Manifesto backed by prominent NDPers calls for overhaul of economy

[cybercoma]

Explain to me how a sustainable and diversified economy is communist or shall I assume you can't?

Edited September 16, 2015 by cybercoma

[69cat]

Guess what cybercoma, it did force an election. Lets recap history

The Conservatives lay out a budget to move get to its goal of no more deficit spending (which as a voter you are clearly demanding), the opposition parties have all the time been demanding more deficit spending and the harper gov has submitted to a degree in the past. The new budget is outlined and the opposition parties are asked if they will vote in favor of it tomorrow and they say no. Again you must hate the position of the opposition on this matter.

Ok, so here is where it gets interesting because a few posts earlier you wrote "keep painting that picture of Harper as being so weak and pathetic that he doesn't know what's going on or the opposition parties "bullied" him". You sure wish Harper would take a stand a drive the opposition to more fiscal responsibility correct?

So Harper takesba calculated gamble regarding what the Canadian voter wants from its federal gov (ie fiscal responsibility) and does not release spending estimates on a jet program and crime bills knowing very well what will happen. Yup, Contempt of Parliament is enacted and an federal election called and Harper gov gets a majority gov.

So through all this you become a hugely pro Harper defender because

A) the Harper gov fought tooth and nail against the opposition to get to balanced budgets

Harper gov had the balls the size of watermelons (which you clearly demand) to take their position to the Canadian voter - and win.

Yet through all this and the Harper gov doing everything you demand of a federal party i sense that you prefer the opposition who had shown to do nothing that you desire regarding the topic of fiscal responsibility. How do you explain yourself.

[cybercoma]

In other words, Harper chose to run deficits on his own and now you want to hand Harper's budgets to the opposition. Are you willing to give any credit for Harper's budgets to the opposition too?

[Keepitsimple]

As a proportion of GDP, government revenues have dropped 30%.

Edit: Link http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/tax-revenue-percent-of-gdp-wb-data.html

And you find that surprising? That's what lowering taxes is supposed to do - accelerate and grow the economy. And guess what raising taxes does? It's a balancing act - because there is a point of diminishing returns.......but to think that raising taxes will have no effect on the economy is naive. If it makes you feel better, lets take action to reduce our GDP so you can reclaim that "dropped 30%".

[Canada_First]

In other words, Harper chose to run deficits on his own and now you want to hand Harper's budgets to the opposition. Are you willing to give any credit for Harper's budgets to the opposition too?

Well what do you want then? Balanced budgets or deficits? You seem to be complaining about both so your position isn't clear. Can you tell us please.

[cybercoma]

And you find that surprising? That's what lowering taxes is supposed to do - accelerate and grow the economy.

We went into another recession, so.....

[Springer]

Cyber...

You show me the government micro-managed economy envisioned in this manifesto, and I'll show you the failed examples of the USSR, N. Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, the Warsaw Pact nations prior to emancipation from Soviet control, Maoist China, etc., etc., etc.

Along with the litany of human tragedy that ended a hundred million lives along with them, either through mass starvation, indescribably poverty, or just outright murder at the hands of ideological inspired tyranny.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Springer

[cybercoma]

I'm still waiting for you to explain how this manifesto is anything like those states' policies.

[cybercoma]

Oh wait, they all have government paid healthcare and education. We must be communist already and Harper is a communist for not getting read of them. That's how stupid this argument is.

Edited September 16, 2015 by cybercoma

[Springer]

The Saudis crushed the price of oil, aimed at directly undermining N. America energy independence, and specifically at the oil sands and shale production, which had its inevitable effect on our economy.

How that somehow becomes Harper's fault remains a mystery to all but those challenged by HDS.

[Canada_First]

We went into another recession, so.....

how high would you like taxes to be? 50%? 75%? Edited September 16, 2015 by Canada_First

[Shady]

Canada's economy IS diversified and sustainable. The notion that it isn't is bull plop, and just an excuse to construct a command and control government run economy ala the Soviet Union.

[Springer]

I'm going to type this slowly for you...

Because it is all about government micro-managing every facet of the economy, and the lives of the citizenry therein.

You give government that much power, I guarantee you corruption to the nth degree, and ultimately and inevitably disaster and ruin.

The one thing the left has struggled with since forever is the fact of human nature...which in the end is irrepressible, and will not be herded like sheep.

Evolution is the natural law of the universe; it cannot be guided, nor contained, nor restrained...certainly not by mere ideology. It will find its own path every time, always upwards.

[cybercoma]

Thanks for typing slower, but it doesn't make your argument any less stupid. You seem to be blissfully unaware that our government is already heavily involved in managing the economy. People like you would say it's Harper's best quality.

[Moonlight Graham]

This "manifesto" is just not very smart at all. They've released it before the election to have the most impact, but it obviously can only hurt NDP numbers (swing voters or moderates or lefties-of-centres not keen on Trudeau's Liberals) and the author's overall goals. Their best shot at achieving their policies would be to get the NDP or Green Party to win, which this document will make less not more likely.

The naming of it is also really stupid. Using the term "manifesto" of course likens it to Communism (not a popular ideology in Canada) , and worse yet using "leap" recalls Mao's disastrous "Great Leap Forward". They trying to turf this on purpose?!

Reading the whole thing, it's just extremely naive and "feel good" wishy-washy on a lot (not all) things. I lean left on a lot of issues but you need to be at least somewhat practical. It sounds like a well-read hippie wrote this.

[69cat]

In other words, Harper chose to run deficits on his own and now you want to hand Harper's budgets to the opposition. Are you willing to give any credit for Harper's budgets to the opposition too?

Did you read my long winded post at all? No.

I clearly stated that i gave credit for Harpers budgets to the opposition and went so far as going to a federal election when he got tired of trying to appease their crap - but that is what happens as a minority government.

Ok, one more time THE OPPOSITION WAS ALWAYS DEMANDING MORE DEFICIT SPENDING

You have, in every way show that you favor a Harper gov in your thought and writing but put out opinions completely against your own beliefs. How do you explain yourself.

[cybercoma]

Ok, one more time THE OPPOSITION WAS ALWAYS DEMANDING MORE DEFICIT SPENDING

Because that's what you do in a recession. Except the problem is that Harper was helping out those who were LEAST affected by the recession and working towards balancing the books on the backs of those who were most affected. Here we are in a second recession and departments stopped doing what they were budgeted to do. That's terrible management.

[69cat]

Regarding the manifesto, i wouldnt put much stock in it, or who supports it. I do get tired of the talk of "we need to get away from an oil based economy and diverify".

I fail to see how oil, making up what, 15% of our gdp makes us an oil based economy. But for the typical left wing voter i guess that is enough. I mean, really, manufacturing is 35% of gdp, should not the left target that for making our economy less balanced.

But lets speculate and say oil is wiped from the Canadian economy. Yeah, all hugs and kisses and we can finally see what happens. But cant we see right now? How many provincial economies are oil based? One, two or three? I wouldnt call Sask oil based but no doubt the left will so we include it. So there is a number if economies in Canada that can, right now, be viewed with oil removed and their economies can be diversified. How is Ontario doing anyway? Well it is a manufacturing based economy and very, very heavily tilted that way. So by ndp logic, they should some how add oil to their economy as they have all their eggs in one basket with manufacturing only. Funny how the ndp rhetoric makes no sense whether manifesto or not. They will talk of how well economies would be balanced without oil but wont speak of those failing economies already living the ndp dream of no oil.

[Black Dog]

Canada's economy IS diversified and sustainable. The notion that it isn't is bull plop, and just an excuse to construct a command and control government run economy ala the Soviet Union.

First documented case of NKDS right here.

[69cat]

Ok, cybercoma, you prefer deficit spending. Your earlier post you stated you hated the Harper government for running deficit after deficit after deficit and you have other posts saying the same. So i made the mistake of thinking you disliked deficits.

Although you will now have to argue how the Harper gov economic action plan, used to outline how deficits demanded by opposition, would be spent. I can remember a number of things done specifically for the working stiff. I remember a home reno grant, but i rekon you figure only the wealthy lives in homes. Ok then, show me where over, lets say 60% of the spending did not help "those most affected".

[Springer]

Cyber...

You have no idea of what you speak.

We have a free enterprise economy. The governments we have, provincial or federal, to one degree or another, facilitate this. There is a vast difference between "manage" and "facilitate".

To affect the kind of utopian world envisioned in this manifesto would require massive and direct manipulation of just about every single facet of society.

And you know what goes wrong with that? Some people have different ideas about how they want to live their lives. So, what do you do with them???

We know all too well what Communism...essentially the same form of governance advocated by this paper...did with those would not conform, do we not?

This is the root problem of "ideologies", and certainly with "religions": Both ultimately require twisting the world into neat little knots in order to get it to fit within the narrow confines of doctrine. And everything that doesn't fit...or refuses to fit, ends up on the waste heap. Or, more to the point, in concentration camps, or just dead.

Free enterprise is, by far, the least manipulative and interfering premise by which societies are enabled to thrive, while still providing the most freedom and liberty, opportunities for self expression, and personal development. Perfect? No...but kicks the hell out of everything else tried so far.

Read "The Rational Optimist".

He makes several points...

a ) Show me a self-contained economy, self-sufficient community, and I will show you people living in poverty, and conditions one would not wish on anyone.

b ) Nothing is static in this world.

The underlying operating assumption of just about every hysterical and alarmist claim by, f'rinstance, AGW activists is that their assertions are based on the status quo of the day. This is NEVER the reality.

For example, and in approximate numbers because I haven't the text available at the moment: In 1915, of all the arable land under the plow in the US, roughly one third was dedicated to feeding the 15,000,000 horses required to work said land and harvest crops thereof. If that situation had remained static...i.e., technological progress ceased...today it would require 80% of all arable land available in the US just to feed Americans, forget about anyone else. Instead, we currently exploit about 27% of arable land, both to feed America and a large part of the rest of the world as well. The implications go further, for were 80% the current reality, how much land would thus be afforded to wildlife conservation, and the parks that preserve their habitats?

Therein is demonstrated the absolute fallacy, if not outright myth, of this ideological manifesto, which used words like "iron clad" to enforce its methods to attain its goals. A description the likes of which Stalin and Mao would have used to justify their means to an end.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Springer

[cybercoma]

That's a lot of squirming to still not explain how this manifesto is anything remotely related to the regimes you compared it to.

[hitops]

I'm just not sure about this manifesto......sure it has some big stars.....but I still don't know what Britney Spears or lil' Wayne think about the issue, so can't make a decision yet.....

[Springer]

Another example comes to mind...

In my early days, circa '60s, the ongoing crisis was all about feeding the starving millions in India.

A new strain of wheat had been developed by then, but the Indian government...due to pressures from all the (same) usual suspects of the day...refused to allow it to be utilized in their own agriculture.

Then they finally relented. The almost immediate result was a six-fold increase in crop yields in India, and that nation went on to become a net exporter of its crops.

And mass starvation of its peoples ended.

[69cat]

Well said Springer. I think what most everyone who wants government to look after every thing in their lives is that everything is a-ok until your desires/beleifs do not align with the government. When that happens you are screwed. The only way for the utopian model therefore to function is the government must dictate all aspects of the citizens lifes, essentially taking away what we know as "freedom". Basically a dictatorship who does everything in its power for the good of the citizens only you do not decide what the dictatorship says is good for the citizens.