Jump to content

BC NDP government using Communist ideology to distribute carbon tax rebate


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

King abused his authority and acted like a tyrant, so the people deposed him, and then allowed him to return to the throne again, but with most of his powers stripped by convention and given to Parliament, and the monarch became a rubber stamp with emergency reserve powers.

Which King was that? I'm a bit familiar with the history of the Monarchy and I cannot think of an event like that. I'm not saying you are incorrect, but I was under the impression that it was King George IV who basically sold much of the power of the King to Parliament. He was not a tyrant, though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Parliament approves tax legislation, it is rubber stamped for approval by the King and given royal assent.  Parliament then approves a budget on how to spend the tax revenue (and debt money) and the King rubber stamps it as well.  Because the King only has limited reserve powers to be used in emergency only.  Otherwise he defers to the will of Parliament.

So would you agree that the best way to solve Blackbird's issue is to not have a Premier or Prime Minister. Also, rebalance the powers regarding taxation and spending. The Crown would continue to appoint the Ministry who would need to enjoy the confidence of both Parliament and the Crown. When the ministry is appointed, the position of Prime minister could be omitted. No matter who is Premier or Prime Minister, it is clear the voters have never liked any of them. Why bother if nobody wants them?

If I can't be Prime Minister, then nobody should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Charles I

21273842.jpg

 

18 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

tyrant, so the people deposed him, and then allowed him to return to the throne again

So, he was allowed to return to the throne again. Did he wear the crown on his shoulders? He must have looked pretty funny with no head.

He wasn't deposed because he was a tyrant. He was deposed because of an argument over the Book of Common Prayer and a scoundrel named Cromwell wanted to be an actual tyrant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, BlackBird, the practice of using tax revenue to redistribute the wealth to help those less well off, goes back to Roman times and probably before. It isn't communism.

The idea of giving the payments to the wife was to protect her from a controlling or abusive husband. Most couples don't meet that dire picture, but how is the government to know who is and who isn't.

Edited by Queenmandy85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1. From what it sounds like, there is income redistribution clearly going on here. 
2. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs".
3. ...you didn't vote NDP.

1.  Sounds like it.
2. "With Six You Get Eggroll"
3. That's right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Anyway, BlackBird, the practice of using tax revenue to redistribute the wealth to help those less well off, goes back to Roman times and probably before. It isn't communism.

The idea of giving the payments to the wife was to protect her from a controlling or abusive husband. Most couples don't meet that dire picture, but how is the government to know who is and who isn't.

Communism is an end state

the nature of Canadian Communism is the Woke Green Utopia at the end of the Socialist rainbow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Communism is an end state

the nature of Canadian Communism is the Woke Green Utopia at the end of the Socialist rainbow

That's why there aren't any real communist countries any more. But, then, communiststs never had a monopoly on terrible government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, herbie said:

Yes I just hate how every few months I've been getting cheques from Horgan or Trudeau. GST, Carbon Tax, ICBC, Hydro reductions.

It's just awful!

I think I'll hang an upside down Cdn flag on the pickup and go around calling them communists for not giving the tax they collect to Telus and Rogers, CIBC and RBC, Shell and Esso who really need it.

Complaining they gave it to the spouse with the lower income... almost as unimaginable as the resident Bible thumper not grasping one of it's basic teachings.

You’re a beneficiary clearly of the welfare state.  I haven’t received a single cheque. It pays to stay home and fill that bong, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

 

This is the case because centuries ago when the King still had the power to rule without the people's consent on his decisions, the King abused his authority and acted like a tyrant, so the people deposed him, and then allowed him to return to the throne again, but with most of his powers stripped by convention and given to Parliament, and the monarch became a rubber stamp with emergency reserve powers.

Sort of. Charles I basically claimed the divine right of kings and Parliament disagreed. To make a long story shorter, they had a civil war, the king lost ended up losing his head. The country was governed as a commonwealth under Cromwell until he croaked and Parliament decided to restore the monarchy under Charles son, Charles II (The Merry Monarch) who was relatively harmless. When he croaked, he was succeeded by his brother James II who pissed off Parliament again and tried to return the country to Catholicism. They ran him off and brought over William and Mary from the House of Orange in the Netherlands. The supremacy of Parliament was never seriously challenged since.

Edited by Aristides
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

So would you agree that the best way to solve Blackbird's issue is to not have a Premier or Prime Minister. Also, rebalance the powers regarding taxation and spending. The Crown would continue to appoint the Ministry who would need to enjoy the confidence of both Parliament and the Crown. When the ministry is appointed, the position of Prime minister could be omitted. No matter who is Premier or Prime Minister, it is clear the voters have never liked any of them. Why bother if nobody wants them?

If I can't be Prime Minister, then nobody should be.

The best way to solve the issue is for people to not re-elect a government if they don't like their policies.  Democracy means we get a chance to guillotine our rulers every few years via election, peacefully and bloodlessly.

There is no political system possible where everyone gets the policies they want, people will always disagree.  We don't have a perfect system, but rule by majority with peaceful transitions is about as good as it gets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Anyway, BlackBird, the practice of using tax revenue to redistribute the wealth to help those less well off, goes back to Roman times and probably before. It isn't communism.

Communism   ..definition -"  a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. "

Redistributing income fits the definition of Communism.  If it walks like bird and talks like a bird, it must be a bird.

Liberals, Socialist, Marxists, and Communists basically believe the state owns everyone's property and finances.  Hence you have many Socialist policies by government.  You may own some things now and have some money saved, but lurking in background is the state that is only allowing you to have it for the time being until and unless they decide they have a need for it or to pay for a social program. 

That is why they had no qualms in telling the gullible people they were bringing in carbon tax to save the planet, and that the people would get a rebate.  The people naively believed every word and thought what they paid would come back to them.   Little did they realize the government had other ideas such as redistributing it to lower income people first and giving it the lower income person in a family even though the person that paid the most carbon taxes was the higher income earner in the family and in society in general.  So the Socialists were not telling the truth to begin with. This is only one program which they use to redistribute money.  The slant of the NDP is to spend on programs that benefit their own voting base.  That has been going on all along.

Then they set up a system where the average person does not know what he should get back and cannot easily find out.  Someone else posted on here that he did not even get any rebate payments.

Edited by blackbird
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, herbie said:

Oh FFS the GST has always gone to the lowest income earner. If he/she don't share income and expenses, you're not a "real" couple. File as singles and see how long you can get away with it. Then you can scream "communism" all you want when they nail you,

That’s why I liked income splitting under Harper.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

Liberals, Socialist, Marxists, and Communists basically believe the state owns everyone's property and finances. 

I don't believe this at all. If this is the premise upon which your thinking is based then whatever else you're thinking is wrong too. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do we ensure the poor are able to afford to live if the government doesn't help them. Where is the government to get that money?

The carbon tax is a program that lets you minimize what you pay. If you want to reduce your contribution, reduce your carbon emissions. You will be helping to keep future generations out of the barbeque as well. It is only a small measure but then the carbon tax isn't much money to pay anyway. The cost of doing something now is tiny compared to what a warming planet will cost.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Nailed it.

Putting a pro business government in with Marxists disqualifies this person as a serious poster.

There are many different shades of politicians and political ideologies.  The world is not black and white.  

But most of them can fit under the heading of Socialists of one form or another if that makes you feel better.

Socialists lump every individual under the mass group.  That is exactly what Health Minister Dix in B.C. does.  You can hear it in his words when he is speaking about problems in the health care system.  Thousands of surgeries for cancer and other problems have been put on hold and delayed.  Yet the government just announced it has 5.6 billion dollars surplus in B.C.  Why didn't they fix the health care system and why has it been failing and many died as a result?  A woman recently on the news has a huge tumour behind her ear and has been on the waiting list for surgery for months.  This has grown immensely and they may have to take half her face and side of her head off.  How long will she survive?  If she survives, this will be life changing.  Thank the delay on the waiting list.

Yet one NDP MLA who became a cabinet minister recently had her department donate 15 million dollars to what is basically an environmental organization.  That's taxpayer money used to promote Socialism.

Edited by blackbird
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

How do we ensure the poor are able to afford to live if the government doesn't help them. Where is the government to get that money?

The carbon tax is a program that lets you minimize what you pay. If you want to reduce your contribution, reduce your carbon emissions. You will be helping to keep future generations out of the barbeque as well. It is only a small measure but then the carbon tax isn't much money to pay anyway. The cost of doing something now is tiny compared to what a warming planet will cost.

What is wrong with Socialism?

Quite simply, what’s wrong with Socialism is that it is a system at war with the individual, seeking to make mankind robotic and subservient to the State even as Socialists insist their vision is the most humane and liberating."

"

Put simply, Socialists view society as one great, big entity, and they view the State as responsible for treating society as a good doctor would treat a sick patient.  Never you mind that the supposed cures of Socialism are worse than the diseases they’re meant to remedy. 

(When I asked a doctor specialist a question, his response was "that's not your worry or concern;  that is my business".  Socialist thinking:  the individual has no rights;  the state and those appointed by the state will take care of us)

Socialists see each man, woman, or child as mere cells within the organism of society, pieces of tissue which are as good as dead apart from the whole.  This approach gives incredible focus and passion to the Socialists’ efforts, yet this way of perceiving individual human beings is also tragically how the Soviet, Nazi, and Maoist States – to name the three most infamous branches of Socialism – justified the heinous acts of evil they perpetrated against their own people.  

Socialists don’t see the trees for the forest, and they don’t sympathize with the individual when the needs or desires of the collective are at stake.  Instead they demonize as monstrously selfish the most basic of human ambitions toward self-determination, free speech, and private property, and then proceed to make war on those who pursue these things without the express authorization and oversight of the State.

Given Socialism’s fundamental misapprehension of and hostility toward basic human nature, any country which sees Socialism creeping in should be very much on its guard.  As an individual American man who has lived his entire life in the United States of America, whose wife and children and extended family and friends are all individuals who live in this country, I am deeply concerned at the very real prospect of America’s humanity being swept away before my eyes by a tidal wave of Socialism.  What sort of nation will my descendants inherit if we cannot turn back this tide?  These and similar concerns have inspired me to write what you are reading now.

Socialism In America

Socialism is here in America, and it has been for quite some time. Socialism is, after all, the real heart of the Democratic Party. This fact became increasingly apparent to me as I watched the Democratic candidates for President debating the issues at the beginning of the primary season leading up to the 2016 election.  The question in the early debates especially was not whether the State is the solution to all the problems of society and of the world; that was a foregone conclusion.  Rather the debate was over how quickly and transparently America should become a Socialist nation and tackle these national and international problems as such.

Read the history of America’s Democratic Party and you’ll see that Progressives have been more or less trying to conceal their true identity for the better of the past century. Now they’re finally taking the mask off, hoping the objects of their affection – American voters – won’t find their real face hideous having come to love and depend on them for a vast array of social welfare programs.  

In truth the American public has been like so many frogs in a cook pot of water, the Progressives like so many Fabians turning up the heat gradually so we don’t all jump out of said cook pot.  We may now be approaching the point of no return when the frogs are too much cooked to jump out even if they suddenly decide to."

  What's Wrong With Socialism: Eugenics and Abortion (onthe.rocks)

The  carbon tax does nothing to reduce CO2 emissions because people must still heat their homes.  Canada is in a cold climate.  Families must still take their children to school, go to get groceries, drive to the doctor and live their lives.  Nobody is going to stop their normal lives.  That was another lie of the Liberal/NDP.

 

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

 

Yet one NDP MLA who became a cabinet minister recently had her department donate 15 million dollars to what is basically an environmental organization.  That's taxpayer money used to promote Socialism.

Improving the environment is socialism?

Wow, the things that I am learning...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Improving the environment is socialism?

Wow, the things that I am learning...

Yes, we all know you are a loyal follower of Greta.  The Climate Change charade is a Socialist scheme to transfer wealth from the developed nations to the third world.  We all know the U.N. is the puppet master for the war on climate change and Greta is one of their puppets.  Doesn't take much thinking to realize it is a Socialist scheme. 

Greta has apparently announced her opposition to capitalism and want to fight against free enterprise now.  That should tell you something.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a matter of "thinking" it's a matter of knowing. If you believe liberalism, docialism, Marxism, communism are the same thing you're not thinking. You're repeating the mantra of the uber-right that anything you don't agree with is 'left'.

INCLUDING environmentalism. Sheer lazy-ass thinking of those who don't want to even make the effort of thinking how you can profit from green issues.

As for income redistribution, that's simply another aspect of reality that the extreme right has invented a term and bad connotation for. Just like 'entitlements'. The senior citizen shouldn't expect his pension, that's an entitlement only a tyrant King would demand...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, blackbird said:

The  carbon tax does nothing to reduce CO2 emissions because people must still heat their homes.  Canada is in a cold climate.  Families must still take their children to school, go to get groceries, drive to the doctor and live their lives.

Use electric heat. BC has hydro electric power with a low carbon footprint. For the rest we are going to have nuclear power. 

 

5 hours ago, blackbird said:

The Climate Change charade is a Socialist scheme to transfer wealth from the developed nations to the third world. 

So, the effects carbon dioxide and methane on the re-radiation of energy are a socialist hoax? If you believe that, you have a good case to sue your physics prof for lying to you. The Greenhouse effect can be tested in any under graduate lab.

Since I did not take pysics in university, I listen to people who actually know what they are talking about. The late Stephen Hawking for one. Are you smarter than Professor Hawking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,744
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    John Wilson
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Fluffypants went up a rank
      Rising Star
    • exPS earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • gatomontes99 went up a rank
      Proficient
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...