -- this amount should be based on the balance of lower health costs due to use of health facilities. A food subsidy should also be provided (or vitamins and health products) on a savings of preventitive health. This on the idea that it costs no more than it would to keep them from being unhealthy through expensive doctors and drugs.. rather than fitness and healthy living and nutritional balance.

I'm not sure what these amounts would be.... I don't have those figures but that is what I would support no qualms... since I support basic health care for those in poverty - but I think everyone else should be paying a graduated health insurance that is the offered via a public crown corporation via the federal government... 1. calculated at the cost of healthcare of people in different demographic classes - and recalculated on a monthly basis. People would be able to subscribe to programs known to reduce the costs of healthcare - meaning a small portion of that premium would go into free programs known to lower health care costs. It would be maditory for those in poverty to take part to qualify for the poverty care if they were able to for reasons of health and living circumstances. They don't have to take part but they don't get the coverage if they don't. People would also be able to opt into their own mini group plan - with those they wanted to group with and the rate would be based on that groups health care costs. Yes this means I would end medicare - but I would replaced it with an actual cost basis meaning people pay for their own healthcare, it may be less it may be more - but no one would be made broke from it. And people with corporate plans or pension health plans such as veterans

wouldn't need to use it either.

MANAGED HEALTH IS BETTER THAN MANAGED ILLNESS.

Edited April 6, 2011 by William Ashley

[bloodyminded]

For all the books he's written, he should be able to communicate some passion for a grander theme that catches voters' imaginations.

You'd think, huh?

I haven't read his books, and no doubt he's navigated several grand themes. But perhaps he's keeping away from them because some of his themes have become rather notorious, at least among left-of-centre voters: The "Empire Lite" of a benevolent America; and, apparently, some controversial remarks on torture. (I'm making no claims about them personally, because I haven't read them.)

With basic things like food (how more basic can one get) becoming more expensive, life is getting a lot tougher in the lower echelons of Canadian society. Or do they not count any longer? There used to be a broader feeling that the less fortunate should be helped up. Now, more and more the spirit seems to be: "learn to swim in the growing waves, or go sink by yourself, bye-bye."

I think the sentiment seems to wax and wane, ebb and flow. Certainly the opinions of those on the lower echelons are never sought out.