Confused and Concerned

[Melanie_]

If you have moved up in the world and are starting to make some real money and think for yourself, you'll like the conservatives because they'll let you keep more of that income for yourself and your big house, nice cars and fancy vacations. So if you like cars, houses and vacations and would rather take care of yourself, vote conservative.

I live in a big house in an affluent neighbourhood, and have taken my share of nice holidays in the sun rather than enduring a Winnipeg winter (well, maybe not all of my share, I think I could definitely do with another right about now). But I don't begrudge my tax dollars helping others who are struggling to make ends meet; your view is very self serving, and I wonder if you meant for it to come across as selfish as it did - or is it just my interpretation?

[mar]

Hey Proud, here's a letter written by a non-political guy like you who put it quite well IMO -

Letter

I'd suggest that you ask yourself which is a more effective and productive way to get things done and to create wealth in a country have it done by Government or by Private Enterprise. If you think Government then the NDP & Libs who think more and bigger government should get your vote.

Think

Air Canada vs West Jet

Privately run education vs public education

Good luck.

Canada post vs Fed Ex: Last time I checked I couldn't send spit across the street at Fedex for 50 cents.

Air Canada vs West Jet: What the heck are you comparing? Air Canada now to Westjet now? Air Canada when it was a crown corporation to West Jet now? Case you didn't know, Air Canada is owned by ACE Aviation Holdings. When it was a crown corporation, it never went bancrupt

Privately run education vs public education: um . . . can we include the Indian residential Schools run by the Catholic church? How about the Christain Right schools teaching everything you need to know to equip your children to succeed in the 19th. century?

But yeah, great idea. Lets close all the public schools and return to the nineteenth century. I mean, since poor parents won't be able to send their kids to private schools anyway, lets get some value outta the little tykes and put them in work houses.

[Rovik]

Hello There, I'm a new user here at these forums as of today. I'm 19 years old and from Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. I came to these forums as a result of searching for information on the parties running in the elections takings place this month. My concern is that I'm not very knowledgable in the political department and I'd like to learn more about what truly is an important subject. I've seen a lot of the commercials and read a few headlines, but other than that I'm a bit confused as to where to get more information on the pros and cons of each of the political parties. I have tried visiting the home sites of the Liberal, Conservative, and NDP parties, but my biggest fear about getting information from those sites is that they might be a little too biased to tell the whole story so-to-speak. For this reason I began looking for a more neutral site that might carry information on the pros and cons of all parties, and that search led me here.

So my question is this: can anyone provide me, if it's not too much trouble, with a reasonable amount of information on the pros and cons of all parties?

Hi there.

Just to let you know, this forum tends to be dominated by right wing Conservative supporters so take many of the posts with a grain of salt.

Look at the issues and decide which party fits you the best. Be careful of the promises each party makes and do some research.

[JerrySeinfeld]

If you have moved up in the world and are starting to make some real money and think for yourself, you'll like the conservatives because they'll let you keep more of that income for yourself and your big house, nice cars and fancy vacations. So if you like cars, houses and vacations and would rather take care of yourself, vote conservative.

I live in a big house in an affluent neighbourhood, and have taken my share of nice holidays in the sun rather than enduring a Winnipeg winter (well, maybe not all of my share, I think I could definitely do with another right about now). But I don't begrudge my tax dollars helping others who are struggling to make ends meet; your view is very self serving, and I wonder if you meant for it to come across as selfish as it did - or is it just my interpretation?

Perhaps I should put it differently.

When faced with an issue, conservatives don't automatically jump to the conclusion that more government money is the solution.

Conservatives believe in things like "means tests" etc. - ie. if you're REALLY in need,we'll help, but we're not going to create a culture of paternalism and government teet-suckling.

[Rovik]

Well this is subjective to everyone, but I'll point out my views:

NDP Pros:

-the colours of the party make it seem like Halloween year-round

NDP Cons:

-everything

Is this your idea of serious pros and cons of each party, because if it is, it is flawed.

[Rovik]

NDP - "Trick or treat!!!...what the...candy?...I was hoping for a quarter trillion dollars to balance my budget...Damn!

Good luck.

Hmmm, so you must really think it's really funny that the Conservative platform funding will cost $75 billion compared to the NDP's 71 billion platform. It is actually the Conservatives that will spend the most money of the three major parties.

[Rovik]

Let's keep it simple:

1. NDP believes GOVERNMENT is the solution to all issues. Got kids need daycare? The GOVERNMENT will make a program. Want medical care? The GOVERNMENT will take care of you. Lose your job? The GOVERNMENT will take care of you until you get another one.

This is all paid for by HIGH TAXES. So if you plan on being low income, poor or unemployed, you'll like the NDP alot.

2. LIBERALS think similar to the NDP on the GOVERNMENT taking care of everyone. But they also have lots of friends in big business in Toronto, so they occasionaly take private initiative into account.

BOTH OF THE ABOVE: believe that CANADA as a country should change its identity to accomodate new lifestyles (gay) or cultures (immigrants)

3. Conservatives believe we are an economically ADVANCED society which can get past depending on the GOVERNMENT to do things for us. They believe in setting out the proper CONDITIONS for businesses and individuals to flourish under a low tax environment.

Conservatives also have a sense of what they BELIEVE in. They don't CHANGE their beliefs everytime a new special interest group makes noise. They believe in GAY RIGHTS but not in GAY MARRIAGE, for example.

Wow! That was unpartisan. I would suggest strongly not to be swayed by anyone on this forum. Do your own research. All the leaders have fairly clear websites when you can get a very good understanding of the issues.

It's all true.

Because it's true in your mind doesn't necessarily make it true in reality.

[Rovik]

If you are poor, in a union or a student and need some help to keep your head above water,you'll like the LIBS and the NDP.

If you have moved up in the world and are starting to make some real money and think for yourself, you'll like the conservatives because they'll let you keep more of that income for yourself and your big house, nice cars and fancy vacations. So if you like cars, houses and vacations and would rather take care of yourself, vote conservative.

So you are saying that poor, students and union members can't think for themselves. Must be tough for those people, I guess they should let the rich think for them instead. That seems to be quite an elitist statement.

[mar]

Conservatives believe in things like "means tests" etc. - ie. if you're REALLY in need,we'll help, but we're not going to create a culture of paternalism and government teet-suckling.

Why is this view always offered by politicians? You know, the guys who get the lifetime indexed pensions for a few years service. The guys with expense accounts, flying around the country finding facts. The guys living in free housing like Harper. The guys who parlay their few years of government experience into board of director positions and lobbying jobs after they leave.

The message is real simple for these guys: We're getting rich helping our rich friends. In order to get even richer we need schmucks like you who'll buy the idea that income redistribution is an evil thing. Keep up the good work, son. We got a baloon payment coming up on our Caribbean condo and we need allt he cash we can lay our hands on.

as to the rest,

um " if you're REALLY in need,we'll help" is by definition a paternalistic statement. try again.

yeah, there's a lot of government teet-suckling going on. Ya knows those kids squeegeeing your windshield are all living in lakeshore condos and just do it for the glamour and chance to meet exciting people. Same with the guys sleeping in doorways: colourful eccentrics who take a break from all that comfy teet sucking to sleep in the bracing outdoor air.

[Melanie_]

Jerry - I don't see a means test attached to the $1200 "Choices in Child Care" platform. In reality, it will be of most benefit to high income families with one parent staying at home, and will provide least benefit to the working poor. It will reduce their eligibility for Child Tax Benefits and for GST rebates, in addition to being clawed back as a taxable benefit.

The Caledon Institute of Social Policy has done some calculations about what the net benefit to families will be.

A single working parent earning $27,000 would net $481.

A two earner couple earning $36,000 would net $388.

A family with one parent working and one parent at home, with a total income of $33,000, would net $650.

A two earner couple earning $100,000 would net $778.

A family with one parent working and one parent at home, with a total income of $100,000 would net $1032.

http://www.caledoninst.org/

[newbie]

Melanie, don't forget the GST cut. It will greatly benefit the rich - the more you have, the more you spend, the more you save with GST cut.

[mar]

Jerry - I don't see a means test attached to the $1200 "Choices in Child Care" platform. In reality, it will be of most benefit to high income families with one parent staying at home, and will provide least benefit to the working poor. It will reduce their eligibility for Child Tax Benefits and for GST rebates, in addition to being clawed back as a taxable benefit.

The Caledon Institute of Social Policy has done some calculations about what the net benefit to families will be.

A single working parent earning $27,000 would net $481.

A two earner couple earning $36,000 would net $388.

A family with one parent working and one parent at home, with a total income of $33,000, would net $650.

A two earner couple earning $100,000 would net $778.

A family with one parent working and one parent at home, with a total income of $100,000 would net $1032.

http://www.caledoninst.org/

shhhhhuuush melanie

you're not supposed to do the math.

You're supposed to say "Gee! A cheque for me? Oh thank you, thank you, thank you! This is way better than having affordable daycare nearby."

[Guest eureka]

Good heavens! A discussion that actually had the potential to discuss (with some semblance of sanity) the differences between the Parties - and started off that way.

However, Proud, you will have to sort some of the chaff.

For instance, it is true that these Conservatives do not change their beliefs. They do believe that Canada is a highly taxed country when it is, in fact, one of the lowest taxed amongst the Western Democracies.

They do believe in "Means Tests." Harper was quite explicit on that in his Reform days when he called for Means Tested access to Healthcare. That was an interim stage for hime until the abolition of the Canada Health Act and the turning over to the Provinces of all responsibility for Healthcare.

Further, don't accept the derogatory and pejorative putdowns of the NDP. There was a time when that was said of Socialist parties everywhere. Look at what happened and is still happening. Now, there has been a swing to the Left in much of the worls as peoples tire of their subservient status - subservient in every sense to the elites.

[Hydraboss]

Gotta love the dedication to party platform. Did everyone forget that our system of government is based on the "best fit" principle? You decide what YOUR platform is, and then find a party that is the closest to your beliefs. To generalize any supporter as this or that is very close minded. I support the CPC....for now. I like some of the Lib platform (please burn this letter when you're done reading it!), and I can't imagine a more dedicated bunch of people as NDPer's. But what is right for your Canada RIGHT NOW?

Smilin' Jack is semi-fake. Nice guy, but fake. Pauly-boy could have been good, but it's hard to relay true beliefs when you have both feet in your mouth (thanks to the mighty JC). Harper's getting better, but should be someone's Finance Minister, not PM.

I'm voting based on MY beliefs, not on a party leaders beliefs. Hand up, hand out, hand in my pocket. Decisions, decisions. I worked 70+ hours a week for almost eight years straight. My wife works 60+. My kids go to school, and we all want to go to Disneyland. I bought a nice boat two years ago (used). Who has the right to say that instead of this, I should give more than the almost 50% of what I make to build someone else a house? I believe strongly in APPROPRIATE social programs, but why is it criminal to want to give my family preferential treatment?

Rovik, you want to single out a made up number as an indictment of the NDP? Go ahead. I can find holes in any party platform too. Did you notice that I picked on ALL the parties? You're a feverent lot, I got to admit that.

Mar, how dare you say that we should use child labor if the parents can't afford school! (Man, it's easy to misquote.) And be careful, I think Melanie has an unregistered calculator!!!

[Melanie_]

Its not my calculator - I'm just the messenger. Check out the link for all the math.

[mar]

...

Further, don't accept the derogatory and pejorative putdowns of the NDP. There was a time when that was said of Socialist parties everywhere. Look at what happened and is still happening. Now, there has been a swing to the Left in much of the worls as peoples tire of their subservient status - subservient in every sense to the elites.

I guess I'm guilty of this too, eureka (that's a great name; maybe you should consider legally adopting it - just the one name, like Cher or Oprah).

I actually have voted NDP many times in my life and will in this election as in my riding the battle is NDP-Conservative and the Liberal candidate will finish a distant third.

I guess my perception is that with the polarization that we see in other english speaking countries of one left and one right party, which is also the pattern in several provinces like manitoba where provincially the Conservative and NDP parties are the only ones capable of taking power - the Federal NDP have missed out and are doomed for the forseeable future to minor party status.

However, the PC's were wiped out (the final knife to the heart being deliverd by Harper-MacKay ... et tu Peter?) so you can't say its impossible that the same fate could befall the Liberals over the next decade or two, though I think that's unlikely.

I think part of the NDP's problem has always been our closeness to the U.S. and the constant flood of U.S. opinion that has made "socialist" not merely a political view but something inextricably linked to evil, atheism and fear for Canadians who have absorbed a tad too much U.S. propaganda. While it appears the word socialist will no longer pass the lips of any NDP leader, I'm not sure if the rather ridiculous stigma will ever leave them.

[Hydraboss]

Actually, mar, I was watching Jack-O on CPAC tonight (yes, I watch it) and he must have said "socialist" about 5 times a minute. It was actually refreshing watching Happy Jack just come clean about his true identity. We all knew it anyway, and he gained respect points from me for stating his convictions.

I can, however, see the NDP reaching official party status in the election to follow this one. They will no doubt gain a lot more seats this time around, and once they have some swing in the house I think they will make small vibrations when they stomp their feet. No good government exists without strong opposition, and I don't count the separatists. You wanted a chance, Jack? You go girl.

[Kula]

The Liberals are stale and corrupt. The Conservatives are fresh and not. Time for a new a party to freshen things up.

Kula

[geoffrey]

Jerry - I don't see a means test attached to the $1200 "Choices in Child Care" platform. In reality, it will be of most benefit to high income families with one parent staying at home, and will provide least benefit to the working poor. It will reduce their eligibility for Child Tax Benefits and for GST rebates, in addition to being clawed back as a taxable benefit.

The Caledon Institute of Social Policy has done some calculations about what the net benefit to families will be.

A single working parent earning $27,000 would net $481.

A two earner couple earning $36,000 would net $388.

A family with one parent working and one parent at home, with a total income of $33,000, would net $650.

A two earner couple earning $100,000 would net $778.

A family with one parent working and one parent at home, with a total income of $100,000 would net $1032.

http://www.caledoninst.org/

This math is completely wrong. I've never seen such a falsification of basic tax and benifets policy. Taking the one example, someone right on that $35k mark, there might be some facts that it will be significantly lower than $1200.

But a single working parent earning $27,000 would not net $481. This is a complete lie. The report doesn't even show the math. Work it out for yourself. I did some basic research and got $1055. It might prove to be a bit lower, but I'll check this out further when I have more time, and I'll show my math.

One fancy graph that doesn't even make sense doesn't work for me. I love how they twist the information. For the low income workers they include the benifet in the higher tax bracket, and for the 100k+ people they calculate it in the lowest bracket (by the looks of the graph, though who knows what was happening there).

[Melanie_]

I'm not going to claim I did the math, because I am no mathematician. But the Caledon Institute is a well respected, non partisan think tank that doesn't just pull these things out of its hat. Their credibility is not in question for me.

[Hydraboss]

"This math is completely wrong. I've never seen such a falsification of basic tax and benifets policy. Taking the one example, someone right on that $35k mark, there might be some facts that it will be significantly lower than $1200."

So I'm not the only one who questioned the accounting practices! Where are the calculations? I could recalculate it (with different tax points) and make it read the other way.

Melanie, is that link using metric numbers again?

[Rovik]

"This math is completely wrong. I've never seen such a falsification of basic tax and benifets policy. Taking the one example, someone right on that $35k mark, there might be some facts that it will be significantly lower than $1200."

So I'm not the only one who questioned the accounting practices! Where are the calculations? I could recalculate it (with different tax points) and make it read the other way.

Melanie, is that link using metric numbers again?

You know, it's funny. If some think-tank or association supports the Conversative view, many of you Conservatives note them like there can be no question on how right and true they are. On the other hand, if a think-tank or association comes out with figures not supporting the Conservative's numbers than they have to be wrong or misrepresenting the facts.

Hypocritical if you ask me.

[Hydraboss]

Not hypocritical. I slam CPC-supporting b.s. numbers just as fast. And NDP. Especially NDP.

But you are right in general about think-tanks. I'll believe the numbers (from any party) when I can find the details on the CRA's site.

[Rovik]

Not hypocritical. I slam CPC-supporting b.s. numbers just as fast. And NDP. Especially NDP.

But you are right in general about think-tanks. I'll believe the numbers (from any party) when I can find the details on the CRA's site.

CRA? Canada Revenue Agency?

[mar]

You know, it's funny. If some think-tank or association supports the Conversative view, many of you Conservatives note them like there can be no question on how right and true they are. On the other hand, if a think-tank or association comes out with figures not supporting the Conservative's numbers than they have to be wrong or misrepresenting the facts.

Hypocritical if you ask me.

QUESTION: How can you recognize a conservative think tank?

ANSWER: There's no deep end.

sorry. couldn't resist.