mirror Posted July 15, 2005 Report Share Posted July 15, 2005 Native housing appalls Layton He noted NDP amendments to the Liberal budget included money for housing."Some of it's got to come to aboriginal housing. This has to be considered urgent, the overcrowding here and the health issues that arise from it." As a result of his visit, Layton will be making native issues a priority when the minority government resumes sitting in September. There are other problems in the community, notably with the water plant that forces residents to boil their water to make it safe to drink. "It's a plant that clearly doesn't work," Layton said. "The chief said to me, `I wonder if we had been living in Walkerton whether they would have allowed such a facility to operate here.' "But the fact is the federal government doesn't care. ...This is the condition that First Nations people have been left in and it's appalling," Layton said. Well at least one federalist leader in Canada cares about those less fotunate than most of the rest of us. We have plenty of material resources in Canada to ensure that all our citizens have proper food, clothing, shelter, and health care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Machine Posted July 15, 2005 Report Share Posted July 15, 2005 Don't worry, there's still lots of time for him to trip and fall on his face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirror Posted July 15, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 15, 2005 Contrast Jack Layton's approach to First Nations' issues compared to Mike Harris: Before clash, Harris assailed OPP, panel told It never fails - we elected Mulroney twice and Harris twice. Unbelievable. Who was who said never underestimate the stupidity of the Canadian voter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHS Posted July 15, 2005 Report Share Posted July 15, 2005 Well at least one federalist leader in Canada cares about those less fotunate than most of the rest of us. We have plenty of material resources in Canada to ensure that all our citizens have proper food, clothing, shelter, and health care. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And yet, when the federal government steps in and pours hundreds of millions of dollars to fix the problems, the problems persist: Natuashish Jack Layton isn't the first federal politician to express righteous indignation about the sad state of the reserve system in Canada, nor is he the first to propose grandiose and expensive schemes to fix the problems. What would be nice if he addressed the elephant in the room: life on an Indian reserve is a dead end that no amount of money or concern can fix. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck E Stan Posted July 17, 2005 Report Share Posted July 17, 2005 from Big Blue: "Don't worry, there's still lots of time for him to trip and fall on his face." Looks like he's starting to fall over. He was warned about making a deal with the Liberals, but no-oooo-ooo, he went and did it anyway. from yesterday's news: Simon Doyle The Ottawa Citizen The Liberals have "double-crossed" and "outfoxed" the NDP by delaying funding from the $4.5-billion NDP-Liberal budget for a year, a re-election move that will attempt to take political credit for the party-negotiated spending, say New Democrats. Last Monday, Liberal MP John McKay, parliamentary secretary to Finance Minister Ralph Goodale, seemed to spark a storm of confusion within the NDP caucus when he told the Senate finance committee the $4.5-billion budget money, brokered by the Liberals in exchange for NDP support in the House on confidence votes, can't be touched until summer 2006 at the earliest. … "It's a double-cross and a breach of the agreement," said NDP finance critic Judy Wasylycia-Leis. She added that in this minority government, where parties are known to be in steady campaign mode, she suspects the Liberals are delaying the funding because they can roll it at a later date and take credit for it. "Whenever the election is, I think it is to their own advantage to present this as their own idea and to do all the announcing so people credit the Liberals," Ms. Wasylycia-Leis said by phone from Manitoba. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirror Posted July 17, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 17, 2005 If PM Martin deceived the NDP and by extension the Canadian people he will pay the price at the ballot box next election. Don't forget the Liberals already have enough problems dealing with ethics and honesty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
err Posted July 17, 2005 Report Share Posted July 17, 2005 It was nice that Jack Layton provided most Canadians the opportunity to see what each political party stood for: The Liberals, for breaking their election promises. Also for holding the rights of corporate Candad above the rights of Canadian citizens.... again wanting to take services from citizens to give to Corporate Canada, who have to suffer the fact that their tax rates are only 4% lower than their USA counterparts. The Conservatives, who have outright said that spending on citizens of Canada is a complete waste of money. No more money should be spent on improving the plight of the poorest, on education, or on health care.... It should all go to corporate Canada (note that this is the Liberal's favorite too). The NDP, who want to spend some of the citizens of Canada's money on the citizens of Canada. On the poor, on health care, on housing, on education... I think that the only party that has improved their image and standing in the recent months is the NDP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 18, 2005 Report Share Posted July 18, 2005 In order to spend money they have to take money. The sooner you understand the government takes your money and only gives a fraction of it back to you, the better off you'll be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHS Posted July 18, 2005 Report Share Posted July 18, 2005 In order to spend money they have to take money. The sooner you understand the government takes your money and only gives a fraction of it back to you, the better off you'll be. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A couple of more points to add: -The NDP are also just as keen to spend our money outside of Canada. They just really like spending money, deficits or no. -All of the items listed that the NDP are proposing to spend federal money on are provincial jurisdictions. Which is typical - spend money on things that aren't your concern, by cutting spending on items that are your concern (eg. Defense). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcqueen625 Posted July 18, 2005 Report Share Posted July 18, 2005 I had always voted NDP. but never again! If Jack Layton was double-crossed by his crooked friends in the Liberal it serves him right for supporting them. If Canadians are naive enough to believe that any revelations or finger-pointing with come from the Gomery report they are dumber than I thought. Gomery is going to present a benign report that points fingers at no politician who was behind the scenes giving the order as to where to spend the sponsorship money. Martin will then wave it around and say, See Gomery didn't find one LIberal culpable in the misappropriation of taxpayer's money. If anything it will attach blame to some scapegoat in the civil service, likely someone that had already pleaded guilty or was found guilty. This Inquiry was nothing but a whitewash. The other reason for not voting either Liberal or NDP is their stance on SSM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirror Posted July 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2005 Already 55% of Canadians support SSM . The debate is over on that one and the Layton New Democrats are on the correct side of that issue. Considering that there were only 19 NDP MPs it is quite amazing that they were able to pull the New Democrat's "better balanced budget" off. I think Chuck Cadman voted for the NDP amended budget as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 18, 2005 Report Share Posted July 18, 2005 It never fails - we elected Mulroney twice and Harris twice. Unbelievable. Who was who said never underestimate the stupidity of the Canadian voter? See, it's this type of arrogance and disregard for people's personal political feelings that really bothers me. Apparently, if you don't vote for Jack Layton, you're an ignorant fool. Well, I feel the exact opposite. Anyone who wastes a vote for Jack Layton, but specifically the NDP is as ignorant as one can be. It's not suprising that so little voters support a party that's borderline communist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHS Posted July 18, 2005 Report Share Posted July 18, 2005 Woo hoo! An NDP slap-fight! Keep it going! UPDATE: not you, Shady. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 18, 2005 Report Share Posted July 18, 2005 Once again, welcome back bigdude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
err Posted July 18, 2005 Report Share Posted July 18, 2005 In order to spend money they have to take money. The sooner you understand the government takes your money and only gives a fraction of it back to you, the better off you'll be. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Currently, the federal government takes your money, and gives you less than what you used to get for the same amount of money... Less health care, less social security, less assistance for education... less, less, less... If they were just trying to balance the books, I could understand their actions. However, when most of the cutting of our personal benefits is to finance tax cuts for corporate Canada, it is harder to take. Especially, when corporate Canada's tax rates are 4% lower than for our neighbours to the south. It's not like they need to lower them any more to be competative. Cybercoma, why don't you explain to me why we should have long waiting lists for surgery, poorer education system for our children, less social safety nets for when we need it... just so that corporate Canada can have even lower tax rates.... When they are already 4% lower than in the USA ???? Currently, we can afford to pay down our deficit, keep lower corporate taxes than the USA, without taking any more away from the citizens of Canada... In fact, we can affort to get back some more back of what we used to have... Maybe, the sooner you (and your neo-con friends) understand that, the better off we all will be... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
err Posted July 18, 2005 Report Share Posted July 18, 2005 -All of the items listed that the NDP are proposing to spend federal money on are provincial jurisdictions. Which is typical - spend money on things that aren't your concern by cutting spending on items that are your concern (eg. Defense). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "spend money on things that aren't your concern?????" - the welfare of the people of Canada should be the top concern of the government!!!!! The NDP are just keeping the Liberals a little more honest... The "NDP" budget is nothing more than Jack Layton making Martin keep his election promises.... Did you actually listen to Martin's last throne speech ??? I had to look twice, because it sounded like he was reading one of Jack Layton's scripts.... however, when he was elected, his budget was like a Mulroney budget... It is good that we have someone like Jack Layton to keep the Liberals true to their election promises... and true to the citizens of Canada.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
err Posted July 18, 2005 Report Share Posted July 18, 2005 Anyone who wastes a vote for Jack Layton, but specifically the NDP is as ignorant as one can be. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ignorant as can be... sounds like you voted for them.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHS Posted July 18, 2005 Report Share Posted July 18, 2005 "spend money on things that aren't your concern?????" - the welfare of the people of Canada should be the top concern of the government!!!!! And yet, it's not a federal jurisdicton. At least not welfare in the sense of giving money to the chronically unemployable. (Perhaps I should have been clearer, that "your" was a reference to the Federel government, not you. Not that you misunderstood.) The NDP are just keeping the Liberals a little more honest... The "NDP" budget is nothing more than Jack Layton making Martin keep his election promises....Did you actually listen to Martin's last throne speech ??? I had to look twice, because it sounded like he was reading one of Jack Layton's scripts.... however, when he was elected, his budget was like a Mulroney budget... It is good that we have someone like Jack Layton to keep the Liberals true to their election promises... and true to the citizens of Canada.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As for the infighting between left and lefter, I could care less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 18, 2005 Report Share Posted July 18, 2005 Currently, the federal government takes your money, and gives you less than what you used to get for the same amount of money... Less health care, less social security, less assistance for education... less, less, less... If they were just trying to balance the books, I could understand their actions. However, when most of the cutting of our personal benefits is to finance tax cuts for corporate Canada, it is harder to take. Especially, when corporate Canada's tax rates are 4% lower than for our neighbours to the south. It's not like they need to lower them any more to be competative. Cybercoma, why don't you explain to me why we should have long waiting lists for surgery, poorer education system for our children, less social safety nets for when we need it... just so that corporate Canada can have even lower tax rates.... When they are already 4% lower than in the USA ???? Currently, we can afford to pay down our deficit, keep lower corporate taxes than the USA, without taking any more away from the citizens of Canada... In fact, we can affort to get back some more back of what we used to have... Maybe, the sooner you (and your neo-con friends) understand that, the better off we all will be... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Did it ever occur to you that maybe I think we should have lower taxes for everyone (not just corporations as you love to hear yourself talk about) and a smaller national government in general? Since when did education and healthcare become the concern of our federal government when it very specifically falls under provincial jurisdiction? Now, especially considering the government isn't giving us our monies worth, don't you think you are a much better person to decide the fate of your hard earned dollars rather than some money laundering talking head? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirror Posted July 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2005 cb Please lose the personal slurs as our moderator has requested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
err Posted July 18, 2005 Report Share Posted July 18, 2005 Did it ever occur to you that maybe I think we should have lower taxes for everyone (not just corporations as you love to hear yourself talk about) and a smaller national government in general? Since when did education and healthcare become the concern of our federal government when it very specifically falls under provincial jurisdiction? Now, especially considering the government isn't giving us our monies worth, don't you think you are a much better person to decide the fate of your hard earned dollars rather than some money laundering talking head? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Taxes are the source of revenue that pay for things that we consider necessities.... roads, policemen, schools, hospitals, clean water, and much more... These things all must be paid for, somehow.... If we were to follow your ideology of lowering taxes for the sake of lowering taxes, then why don't you list which of the things that we consider as necessities that we should cancel... or maybe which segments of the population that we should cancel them for... As you suggest, educaton and healthcare are primarly under provincial jurisdiction. If the federal government is cutting the funding (via transfers, etc..) to the provinces, it is in fact controlling spending in these areas. Just as if shopping for groceries is your wife's jurisdiction, and you don't give her the money to buy the groceries, who should be blamed for not buying the grocieries... As for your last argument "don't you think you are a much better person to decide the fate of your hard earned dollars rather than...." Well, if the government just stepped back and let everybody make their own decisions based on their own best self interest, (or should I say selfish interest), then who would help who... and what system would be there for the majority of our society.... Would we have public health care, public schools, public clean water... I don't think so... The road you recommend we follow is the road to the disintegration of the fabric of our social safety net... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 19, 2005 Report Share Posted July 19, 2005 Did it ever occur to you that maybe I think we should have lower taxes for everyone (not just corporations as you love to hear yourself talk about) and a smaller national government in general? Since when did education and healthcare become the concern of our federal government when it very specifically falls under provincial jurisdiction? Now, especially considering the government isn't giving us our monies worth, don't you think you are a much better person to decide the fate of your hard earned dollars rather than some money laundering talking head? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Taxes are the source of revenue that pay for things that we consider necessities.... roads, policemen, schools, hospitals, clean water, and much more... These things all must be paid for, somehow.... If we were to follow your ideology of lowering taxes for the sake of lowering taxes, then why don't you list which of the things that we consider as necessities that we should cancel... or maybe which segments of the population that we should cancel them for... As you suggest, educaton and healthcare are primarly under provincial jurisdiction. If the federal government is cutting the funding (via transfers, etc..) to the provinces, it is in fact controlling spending in these areas. Just as if shopping for groceries is your wife's jurisdiction, and you don't give her the money to buy the groceries, who should be blamed for not buying the grocieries... As for your last argument "don't you think you are a much better person to decide the fate of your hard earned dollars rather than...." Well, if the government just stepped back and let everybody make their own decisions based on their own best self interest, (or should I say selfish interest), then who would help who... and what system would be there for the majority of our society.... Would we have public health care, public schools, public clean water... I don't think so... The road you recommend we follow is the road to the disintegration of the fabric of our social safety net... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Your social safety net is my government interference. I'm sorry that you simply refuse to understand that people are much better off to decide what to do with their money than requiring them to hand it over to the government by force. The further away from you the government gets, the more wasteful and less interested in your direct needs they become. Roads, clean drinking water, police, these are things that all of us need, but who should pay for it? Everyone uses those things and we should all pay for them through taxes, but for every program you list as being necessary there are several that can be listed that are unneccessary. Why does a religious person have to spend their tax dollars on ads targeting homosexuals about AIDS that are posted in universities all over Canada? Why does someone in Alberta have to pay for the federal liberals to be able to campaign in Quebec by having their tax dollars used as illegal campaign contributions? Why do I have to have my money that was taken by force handed over to oppressive regimes in Africa? Why does anyone's money go towards lavish vacations and fine dining for the governor general? Why do Canadians pay for private health services for politicians and inmates? These things we don't need to be paying for and it angers me that we do. The bloated wasteful government we have is not concerned with providing you with a social safety net (that you and charities could provide much more efficiently for you and your family), they're only concerned with providing themselves with as much as possible before they retire and live off your tax funded pensions for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
err Posted July 19, 2005 Report Share Posted July 19, 2005 Roads, clean drinking water, police, these are things that all of us need, but who should pay for it? Everyone uses those things and we should all pay for them through taxes, but for every program you list as being necessary there are several that can be listed that are unneccessary.Why does a religious person have to spend their tax dollars on ads targeting homosexuals about AIDS that are posted in universities all over Canada? Why does someone in Alberta have to pay for the federal liberals to be able to campaign in Quebec by having their tax dollars used as illegal campaign contributions? Why do I have to have my money that was taken by force handed over to oppressive regimes in Africa? Why does anyone's money go towards lavish vacations and fine dining for the governor general? Why do Canadians pay for private health services for politicians and inmates? These things we don't need to be paying for and it angers me that we do. The bloated wasteful government we have is not concerned with providing you with a social safety net (that you and charities could provide much more efficiently for you and your family), they're only concerned with providing themselves with as much as possible before they retire and live off your tax funded pensions for them. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Theres's a wonderful book by Linda McQuaig called "The Wealthy Banker's Wife", where the argument you present is discussed. The book describes a Mulroney era television commercial showing the wealthy wife opening her 'family allowance' cheque, and trying to decide whether to buy chocolates or perfume with the 'free money'. The whole point of the commercial was to convince the public that these 'free benefits' squandered on Canadians should be stopped so that wealthy people aren't stealing the money from the public coffers, and hence, the poor. Mulroney was successful in his campaigns to cut benefits to Canadians. The wealthy banker's wife probably has to dip into her pocket for chocolates now, but what about the hundreds of thousands of poor that no longer can count on that monthly cheque... no matter how small it was. Your arguments for the removal of our social safety nets attempt to distort and pervert the the perception of the function of government, and all of the truly good programs that help make Canada a good place to live for all of its citizens by showing a few negative points.... and based on those few negatives, ignoring the thousands of positives, are certainly not justification for your described goals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirror Posted July 19, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 19, 2005 Why does a religious person have to spend their tax dollars on ads targeting homosexuals about AIDS that are posted in universities all over Canada? I agree that religious persons should not be subjected to this so-called abuse and my solution is to abolish religions. No religions, therefore no religious people, therefore no religious people being so-called abused. The first step towards abolishing religions should be to immediately abolish tax free donation status for religions, and to abolish all religious schools. Why should my taxes be higher because of some religious nut getting a tax break? Who knows that religious nut could well turn out to be a suicide bomber. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted July 19, 2005 Report Share Posted July 19, 2005 --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.