Jump to content

Time to get rid of the NDP  

55 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Posted

You people are blinded by Jack Laytons "car commercial". The NDP does NOT produce good results. He is already contesting the GST tax cut which will help us. He is also contesting the child care allounce which helps all parents with pre school kids, not just the ones who use day care. He is gonna try to stop all the tax cuts.

In jack Laytons platform their is not ONE tax cut. In a speech he gave a few days before the election he said "harper is offering tax cuts, is that really what we want?" YES!!!! :angry: YES IT IS!!! Jack Layton has a golden spoon up his damn ass. Theirs no way he relates to the common man, because the common man hates taxes, and would love tax cuts. I really can't stand the NDP's ideology of "steal from the rich and give to the needy" (I know ive said this before... several times :P ) But... I really want people to see my point.

Come April when parliment starts reviewing the budget... If Layton and his democrats start slashing the tax cuts, then that is a majour sign to us that Layton does not understand what we want. Don't let that jackass win a single seat next time-- please.

:(:(:(

"They say that lifes a carousel, spinning fast you got to ride it well. The world is full of Kings and Queens who blind your eyes then steal your dreams- it's heaven and hell. And they will tell you black is really white, the moon is just the sun at night, and when you walk in golden halls you get to keep the gold that falls- its heaven and hell"

-Ronnie James Dio

  • Replies 178
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
If Layton and his democrats start slashing the tax cuts, then that is a majour sign to us that Layton does not understand what we want. Don't let that jackass win a single seat next time-- please.
Although I disagree with almost every policy the NDP puts on the table I accept that a significant minority of Canadians do agree with NDP polices (probably close to 25% if you include left leaning Liberals and Bloquists). The last time I checked we live in a democracy so the only way to 'get rid of' the NDP is to provide a compelling alternative vision.

Provding a compelling alternative is the biggest challenge facing Harper today - my biggest concern is he is not up to the task.

To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.

Posted
If Layton and his democrats start slashing the tax cuts, then that is a majour sign to us that Layton does not understand what we want. Don't let that jackass win a single seat next time-- please.
Although I disagree with almost every policy the NDP puts on the table I accept that a significant minority of Canadians do agree with NDP polices (probably close to 25% if you include left leaning Liberals and Bloquists). The last time I checked we live in a democracy so the only way to 'get rid of' the NDP is to provide a compelling alternative vision.

Provding a compelling alternative is the biggest challenge facing Harper today - my biggest concern is he is not up to the task.

I honestly believe that NDP supporters are mainly Socialists, Left Leaning Liberals, the Poor, and the STUPID...

The point im trying to make is that Jack Layton thinks tax cuts are a bad thing... so he does not speak for the common man, because 9 out of every 10 people would agree that cutting taxes is never a bad thing, especially when you have a surplus.

"They say that lifes a carousel, spinning fast you got to ride it well. The world is full of Kings and Queens who blind your eyes then steal your dreams- it's heaven and hell. And they will tell you black is really white, the moon is just the sun at night, and when you walk in golden halls you get to keep the gold that falls- its heaven and hell"

-Ronnie James Dio

Posted
The point im trying to make is that Jack Layton thinks tax cuts are a bad thing... so he does not speak for the common man, because 9 out of every 10 people would agree that cutting taxes is never a bad thing, especially when you have a surplus.
And 9 out of 10 people would agree that spending more money on various 'feel good' programs is a good thing especially when you have a surplus. Leadership is about convincing people that the way you balance the competing demands on the government is better than the way the other guys balance the competing demands.

To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.

Posted
The point im trying to make is that Jack Layton thinks tax cuts are a bad thing... so he does not speak for the common man, because 9 out of every 10 people would agree that cutting taxes is never a bad thing, especially when you have a surplus.
And 9 out of 10 people would agree that spending more money on various 'feel good' programs is a good thing especially when you have a surplus. Leadership is about convincing people that the way you balance the competing demands on the government is better than the way the other guys balance the competing demands.

Sweet crap, ur a lefty arent ya? <_<

I don't have the energy to argue about the NDP, ive said what I had to say---

"They say that lifes a carousel, spinning fast you got to ride it well. The world is full of Kings and Queens who blind your eyes then steal your dreams- it's heaven and hell. And they will tell you black is really white, the moon is just the sun at night, and when you walk in golden halls you get to keep the gold that falls- its heaven and hell"

-Ronnie James Dio

Posted
Sweet crap, ur a lefty arent ya? <_<
I am center-right. I simply have no patience for simplistic arguments that do not take into account the complexities of the world.

Think about it: you say tax cuts are never a bad thing. Then why don't we simply eliminate all taxes and shut down the gov't? A few people on this forum would agree that we should do that - I don't believe you are one of them. That means you want the govt to tax and spend money so the only difference between you and Jack Layton is the amount of tax and spending.

To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.

Posted
The point im trying to make is that Jack Layton thinks tax cuts are a bad thing... so he does not speak for the common man, because 9 out of every 10 people would agree that cutting taxes is never a bad thing, especially when you have a surplus.
And 9 out of 10 people would agree that spending more money on various 'feel good' programs is a good thing especially when you have a surplus. Leadership is about convincing people that the way you balance the competing demands on the government is better than the way the other guys balance the competing demands.

Sweet crap, ur a lefty arent ya? <_<

I don't have the energy to argue about the NDP, ive said what I had to say---

I am a right-leaning moderate conservative and I would never get rid of the NDP. Although they are a left-wing party that has taken many of their ideas straight out of The Communist Manifesto, I would not get rid of them because "to fly a plane, you need a right and a left-wing" (sorry Sparhawk, but your quote is very apprpriate here).

Getting rid of the NDP would be undemocratic and a clear majority of Canadians (right or left-wing) need to see that.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything."

-Alexander Hamilton

Posted
Although they are a left-wing party that has taken many of their ideas straight out of The Communist Manifesto, I would not get rid of them because "to fly a plane, you need a right and a left-wing" (sorry Sparhawk, but your quote is very apprpriate here).

Maybe, but they've swung to the right (economically) as the rest of the world has. They no longer call for the nationalization of industries. They even called for a modest tax cut last time around, I believe.

Everybody has their political leanings, but Canada's marketplace of ideas seems to be doing a good job of taking ideas from the left and right. Right now, it's the right's turn.

Posted

It's time to get rid of SamStranger and his bizzare obsession with Jack Layton.

The point im trying to make is that Jack Layton thinks tax cuts are a bad thing... so he does not speak for the common man, because 9 out of every 10 people would agree that cutting taxes is never a bad thing, especially when you have a surplus.

Here's an interesting analysis of public opinion done by the Fraser Institute.

The most fundamental finding of the survey was that, on average, Canadians want 41 percent of the surplus to be used for paying down the debt, 27 percent to be used for reducing taxes, and 32 percent to be used for increased program spending.

...

The single most important finding is that Canadians want paying down the debt to be the priority use for the federal surplus; tax reductions and program enhancements are secondary priorities.

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit

Posted
You people are blinded by Jack Laytons "car commercial". The NDP does NOT produce good results. He is already contesting the GST tax cut which will help us. He is also contesting the child care allounce which helps all parents with pre school kids, not just the ones who use day care. He is gonna try to stop all the tax cuts.

In jack Laytons platform their is not ONE tax cut. In a speech he gave a few days before the election he said "harper is offering tax cuts, is that really what we want?" YES!!!! :angry: YES IT IS!!! Jack Layton has a golden spoon up his damn ass. " (I know ive said this before... several times :P ) But... I really want people to see my point.

Come April when parliment starts reviewing the budget... If Layton and his democrats start slashing the tax cuts, then that is a majour sign to us that Layton does not understand what we want. Don't let that jackass win a single seat next time-- please.

:(:(:(

I read this post and could'nt do anything but sigh.

1) You people are blinded by Jack Laytons "car commercial". The NDP does NOT produce good results.

What results do you expect them to produce? They hold 29 seats, and have never been over 50. They haven't exactly been in any position to produce results. Now, that being said, some people would think that what they did last term does qualify as results. They twisted Martin's arm into adjusting his budget. They may not be results you like, but, as already mentioned, about a quarter of Canadians agree with these sorts of policies...

2)He is already contesting the GST tax cut which will help us. He is also contesting the child care allounce which helps all parents with pre school kids, not just the ones who use day care. He is gonna try to stop all the tax cuts.

Well this is a matter of opinion. The NDP believe that the tax cut Harper wants to repeal ( to low income Canadians) are more important at this point. So no, he doesn't want to stop all tax cuts. He wants them directed at different target groups.

3)Theirs no way he relates to the common man, because the common man hates taxes, and would love tax cuts. I really can't stand the NDP's ideology of "steal from the rich and give to the needy

He relates to a quarter of the common man. We've been over this...

4)Come April when parliment starts reviewing the budget... If Layton and his democrats start slashing the tax cuts, then that is a majour sign to us that Layton does not understand what we want. Don't let that jackass win a single seat next time-- please.

This statement is a sign that you are out of touch with anything that doesn't fit squarely within your 2 inch wide blinders. There are other points of view out there. You ask us to consider yours, and yet you ignore over a quarter of the polulation. And then , you call them all stupid.

Sam, you are a piece of work, I tell you.

“Your ignorance cramps my conversation”-- unknown

Posted
If Layton and his democrats start slashing the tax cuts, then that is a majour sign to us that Layton does not understand what we want. Don't let that jackass win a single seat next time-- please.
Although I disagree with almost every policy the NDP puts on the table I accept that a significant minority of Canadians do agree with NDP polices (probably close to 25% if you include left leaning Liberals and Bloquists). The last time I checked we live in a democracy so the only way to 'get rid of' the NDP is to provide a compelling alternative vision.

Provding a compelling alternative is the biggest challenge facing Harper today - my biggest concern is he is not up to the task.

You've mentioned this 'compelling alternative' a few times during the campaign and since.

Alternative to what? The Liberals?

The government should do something.

Posted
Sammy,

Ya should have given up when your last thread on the subject ended with you looking like a dumbass. Now your just making yourself look pathetic :)

Aw, lay off the guy. Just sounds like a miguided child to me.

He most definately will never give up. He's like a whack-a-mole. Just keeps popping up for and more punishment.

Posted

People vote for the NDP because they never will hold power.

No-one wants them to spend us into a recession, yet people don't want the right to lead us as republicans.

Its a vote for balance is all it is.

Posted
People vote for the NDP because they never will hold power.

No-one wants them to spend us into a recession, yet people don't want the right to lead us as republicans.

Its a vote for balance is all it is.

Odd, I voted for the NDP hoping they would get into power. Then again, I'm a pinko commie. Oh and I'm an idiot according to SamStrange too.

Posted
If Layton and his democrats start slashing the tax cuts, then that is a majour sign to us that Layton does not understand what we want. Don't let that jackass win a single seat next time-- please.
Although I disagree with almost every policy the NDP puts on the table I accept that a significant minority of Canadians do agree with NDP polices (probably close to 25% if you include left leaning Liberals and Bloquists). The last time I checked we live in a democracy so the only way to 'get rid of' the NDP is to provide a compelling alternative vision.

Provding a compelling alternative is the biggest challenge facing Harper today - my biggest concern is he is not up to the task.

I honestly believe that NDP supporters are mainly Socialists, Left Leaning Liberals, the Poor, and the STUPID...

The point im trying to make is that Jack Layton thinks tax cuts are a bad thing... so he does not speak for the common man, because 9 out of every 10 people would agree that cutting taxes is never a bad thing, especially when you have a surplus.

Believe it or not, Layton does have two things right. He has focused on making education cheaper for families and people seeking re-training as our society trends away from unskilled toward skilled labour. And his plan doesn't include tax cuts that will just end up getting taken right back by the provinces because they aren't being adequately funded. Only Albertans will really benefit from the tax cuts as they run a balanced budget and don't keep getting taxed more and more because of mounting deficits at the provincial and municipal levels.

I'd be happiest if there was just no new spending allowed by any level of government in surplus while another is in deficit and no new taxation at any level until surpluses are redistributed to take care of deficit spending. If a government runs a deficit for more than two consecutive years, their mandate should be dissolved--majority or not--and their performance sent back in the form of an election for people to decide whether or not they are managing public interests properly. There should be no non-confidence motions. Terms should be 4 years, with certain performance parameters that have to be met. If after 2 years either a certain amount of election promises have been outright broken, or a certain amount haven't yet been filled, it is deemed their performance demands review and parliament is dissolved. This must be documented to the public and transparent. We also need term limits. The leader of any party can only be PM/Premier for two terms regardless of what party he leads while PM/Premier.

Now that's accountability.

"If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society."

- Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell -

“In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.

Posted
There is actually no need to 'do' anything about the NDP.

The attraction to their policies is biological, caused by a recessive gene.

Darwin was right, it will take care of itself.

Damn. Succinct. Concise.

But damn cold.

Support for the NDP can be best explained by one term.

Feel-goodism.

1) Too many people have been programmed that when they have something they should be guilty that there are those that don't. They're taught that we live in a zero-sum economy wherein you have to take from others to do better for yourself.

2) Too many people believe that by redistributing wealth in a Robin-Hood-esque 'take from the rich and give to the poor' manner will solve all society's ills.

3) Too many people have been fooled into believing that the government can provide for us better than we can do for ourselves.

"If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society."

- Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell -

“In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.

Posted
There is actually no need to 'do' anything about the NDP.

The attraction to their policies is biological, caused by a recessive gene.

Darwin was right, it will take care of itself.

Wow...that was blistering... :o

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything."

-Alexander Hamilton

Posted
1) Too many people have been programmed that when they have something they should be guilty that there are those that don't. They're taught that we live in a zero-sum economy wherein you have to take from others to do better for yourself.

Charity is very much a part of our culture and it grows out of sympathy for those who are lacking. This is at the base of Christianity as well.

That's not that you should feel guilty for what you have, but there's nothing wrong with wanting to share your wealth. It's kharmic, or if you prefer: win-win.

2) Too many people believe that by redistributing wealth in a Robin-Hood-esque 'take from the rich and give to the poor' manner will solve all society's ills.

Every western economy includes some measure of wealth distribution and social assistance. It might do well for those on the opposite side as the NDP if they told us what limits they would like to put on distribution. Often when these things are discussed it seems like it's an all-or-nothing option.

3) Too many people have been fooled into believing that the government can provide for us better than we can do for ourselves.

What do you mean here specifically ?

Posted
1) Too many people have been programmed that when they have something they should be guilty that there are those that don't. They're taught that we live in a zero-sum economy wherein you have to take from others to do better for yourself.

Charity is very much a part of our culture and it grows out of sympathy for those who are lacking. This is at the base of Christianity as well.

That's not that you should feel guilty for what you have, but there's nothing wrong with wanting to share your wealth. It's kharmic, or if you prefer: win-win.

I have no problem with charity. When it's forced though, can you really call it charity? Or is it extortion? On my own, I give to the poor through the Salvation Army, and Habitat for the Homeless. I often forgo a day of meals on the road to throw in twenty when I see them about.

2) Too many people believe that by redistributing wealth in a Robin-Hood-esque 'take from the rich and give to the poor' manner will solve all society's ills.

Every western economy includes some measure of wealth distribution and social assistance. It might do well for those on the opposite side as the NDP if they told us what limits they would like to put on distribution. Often when these things are discussed it seems like it's an all-or-nothing option.

I have no problem with social programs that are well-thought out and well executed. But do we really need our government to feed our children breakfast? or keep our children occupied after school? or take care of our kids? Or give drugs and alcohol to our transient population?

We need to agree upon and set parameters which we should not go beyond. Done properly, public education is a great benefit to the population. And our health care system, however flawed, is still the envy of many about the world. There are things that are in the interest of society as a whole should be provided for all.

Where the line needs to stop is definitely an area of contention. Where that needs to be I'm not sure.

3) Too many people have been fooled into believing that the government can provide for us better than we can do for ourselves.

What do you mean here specifically ?

People think that a new government program is the answer for every little problem.

"If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society."

- Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell -

“In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.

Posted
Support for the NDP can be best explained by one term.

Feel-goodism.

....

2) Too many people believe that by redistributing wealth in a Robin-Hood-esque 'take from the rich and give to the poor' manner will solve all society's ills.

.....

Quick reply cause I have a class in a few mins but, why do thousands of people die everyday of malnourishment if the top 450 richest people in the world own 53% of the capital ? We can produce more than enough food for the whole population of this planet and have some left over. Just because you're born in a "developed" country doesn't entitle you to not care ! You've been made to think that whats best for transnational corporations is also whats best for you. Pick up a book from Leslie Sklair. You'll thank me when you're done.

I'll reply to your other insightful comments later.

Posted
I have no problem with charity. When it's forced though, can you really call it charity? Or is it extortion? On my own, I give to the poor through the Salvation Army, and Habitat for the Homeless. I often forgo a day of meals on the road to throw in twenty when I see them about.

You're right, it's not charity but keep in mind I was addressing your point #1.

I have no problem with social programs that are well-thought out and well executed. But do we really need our government to feed our children breakfast? or keep our children occupied after school? or take care of our kids? Or give drugs and alcohol to our transient population?

I don't know.

Why don't we discuss and figure that out.

School breakfast for example. There are a lot of bad parents out there. I suspect that they are the children of bad parents. If a school breakfast program can help these kids, then maybe it will break the cycle.

Giving drugs/alcohol to transients. If these people are utterly addicted to substances and have thrown their lives away, what's the best way to deal with it ? They're going to get their substances from criminals anyway, maybe it makes sense for them to be under supervision while they're doing it.

It's not a question of ideology, as much as it is common sense. I'd even be willing to crunch numbers to determine how valuable these things might be.

We need to agree upon and set parameters which we should not go beyond. Done properly, public education is a great benefit to the population. And our health care system, however flawed, is still the envy of many about the world. There are things that are in the interest of society as a whole should be provided for all.

Where the line needs to stop is definitely an area of contention. Where that needs to be I'm not sure.

Like I said: let's discuss and agree to shed ideology in favour of what works.

Politics today is, unfortunately, more about arguing stereotypes rather than being pragmatic.

People think that a new government program is the answer for every little problem.

I agree that such a blunt approach doesn't help anybody. In fact, it might be time for people to consider taking some powers away from the government in order to foster innovation. I'm left-of-center politically, but the government's stasis in many areas needs to be addressed somehow.

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
      10,833
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    maria orsic
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • VanidaCKP earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • maria orsic earned a badge
      First Post
    • Majikman earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • oops earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Politics1990 went up a rank
      Apprentice
  • Recently Browsing

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