Latest National Opinion Polls

[mirror]

Poll: Liberals stop bleeding in Quebec

L-39

C-24

N-19

Conservatives have not been this low in the polls since before the last election.

[takeanumber]

The Cons are the party of rural Canada and Calgary.

the majority of Canadians are not rural nor Calgarian.

Get used to it: It's called Progress. I know that's an alien concept in Conservative circles, but thankfully, the Cons arn't able to Con Canadians that often.

Harris, Klein, and Mulroney. Stand Tall Conservatives!

[Riverwind]

Conservatives have not been this low in the polls since before the last election.

It appears the Liberals have the 'incumbant' advantage. When people are feeling good about their lives and the economy they really don't like to kick the people in charge out. When Gomery was in the news it sounded like a good reason to get rid of the Liberals but it faded as people went back to their lives. Any opposition leader would have a tough time in these circumstances. If the CPC had elected a Joe Clark clone instead of Harper they would be equally low in the polls and people would blame them for not differentiating themselves from the Liberals in policy.

[mirror]

I don't think we should get into maligning rural nor Calgarian inhabitants. What is the point in that? We all share this country together and a majority is only as good as how it treats its minorities, whatever our minorities happen to be.

[for_liberty]

The Cons are the party of rural Canada and Calgary.

the majority of Canadians are not rural nor Calgarian.

Get used to it:  It's called Progress.  I know that's an alien concept in Conservative circles, but thankfully, the Cons arn't able to Con Canadians that often.

Harris, Klein, and Mulroney.  Stand Tall Conservatives!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So what is progress? Is it forcing socialist ideals on people?

[mirror]

Conservatives may not appreciate hearing this right now however Joe Clark was right. The merger of the Reform and the PCs, or more specifically the takeover of the PCs by the Refrom (read Harper and his cronies) was a huge mistake, and the Conservatives appear to be heading over the edge of the cliff.

[mirror]

The Cons are the party of rural Canada and Calgary.

the majority of Canadians are not rural nor Calgarian.

Get used to it:  It's called Progress.  I know that's an alien concept in Conservative circles, but thankfully, the Cons arn't able to Con Canadians that often.

Harris, Klein, and Mulroney.  Stand Tall Conservatives!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So what is progress? Is it forcing socialist ideals on people?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why do you spite out the word socialist like it is some dirty word in Canada? Sorry to disappoint you but we live in a social democratic society here, where some folks are more socialist than others. I think having a good balance is key to Canada's success.

[for_liberty]

The Cons are the party of rural Canada and Calgary.

the majority of Canadians are not rural nor Calgarian.

Get used to it:  It's called Progress.  I know that's an alien concept in Conservative circles, but thankfully, the Cons arn't able to Con Canadians that often.

Harris, Klein, and Mulroney.  Stand Tall Conservatives!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So what is progress? Is it forcing socialist ideals on people?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why do you spite out the word socialist like it is some dirty word in Canada? Sorry to disappoint you but we live in a social democratic society here, where some folks are more socialist than others. I think having a good balance is key to Canada's success.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because socialism is always force. People who do not want to participate in social services are still forced to pay for them. How is this fair?

[for_liberty]

Why don't we just make it so all social services are voluntary. If you would like to use them you shopuld pay for them, if you don't pay you can not use. SOunds fair to me.

[Riverwind]

Why don't we just make it so all social services are voluntary. If you would like to use them you shopuld pay for them, if you don't pay you can not use. SOunds fair to me.

Social services exist to help people who can't afford to pay so it does not make sense to apply a user pay 100% model.

[for_liberty]

So it is ok to have people pay into a system they don't want to. What about charity? Alot of them provide a great service and they receive money on a volantary basis. I don't think force is the answer, there are other ways of doing things.

[Riverwind]

So it is ok to have people pay into a system they don't want to. What about charity? Alot of them provide a great service and they receive money on a volantary basis. I don't think force is the answer, there are other ways of doing things.

'Let private charity take care of it' is a greedy person's cop out. I agree that government does not do everything as efficiently as it should and that certain social programs have unintended consequences and need redesign, however, on average, government does a better job delivering social services at a lower cost than charity.

[for_liberty]

So it is ok to have people pay into a system they don't want to. What about charity? Alot of them provide a great service and they receive money on a volantary basis. I don't think force is the answer, there are other ways of doing things.

'Let private charity take care of it' is a greedy person's cop out. I agree that government does not do everything as efficiently as it should and that certain social programs have unintended consequences and need redesign, however, on average, government does a better job delivering social services at a lower cost than charity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well thank you for not labeling me. I must be greedy because i don't agree with you. The difference between me and you is i would never want my ideals forced on you. You feel you're more compassianate because you want the govenment to take and spend other people's money the way you feel it should be spent. Wow what compassion.

[for_liberty]

And by assuming that i am greedy is the same thing as republicans assuming people are un-american because they appose the war on terror.

And to be fair Bill Clinton said the same thing after the Oklahoma city bombing.

[Riverwind]

Well thank you for not labeling me. I must be greedy because i don't agree with you. The difference between me and you is i would never want my ideals forced on you. You feel you're more compassionate because you want the government to take and spend other people's money the way you feel it should be spent. Wow what compassion.

Assume I am talking in abstract with out making any assumptions about you personally. If we eliminated taxes and expected people to donate to charity then most people would consider themselves generous if they donated 10-15% of their income - a fraction of what is collected in taxes today. This would mean that charities would have a lot less money to work with. Further, the administrative costs of charities competing with each other would eat up a lot of funds. In addition, important but less media friendly causes would be starved for cash while the sexy causes got all of the donations: compare tsunami relief to AIDS prevention.

Lastly, the everyone benefits from charity - keeps the people off the street and reduces crime. In a purely voluntary system a significant number of people would donate nothing (because they think they need it more). This would mean these people would be parasites that receive the benefit of other people's charity without paying. To me that is a much much greater unfairness than collecting taxes from everyone according to the same set of rules.

[mirror]

And by assuming that i am greedy is the same thing as republicans assuming people are un-american because they appose the war on terror.

And to be fair Bill Clinton said the same thing after the Oklahoma city bombing.

I don't understand what you are saying above.

One thing about Canadians, and it may have something to do with living next to the elephant, is that we root for the underdog a lot of time. Perhaps that is one of the reasons redistribution to protect the less fortunate is so important to us. I also see it as good principled living to share what one has with others. I believe there is enough research to show that if you leave too much to your offspring you can damage them. And you can't take it with you, can you? So in a sense government intervention is doing your a favour. Consider it tough love.

[for_liberty]

Well i can't recall the last time a charity misplaced 1 billion dollars like the HR department did a few years ago. In my opinion governments don't really help people, they make them dependant on the system. How much money has been pourwed into the system to battle poverty and yet nothing changes. There is no incentive for a bureaucrat to do a good job. If they do a good job there department will then have their budget cut because there would be less people in need of help so they could not justify their budget. Where alot of charities work with volunteers so their jobs don't depend on it. And if i find a charity not doing a good job or spending to much money on administative costs, then they don't get my money. I don't have that say with government. Government does not have the same checks and balances that a charity needs to have. They just launch an investigation and say everything is better now and repeat this process over and over again. All the while raising my taxes and forcing me to pay them or go to prison or confiscate my assets.

[Riverwind]

Well i can't recall the last time a charity misplaced 1 billion dollars like the HR department did a few years ago.

The governments collect 400 billion per year. 1 billion on HRDC over several years is insignificant - mismanagement by private charaties could easily exceed that amount if they were dealing with the same sums.

I don't have that say with government. Government does not have the same checks and balances that a charity needs to have.

Government auditing requirements are at least as stringent as charities.

All the while raising my taxes and forcing me to pay them or go to prison or confiscate my assets.

You did not even address my point about how any purely voluntary system would lead to another type of unfairness which, IMV, is worse than 'forcing' people to pay that don't want to pay.

[for_liberty]

And by assuming that i am greedy is the same thing as republicans assuming people are un-american because they appose the war on terror.

And to be fair Bill Clinton said the same thing after the Oklahoma city bombing.

I don't understand what you are saying above.

One thing about Canadians, and it may have something to do with living next to the elephant, is that we root for the underdog a lot of time. Perhaps that is one of the reasons redistribution to protect the less fortunate is so important to us. I also see it as good principled living to share what one has with others. I believe there is enough research to show that if you leave too much to your offspring you can damage them. And you can't take it with you, can you? So in a sense government intervention is doing your a favour. Consider it tough love.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh sorry if i wasn't clear. I am in the middle of doing something so my mind is in 2 places at onece.

What i was saying is by using an argument like you must be greedy to not want to pay taxes is just trying to get someone to shut up. IMO. To me it is the same thing as someone saying that you are not patriotic because you question government.

And i don't think intervention is in my favour. I don't want the government to get my cash, i would much rather a charity got it instead. But thanks to government for taking my decisions away for me.

[for_liberty]

[

All the while raising my taxes and forcing me to pay them or go to prison or confiscate my assets.

You did not even address my point about how any purely voluntary system would lead to another type of unfairness which, IMV, is worse than 'forcing' people to pay that don't want to pay.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes that is your view. But with charity i have a choice. with government i do not. I either pay or go to jail.

[for_liberty]

Well thank you for not labeling me. I must be greedy because i don't agree with you. The difference between me and you is i would never want my ideals forced on you. You feel you're more compassionate because you want the government to take and spend other people's money the way you feel it should be spent. Wow what compassion.

Assume I am talking in abstract with out making any assumptions about you personally. If we eliminated taxes and expected people to donate to charity then most people would consider themselves generous if they donated 10-15% of their income - a fraction of what is collected in taxes today. This would mean that charities would have a lot less money to work with. Further, the administrative costs of charities competing with each other would eat up a lot of funds. In addition, important but less media friendly causes would be starved for cash while the sexy causes got all of the donations: compare tsunami relief to AIDS prevention.

Lastly, the everyone benefits from charity - keeps the people off the street and reduces crime. In a purely voluntary system a significant number of people would donate nothing (because they think they need it more). This would mean these people would be parasites that receive the benefit of other people's charity without paying. To me that is a much much greater unfairness than collecting taxes from everyone according to the same set of rules.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What you say about less media friendly causes happens with government too.

[mirror]

Governments by their very nature make decisions on behalf of their citizens. We can be lucky that we live in democracies where we do have a few options like signing up to go, or not to go to war, etc., as opposed to dictatorships where you don't have a choice.

[Yaro]

Why don't we just make it so all social services are voluntary. If you would like to use them you shopuld pay for them, if you don't pay you can not use. SOunds fair to me.

Does that include the military and police? Who decides where the line gets drawn? Isn't that a function of a democracy?

So it is ok to have people pay into a system they don't want to. What about charity? Alot of them provide a great service and they receive money on a volantary basis. I don't think force is the answer, there are other ways of doing things.

There is a point at which welfare has positive returns, so why should some a voluntary system provides benefits to those that don't want to pay?

Well thank you for not labeling me. I must be greedy because i don't agree with you. The difference between me and you is i would never want my ideals forced on you. You feel you're more compassianate because you want the govenment to take and spend other people's money the way you feel it should be spent. Wow what compassion.

Whether your greedy or not is irrelevant, there is no doubt that your position is that of extreme social Darwinism or extreme self interest if you prefer. Just because you don't like the label doesn't mean that it isn't accurate based upon your argument. Not that I have a problem with self interest, I accept it as the baseline human condition but I don't believe that encouraging it necessarily brings about a better society and it is a certainty that it doesn't bring about a more efficient one.

[for_liberty]

Governments by their very nature make decisions on behalf of their citizens. We can be lucky that we live in democracies where we do have a few options like signing up to go, or not to go to war, etc., as opposed to dictatorships where you don't have a choice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well then i am lucky that governments don't take more? And we do have few options that is correct, but not many.

And the HRDC budget isn't 400 billion a year. That is what government collects in total.

[for_liberty]

Yaro i never said it is ok to not pay into the system and receive its benefit. And yes we can make that for military and police, i'm all for that.