So this is why I'll be voting Conservative

[jacee]

Are you aware the maximum any person can give is $1500?

Or do you consider that anyone with $1500 is "wealthy"?

Unless one pays ones employees $1050 each for making a $1000 donation to a campaign. :\

[Smallc]

Unless one pays ones employees $1050 each for making a $1000 donation to a campaign. :\

I'm sure you have some evidence of that.

[jacee]

Jacee you have, as usual, not a hot clue what you are talking about. It's cute that you ask if anyone read that report, since you obviously did not and just regurgitated a few facts somebody fed you. The report certainly does not say that in total.

The IMF report does say that all savings from 'labour deregulation' have gone into CEO'S pockets.

How is that right?

It wasn't about staying competitive.

It was about taking more than a fair share of the wealth, faster all the time.

.

Edited August 8, 2015 by jacee

[jacee]

I'm sure you have some evidence of that.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24751-so-this-is-why-ill-be-voting-conservative/?p=1076680

[Smallc]

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24751-so-this-is-why-ill-be-voting-conservative/?p=1076680

That was 1 dirty MP. It's not indicative of a wider problem.

[poochy]

Yep, this is who we need running the country.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/linda-mcquaig-says-oilsands-may-have-to-be-left-in-the-ground-1.3183999

No comments allowed on that story, on the CBC, hmmm.

Edited August 8, 2015 by poochy

[Derek 2.0]

Yep, this is who we need running the country.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/linda-mcquaig-says-oilsands-may-have-to-be-left-in-the-ground-1.3183999

No comments allowed on that story, on the CBC, hmmm.

Right, or the NDP's Hans Marotte's support for the PLO and second Intifada ...........of course, the CPC has a highlight reel of Moonbat statements from members of the NDP

[jacee]

That was 1 dirty MP. It's not indicative of a wider problem.

Really?

.

[Smallc]

Really?

.

You have 1 story from 3 years ago that went nowhere. Really.

[WIP]

Standards of living are up everywhere in the world by huge margins with few exceptions. Because of evil rich people who you hate, expanding goods and services to huge portions of humanity who could never before access them.

No, they're not! Not that it has anything to do with the thread topic, but the argument of 'rising tide raising all boats' or that crap from Tom Friedmann 'The World is Flat' and other cheerleaders of corporatist globalization has completely unraveled during this century...even prior to that recession that began in 07. In the real world, the numbers of people living on less than a dollar a day is increasing, and the 85 richest people in the world own equal wealth to the poorest half (3.5 billion) of the world population. Thanks be to our capitalist overlords!

You are typing here because evil capitalists put up money for this site to exist, for the software to make it exist, to build the servers that host it, to build the equipment you use to use it, as ifinitum.

And you are typing here because evil government payed for the research to create computers and an internet before that evil corporation could help themselves to free technology so that they could make money from it. And in today's example of monopoly capitalism, gouge us for unjustifiable profits as our high speed internet service falls way behind Europe, the Far East and even some third world nations.

Your life is enriched by the people you hate. It's irony that you will never see.

Sorry that you don't have any more useful skills than people on the other side of the world have, who can outcompete you. Sorry others bring more relevant increase to others lives and are compensated for it, and you are not.

As more and more professions are outsourced or replaced with automation, you may find yourself competing for those 30c an hour jobs yourself some day!

It's not your money. You lose nothing when CEO's make huge wages. Those companies pay them what they want, you don't. If they did not think they were worth it, they would not pay them. It work be a terrible business move unless they brought that value. If they succeed, you succeed because you can access new products/services. If they fail, you lose nothing.

Maybe you'd like to explain to us how as earnings for the highest income demographic has increased way above inflation rates over the last 30 years, those in the middle have stagnated, while those in the working poor have become even poorer!

You are paying those CEO's when you consume stuff. Every time you buy an iPhone, a coffee, an Internet service package, a book or anything else....you are casting your vote for a CEO somewhere to get more money. YOU create the conditions that lead to their pay. Do you get this? Are the lights on anywhere in there?

Thanks for reminding me why I haven't bought one of those bullshit "smart" phones yet! I'll agree that consumers should ask themselves whether they really need the products they are bombarded with through advertising and promotion, or if they are responding on impulse because every other idiot walking around (and driving around) has got one these days. Making rational choices before buying isn't rewarded in this day and age....certainly less than it was 40 years ago when there actually was a consumer advocacy movement and critics of the process could make their case in mainstream media.

[blueblood]

No, they're not! Not that it has anything to do with the thread topic, but the argument of 'rising tide raising all boats' or that crap from Tom Friedmann 'The World is Flat' and other cheerleaders of corporatist globalization has completely unraveled during this century...even prior to that recession that began in 07. In the real world, the numbers of people living on less than a dollar a day is increasing, and the 85 richest people in the world own equal wealth to the poorest half (3.5 billion) of the world population. Thanks be to our capitalist overlords!

➡️ Except that the numbers of people that went from peasants to the middle class has shot up. It was how canada weathered the recession as well as it did - by supplying the materials that the new middle class in latin america, asia, and the middle east use.⬅️

And you are typing here because evil government payed for the research to create computers and an internet before that evil corporation could help themselves to free technology so that they could make money from it. And in today's example of monopoly capitalism, gouge us for unjustifiable profits as our high speed internet service falls way behind Europe, the Far East and even some third world nations.

➡️Yet it was the growth of the private sector whose tax money went to this thing. Im sure without an industrialized economy funded by the private sector that there wouldnt be near the funding for governments to start those projects. Its also private industry that has vastly improved the internet. Private business provided me with internet, not the government. Private business allowed me a rural person to enjoy high speed internet when governments could not do so⬅️

As more and more professions are outsourced or replaced with automation, you may find yourself competing for those 30c an hour jobs yourself some day!

➡️Same was said about trains, the assembly line, and automobiles⬅️

Maybe you'd like to explain to us how as earnings for the highest income demographic has increased way above inflation rates over the last 30 years, those in the middle have stagnated, while those in the working poor have become even poorer!

➡️The working poor have become richer, theres more people in the middle class than ever before. Rich people are so rich these days as its a global market and there are far far more customers for products than in the 1950s. More customers means more money, especially if they just entered the middle class with more spending power. The middle class is stagnating as more people are joining it and there is a market being set on that type of labour which doesnt appeal to a lot of north americans (who want cheap stuff yet want things made in the usa at high wages, cant have cale and eat it too!)⬅️

Thanks for reminding me why I haven't bought one of those bullshit "smart" phones yet! I'll agree that consumers should ask themselves whether they really need the products they are bombarded with through advertising and promotion, or if they are responding on impulse because every other idiot walking around (and driving around) has got one these days. Making rational choices before buying isn't rewarded in this day and age....certainly less than it was 40 years ago when there actually was a consumer advocacy movement and critics of the process could make their case in mainstream media.

➡️Having the entire knowledge of the world in the palm of my hand, play music, games, and make calls. Not to mention for $100.00 down and $100.00 a month i replace my land line, big computer, cds, newspapers, radio, camera. That sounds like a sweet deal to me, considering how inflated prices are these days.⬅️

Edited August 8, 2015 by Charles Anthony
fixed mal-formed quotes

[jacee]

So, you're here telling people how more or less evil business owners are,

No.

Just sharks and gougers.

espousing your more or less communistic views,

Unh .. no.

I am only opposed to predatory corporate control of society and government.

I fully support entrepreneurship.

So does the NDP.

.

[Ash74]

In Ontario the Provincial government is also looking to oust Harper.

http://www.thestar.com/news/federal-election/2015/08/07/the-road-to-victory-runs-through-ontario.html

Wynne is a clever soul. If JT pulls off a miracle she can claim it was because of her

If Harper win's she can blame all her problems on Him

http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2015/08/07/ontario-cabinet-minister-blames-conservative-government-for-poor-job-growth.html

Giving her an out like her old boss had blaming everything on Mike Harris.

The added benefit of a Harper win for her is that Ontario does not like having the same party Federally and Provincially.

Oh,,,,, Wynne arm and arm with JT insures why I will voting Conservative.

[waldo]

Oh,,,,, Wynne arm and arm with JT insures why I will voting Conservative.

so... if not for Wynne... you had HarperDoubt? Really?

[Argus]

Unless one pays ones employees $1050 each for making a $1000 donation to a campaign. :\

That would be highly illegal, and very stupid. And why would ones employees go along with it, or at least, not slip an anonymous note to the police? I recognize that there was a minor case where such allegations were made, but in order to be a broader thing, in order for 'CEO's you hate to give large amounts of money they would need to involve hundreds of employees, and there's just no chance whatever that such a scheme would work.

Edited August 8, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

No.

Just sharks and gougers.

Unh .. no.

I am only opposed to predatory corporate control of society and government.

I fully support entrepreneurship.

So does the NDP.

.

Everything you've said indicates you believe all business owners, all business managers, like CEOs and all people who enjoy a higher income are 'gougers and sharks". You have made zero distinction. I think the suggestion you have strong communist or Marxist leanings is justified.

[waldo]

Everything you've said indicates you believe all business owners, all business managers, like CEOs and all people who enjoy a higher income are 'gougers and sharks". You have made zero distinction. I think the suggestion you have strong communist or Marxist leanings is justified.

so... when you reply to a quote of her's saying she/NDP, "fully support entrepreneurship"... in the context of your declared, "strong communist or Marxist leanings" labeling, just who are your interpreted entrepreneurs in her statement?

[Argus]

Let us now revisit Reason number ONE. Stability.

As I said at the time, the problem with the proportional rep type voting the opposition wants to initiate is that you wind up in a permanent minority government situation, with coalitions which tend to be of convenience only, with various parties looking always to their own advantage. Elections are held much more frequently because of this, and no party feels secure enough to propose tough medicine or unpopular measures. And if it does, it's likely its own coalition partners will jump on them and the government will disintegrate. There are many examples of this throughout the world, most notably in Europe, of course, but also in Israel and South American. Belgium took 541 days to form a government after an election in 2011! It took that long for the negotiations and manoeuvrings. And of course, after every election in Israel, the tiny religious parties make it known what high cost they place on their few votes as the major parties desperately try to form a government.

Now let's visit Brazil, which is falling apart now because it's coallition government tried to institute economic measures to combat the problems they're having there. Two coallition partners deserted them and the government is now in wild disarray. This is the sort of thing the opposition wants to bring to Canada.

The government of President Dilma Rousseff had a plan to revive the economy through fiscal reform. But the austerity proposals have stalled in Congress, where her political enemies have seized an opportunity to try to bring her down. Eduardo Cunha, president of the lower house of Congress, whose party was nominally part of her coalition, has seized on her weakness: He blocked a series of austerity bills, put forward others to increase spending, and opened a series of inquires into government – before publicly disavowing Ms. Rousseff last month.Two entire parties have left the coalition in the past two days. Brazil’s business community, no fan of the President, came out in defence of the government, pleading for stability to try to staunch the economic damage.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/brazil-faces-political-economic-chaos-with-an-uncertain-future/article25892042/

Edited August 8, 2015 by Argus

[Evening Star]

I dunno, I'm not convinced that these things can be attributed to the presence or absence of proportional representation. Some of the most stable governments in the world (in the Nordic countries or Germany, for example) are elected using PR. India elects sometimes-unstable (and sometimes quite stable!) coalition governments using FPTP all the time, particularly at the state level. And let's not forget that the two-party FPTP US government actually shut down a few years ago, the pinnacle of the sort of gridlock with which it is continually plagued. There are so many factors involved when it comes to political stability.

Edited August 8, 2015 by Evening Star

[waldo]

I dunno, I'm not convinced that these things can be attributed to the presence or absence of proportional representation. Some of the most stable governments in the world (in the Nordic countries or Germany, for example) are elected using PR. India elects sometimes-unstable (and sometimes quite stable!) coalition governments using FPTP all the time, particularly at the state level. And let's not forget that the two-party FPTP US government actually shut down a few years ago, the pinnacle of the sort of gridlock with which it is continually plagued. There are so many factors involved when it comes to political stability.

the ArgusStabilityArgument, apparently, presumes that within FPTP... majority governments are always the rule! And here I thought Canada has had minority governments where 'forced coalition in working together' was required - go figure.

[Shady]

so... when you reply to a quote of her's saying she/NDP, "fully support entrepreneurship"... in the context of your declared, "strong communist or Marxist leanings" labeling, just who are your interpreted entrepreneurs in her statement?

More symbolism over substance. Somebody can say they support entrepreneurs all they want. But when their actions are opposite, their previous words are meaningless.

[waldo]

But when their actions are opposite, their previous words are meaningless.

I concede to your self-analysis!

[WIP]

In Ontario the Provincial government is also looking to oust Harper.

http://www.thestar.com/news/federal-election/2015/08/07/the-road-to-victory-runs-through-ontario.html

Wynne is a clever soul. If JT pulls off a miracle she can claim it was because of her

If Harper win's she can blame all her problems on Him

http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2015/08/07/ontario-cabinet-minister-blames-conservative-government-for-poor-job-growth.html

Giving her an out like her old boss had blaming everything on Mike Harris.

The added benefit of a Harper win for her is that Ontario does not like having the same party Federally and Provincially.

Oh,,,,, Wynne arm and arm with JT insures why I will voting Conservative.

I'll vote for the Green Party unless polling data indicates my NDP incumbent might lose to either a Liberal or a Conservative (not likely).

My problem with voting Liberal is you never know what you're going to end up with after the election! They have been successful during the good years in Canada because they promise everything to almost everybody, and then decide whether they're moving left or right after the election. Conservatives...since the Harper makeover, can only move so far to the middle, and the NDP is limited because if they abandon their principles and blame it on hard times, they're toast.....as in the case of Bob Rae a little over 20 years ago here!

I can't see how Kathleen Wynne is a plus for the JT Campaign, when his polling numbers were already ahead of Wynne's! She has proven herself to be an excellent political strategist over recent years though. To me, it looks like she plays the same divide and conquer strategy that Bill Davis used to do election-after-election back in the days of the centrist Big Blue Machine here in Ontario. Davis's staff would keep a close eye on who was rising and who was falling among the opposition, and try to help out the third party if they were falling too far behind. Davis never did and never could have expected to win half the votes cast in any election, so keeping the opposition divided was paramount.

Which is why I don't understand why Harper is doing his relentless attack on Trudeau! If he does manage to kill off the Liberals, where the hell does he think most of those votes will go? Certainly not to Conservatives!

[Evening Star]

Which is why I don't understand why Harper is doing his relentless attack on Trudeau! If he does manage to kill off the Liberals, where the hell does he think most of those votes will go? Certainly not to Conservatives!

I think the long-time Con dream has been that, with a weakened Liberal Party, in a CPC/NDP two-party system, many 'blue' Liberal voters would prefer the CPC to the NDP.

[jbg]

a quick scan of the thread... several cryptic posts that imply "scary" Opposition party policy positions; however, "scary" never seemed to actually be followed up with anything that spoke directly to the supposed policies that were... just so "scary"! Of course, this includes posts from the originator of this thread - go figure!

I seem to remember, back in 2004 and 2006 that many LPC and NDP types considered Harper "scary" as well.