Wild Bill Posted October 9, 2011 Report Posted October 9, 2011 it's the donations from the big corporations and lobby groups that are a concern. if the corporations and lobby groups scratch harper's back, then harper has to scratch them back. this is why the system is not perfect. It's the large donations from corporations and lobby groups that were made illegal! That's the whole basis for this situation! Chretien made the changes before he left office so that there would be a $1000 limit and donations must come from individuals. Geez Bud, that was a while ago! Ironically, it was the Reform/Alliance/CPC that was hurt the least by those changes, since they had a highly developed machine to solicit smaller donations from individuals. When I was active in Reform pretty well all local members were constantly raising funds, including the traditional car washes and bake sales. At every meeting we would pass around a KFC bucket and would never fail to get a few hundred dollars every time. The Liberals and NDP both had no such machine or experience, having always depended on large corporate and lobby group donations. They were the party of Bay Street, after all! Closing down this source of money left the Opposition parties with pretty well only the kickback from Elections Canada for the votes they had received. If they understood the need to develop machinery for fund raising from individuals in small amounts they seemed to do nothing about it, perhaps being too pre-occupied with leadership fights and getting control of the party. So the corporations are NOT scratching Harper's back, Bud! Certainly not in the manner that they used to scratch the Liberals' and the same as unions would scratch that of the NDP. This is why I hold so little respect for the Opposition parties over this matter. Reform proved that a party can thrive by direct contributions from its membership, who obviously cared enough to dig into their own pockets. I see no difference between giving parties $1.95 for every vote out of general tax revenues and any kind of corporate welfare. If your members won't VOLUNTARILY kick in a few bucks then you simply don't deserve to exist as a party, as far as I'm concerned. Those small donations show a level of support that cannot be denied, whereas a welfare vote stipend means nothing. Anybody can cast a vote for free. That's easy! Opening your own wallet is much harder. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
ReeferMadness Posted October 9, 2011 Report Posted October 9, 2011 This is why I hold so little respect for the Opposition parties over this matter. Reform proved that a party can thrive by direct contributions from its membership, who obviously cared enough to dig into their own pockets. I see no difference between giving parties $1.95 for every vote out of general tax revenues and any kind of corporate welfare. If your members won't VOLUNTARILY kick in a few bucks then you simply don't deserve to exist as a party, as far as I'm concerned. Those small donations show a level of support that cannot be denied, whereas a welfare vote stipend means nothing. Anybody can cast a vote for free. That's easy! Opening your own wallet is much harder. It's easy to hold a particular view that view is obviously advantageous to your particular cause. No wonder you like Harper so much. People who write a cheque for a thousand bucks have two characteristics in common: They're ideologues and they have a thousand bucks they can spare. Since Harper panders to right wing extremists, he corners the right wing ideologues. And since the wealthy tend to be right wing, most people who can spare a thousand bucks for a political party will be Harper supporters. So, most people who are going to write a cheque for a grand are going to write it to the Conservatives. Hardly rocket science. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted October 9, 2011 Report Posted October 9, 2011 Furthermore, as has been pointed out, the Liberals were the largest benefactors of corporate donations. In other words, it was going to hurt them but they did it because it was the right thing to do. It's a pity Stephen "if I keep my voice a dull monotone, people will think I'm honest" Harper doesn't have that type of integrity. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
Wild Bill Posted October 9, 2011 Report Posted October 9, 2011 (edited) It's easy to hold a particular view that view is obviously advantageous to your particular cause. No wonder you like Harper so much. People who write a cheque for a thousand bucks have two characteristics in common: They're ideologues and they have a thousand bucks they can spare. Since Harper panders to right wing extremists, he corners the right wing ideologues. And since the wealthy tend to be right wing, most people who can spare a thousand bucks for a political party will be Harper supporters. So, most people who are going to write a cheque for a grand are going to write it to the Conservatives. Hardly rocket science. Once again, you're twisting my words! I never said I liked Harper - I said I liked donations from individual members. I never said most donations were for $1000. I said that was the limit under the new laws. ALMOST ALL of our donations were for $100! That plus spare change in the bucket at meetings was likely 90% of our revenue. Most of our membership were ordinary working folks, NOT rich people! Trust a lefty to be a revisionist for his argument! You simply have no clue whatsoever about the reality of the situation and simply spew out whatever nasty thing you can think up to make those you don't like look bad! And for the record, I don't like Harper either! Just because I might disagree with YOU doesn't mean I have to believe in a list of ridiculous things that YOU ascribe to me! I'll pick my own ridiculous things, thank you very much! Only fair, considering the size of YOUR list! Edited October 9, 2011 by Wild Bill Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
WWWTT Posted October 9, 2011 Report Posted October 9, 2011 If I am correct this 1.95$ per vote rebate(or whatever the amount is) was brought in hand in hand with other donation restrictions.I believe one of those restrictions is that unions are not allowed to make any donations whatsoever! Will Harper also be recinding the other restrictions that were brought in with this?I doubt it! WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
capricorn Posted October 10, 2011 Report Posted October 10, 2011 Furthermore, as has been pointed out, the Liberals were the largest benefactors of corporate donations. In other words, it was going to hurt them but they did it because it was the right thing to do. The Liberals doing the right thing. Capping corporate, union and individual donations was Chretien's brain child. How come it took 10 years of Liberal rule before the conversion to "do the right thing"? Sounds more to me the conversion came because the Liberals were trying to clean up their scandal plagued image and reputation. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
capricorn Posted October 10, 2011 Report Posted October 10, 2011 If I am correct this 1.95$ per vote rebate(or whatever the amount is) was brought in hand in hand with other donation restrictions.I believe one of those restrictions is that unions are not allowed to make any donations whatsoever! It was Stephen Harper who banned corporate and union donations altogether in 2006. Up until that point, under Chretien's donations legislation companies and unions were allowed the same maximum donation as individuals, i.e. $1,000. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
WWWTT Posted October 10, 2011 Report Posted October 10, 2011 It was Stephen Harper who banned corporate and union donations altogether in 2006. Up until that point, under Chretien's donations legislation companies and unions were allowed the same maximum donation as individuals, i.e. $1,000. Thanx for the correction capricorn. However the question still remains,will Harper return the donation limits to previous levels? WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
Bob Posted October 10, 2011 Report Posted October 10, 2011 The Liberals doing the right thing. Capping corporate, union and individual donations was Chretien's brain child. How come it took 10 years of Liberal rule before the conversion to "do the right thing"? Sounds more to me the conversion came because the Liberals were trying to clean up their scandal plagued image and reputation. I was laughing at that statement, too. This suggestion of the Liberal Party's morality and conscience is too funny. Chretien himself stated that the restrictions imposed (which are totally contrary to the ideals of a free society) on campaign/party contributions were based on what he described as the "perceptions" of Canadians. Quote My blog - bobinisrael.blogspot.com - I am writing on it, again!
Bob Posted October 10, 2011 Report Posted October 10, 2011 There should be no limit on campaign contributions from any person or organization. I could perhaps be willing to consider restrictions on lobbying from enemy countries, but even that is difficult to regulate. Better to just force transparency so that people know where money is coming from, but again, even that is difficult to regulate. I hate this idea that Canadians need to be protected from political messages certain groups fear. As usual, the greatest cries for censorship in all its ugly manifestations always come from the left. Quote My blog - bobinisrael.blogspot.com - I am writing on it, again!
ReeferMadness Posted October 10, 2011 Report Posted October 10, 2011 It was Stephen Harper who banned corporate and union donations altogether in 2006. Up until that point, under Chretien's donations legislation companies and unions were allowed the same maximum donation as individuals, i.e. $1,000. Another Harper act that tilts the playing field in the Conservative's favour. What a surprise. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted October 10, 2011 Report Posted October 10, 2011 The Liberals doing the right thing. Capping corporate, union and individual donations was Chretien's brain child. How come it took 10 years of Liberal rule before the conversion to "do the right thing"? Sounds more to me the conversion came because the Liberals were trying to clean up their scandal plagued image and reputation. The fact is that they did the right thing although it was against their interests. That shows integrity. Of course, Harper will do the same, right? I know it hurts because you guys really, really want to believe that somehow the Conservatives aren't really just a bunch of self-serving sleaze bags. Just like they used to portray the Liberals. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
Bob Posted October 10, 2011 Report Posted October 10, 2011 Another Harper act that tilts the playing field in the Conservative's favour. What a surprise. How does this tilt the playing field in the favour of the CPC? Be specific. Quote My blog - bobinisrael.blogspot.com - I am writing on it, again!
ReeferMadness Posted October 10, 2011 Report Posted October 10, 2011 How does this tilt the playing field in the favour of the CPC? Be specific. It really isn't too difficult, Bob. The Liberals were getting most of the corporate donations. The NDP were getting the bulk of the union donations. This was Harper's way of containing the donations to wealthy ideologically motivated individuals, which of course are Harper's strength. Refer to my earlier post. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
bud Posted October 10, 2011 Report Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) It's the large donations from corporations and lobby groups that were made illegal! That's the whole basis for this situation! Chretien made the changes before he left office so that there would be a $1000 limit and donations must come from individuals. Geez Bud, that was a while ago! like this stops corporations from donating. over 100 employees made 'individual' donations on behalf of their employer, an accounting firm i have dealt with, to the liberals and conservatives. Edited October 10, 2011 by bud Quote http://whoprofits.org/
August1991 Posted October 10, 2011 Report Posted October 10, 2011 The current laws date to the 1840's, long before any "April taxes" are due.So you are right, it is no accident, but it has absolutely nothing to do with taxes. It is the choice of the due date for income taxes that is relevant here, BC. Not the choice of election date. I have no evidence that the Americans chose April since it is far from November but it makes sense. I do know that Milton Friedman considered payroll deduction his worst idea ever. Quote
capricorn Posted October 10, 2011 Report Posted October 10, 2011 This was Harper's way of containing the donations to wealthy ideologically motivated individuals, which of course are Harper's strength. You're wrong Reefer. The strength of Conservative Party fundraising is their ability to collect small donations from a large group of individuals. For example, in the first two quarters of 2011, over half the $16M of donations raised by Conservatives were $200.00 or less; those donors represented 87% of a grand total of 102,000 donors. The next highest donor group (6,555) contributed between $200.00 and $400.00, for a total of $2.1M. http://www.punditsguide.ca/2011/08/2011-election-saw-record-fundraising-activity/ The other parties have a ways to go before they match Conservative Party fundraising. In the case of Liberals, they've had 8 years to hone their fundraising machine but fall short. I guess they were so used to all that corporate and union money flying through their door without lifting a finger, they're still shell shocked. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
scribblet Posted October 10, 2011 Report Posted October 10, 2011 You're wrong Reefer. The strength of Conservative Party fundraising is their ability to collect small donations from a large group of individuals. For example, in the first two quarters of 2011, over half the $16M of donations raised by Conservatives were $200.00 or less; those donors represented 87% of a grand total of 102,000 donors. The next highest donor group (6,555) contributed between $200.00 and $400.00, for a total of $2.1M. ============= Right, they have always done well with individual donations, yet people still rant on about the CPC being the recipients of corporate donations when it's always been the Liberals who benefited most from them. Harper is doing the right thing, the next thing would be to look at third party advertising and how some organization (e.g. Avaaz ) manage to skirt around them. Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
ReeferMadness Posted October 10, 2011 Report Posted October 10, 2011 You're wrong Reefer. The strength of Conservative Party fundraising is their ability to collect small donations from a large group of individuals. For example, in the first two quarters of 2011, over half the $16M of donations raised by Conservatives were $200.00 or less; those donors represented 87% of a grand total of 102,000 donors. The next highest donor group (6,555) contributed between $200.00 and $400.00, for a total of $2.1M. http://www.punditsguide.ca/2011/08/2011-election-saw-record-fundraising-activity/ And your statistics make me wrong how? My point was that Harper, the sleaziest Federal leader since Mulroney (remember your last great hero secretly taking bags of cash from a German crook?), is changing the rules so that they work best for him. I remember all the howls of outrage that came from the right-wingers after the sponsorship scandal. Remember how Harper was going to restore accountability and integrity? Nobody is talking about that anymore. I wonder why. Thanks for your statistics though. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
capricorn Posted October 11, 2011 Report Posted October 11, 2011 And your statistics make me wrong how? Look, it's rather obvious you're not interested in facts. Stay in your bubble Reefer and keep posting anti-Conservative rants. My point was that Harper, the sleaziest Federal leader since Mulroney You forgot to add Chretien, you know of Adscam and Shawinigate fame. Thanks for your statistics though. And thanks for completely ignoring them. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
scribblet Posted October 11, 2011 Report Posted October 11, 2011 Since Harper panders to right wing extremists, he corners the right wing ideologues. And since the wealthy tend to be right wing, most people who can spare a thousand bucks for a political party will be Harper supporters. Since when has Harper pandered to right wing extremists, that's a hoot... Harper has been governing more like a Liberal gov't, no sign of any 'right wing extremism' - you must be on another planet.. Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
Guest asdfgt26y Posted February 2, 2012 Report Posted February 2, 2012 , but also because they are the elements of various men and women can meet the diverse needs of Nike shoes can now enjoy great recognition. Sports activities for a variety of locations, Nike shoes, Air Jordan 26 has a unique design. Nike soccer shoes, short, and they are using football to do. Nike Dunk sneakers in their own typical for skate shoes and nike dunk, dunk SB sneakers are arranged in a separate. As for the title of the Olympic Games runners, Nike sneakers have a distinct variations, these formats are produced specifically for them. These elements of air jordan uk x Nike's growth will continue as an important factor. Among all the lyrics of Nike, Nike Basketball (NBA) sequence is the most popular members. Most NBA stars to select a shoe. Nike shoes in the 1980s, for reasons in the middle of the basketball shoe industry is a major part of. It's Michael Jordan, Nike basketball shoes are very well achieved mainly around air jordan shoes air jordan shoes h the fact that good can be said to depend. Air Jordan sneakers are a handsome, perform less well in entertainment. Nike basketball sneakers as much as the other, they are compared to the Jordan shoes. Nike LeBron James, Kobe Bryant and Dwyane Wade basketball shoes, and to guarantee employment, including several NBA stars Michael Jordan, Nike Organization in 1985, betting on the whole lot. Jordan sneakers, his personal use that title was formed to play the game title was the first player. Within 1985, Nike's "Air Jordan" basketball shoes, Nike announced. Later in this series of shoes each year, came to earth. Jordan, in a separate court for the overall performance air jordan uk air jordan uk i was excellent, and he was popular with many people. This is because a lot of reputation praised Jordan Brand. Until now, through the birth of Jordan shoes, Air Jordan basketball shoes market place 20-3 arrived on a different version. This version comes in, they kind of color and design can be University as an example for the team enough to have a pair of Nike Jumpman, this collection is a selection of sneakers. Is only one instance of North Carolina Tarheels. Jordan Jumpman logo is a symbol of the Air Jordan air jordan shoes c shoes. Air Jordan basketball shoes as a result of the exceptional popularity, Nike organization, nonetheless, Michael Jordan basketball (NBA) that 2003 is not under consideration, despite the fact that basketball shoes, Jordan, juice of fresh new version of Launched Several about future NBA star, Carmelo Anthony and Chris Paul yereului ways, the Air Jordan sneaker game now also on their choice. Air Jordan basketball sneakers, and also many different styles of Nike basketball star LeBron James sneakers for a says jyuui. During all of basketball shoes, Nike Air Max NBA is probably the most recognized in the industry can be enjoyed. Gallup, in the arena of this order, sneakers are worn by LeBron James. Nike Air Max shoes, Nike basketball shoes since the 1990s has grown into a major component of the Charles, so they Barkley, Scottie Pippen, and like many professional basketball (NBA) megastars are worn by. Nike Nike Air Max Lebron VII in 2009 with the title exhibited by LeBron James shoes, introduced in the seventh model. his two shoes, Nike running completely free of problems associated with I'm a writer. He is given a long time is writing an article or blog post. . See site - both low cost and Nike running Salefootwear of UGGS For more information on Nike and completely free If you want to know, gaui find important knowledge in the area to organize your site visit UGGs Please. Time within a single click with the right information when it is calm, has been using this opportunity. Quote
AusKanada Posted February 4, 2012 Report Posted February 4, 2012 If were are to respect every voter as equal, I say have limits on political donations like we currently have without any tax deductions for donations. This simply allows wealthier Canadians to donate and influence parties even more, as they have even more funds to donate then and honestly, most Canadians are not political active or indeed wealthy enough to shell out money to something that isn't vital. The party funding system was very modest, something like 26 million. TWENTY-SIX MILLION. The Tories are spending millions on Libya victory parades, metals for the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, but cannot spare twenty-six million to enable democratic equality? It's roughly 2 dollars a vote... thus helping all parties to advertise and function, not simply those with good fund-raising (i.e. the Tories). If the program was expensive, I could sympathize, but the value of encouraging democracy cannot be undervalued. This was obviously a Tory strategy to cut the throats of the opposition parties that are not able to function purely on private donations, allowing them to have an unassailable lead in TV and radio ads. Quote
greyman Posted February 4, 2012 Report Posted February 4, 2012 This was obviously a Tory strategy to cut the throats of the opposition parties that are not able to function purely on private donations, allowing them to have an unassailable lead in TV and radio ads. Democratic equality is an oxymoron. The government should not fund parties, ever. And who cares if the neo-cons have a huge lead in TV/radio ad spending? Reasonable minds will remain immune to their rhetoric and demagoguery. Quote
Wild Bill Posted February 4, 2012 Report Posted February 4, 2012 If were are to respect every voter as equal, I say have limits on political donations like we currently have without any tax deductions for donations. This simply allows wealthier Canadians to donate and influence parties even more, as they have even more funds to donate then and honestly, most Canadians are not political active or indeed wealthy enough to shell out money to something that isn't vital. The party funding system was very modest, something like 26 million. TWENTY-SIX MILLION. The Tories are spending millions on Libya victory parades, metals for the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, but cannot spare twenty-six million to enable democratic equality? It's roughly 2 dollars a vote... thus helping all parties to advertise and function, not simply those with good fund-raising (i.e. the Tories). If the program was expensive, I could sympathize, but the value of encouraging democracy cannot be undervalued. This was obviously a Tory strategy to cut the throats of the opposition parties that are not able to function purely on private donations, allowing them to have an unassailable lead in TV and radio ads. I just can't agree with you! I don't believe that a party should get any of my tax money without my approval. I can vote for someone without giving him money! This just seems to me to be mooching from parties that are very poor at getting financial support from their own membership. When I was with Reform, we had a high level of volunteer financial support. We had riding public meetings and we always passed the bucket for donations. We had volunteers phone people for donations. We had car washes and yes, even bake sales. Meanwhile, the NDP just took money from unions and the Liberals from big business hoping for some favoritism when the Libs were in power. Neither of them really bothered to work hard for public, voluntary donations. So sure the CPC is rich! They EARNED it! Now we should give tax money to the other parties out of pity? Talk about your worker ant and spendthrift grasshopper morality story! I just can't get past the idea that a party that can't get people to VOLUNTARILY donate to them really doesn't deserve support! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
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.