CP: Klein tells PM Harper to lighten up with media

[bk59]

I still don't get how a 1 point cut in the GST is insignificant but a 1/2 point raise in the lowest tax bracket is helpful.

Aren't these people going anywhere? Be it transit or driving they will be helped. GST applies to gas...

Everybody ignores the working tax credit, but that helps the working poor the most. Add the GST cut, the childcare benefit and I still can't see a family that is better off under the Liberals plan. Show me the numbers and we can work them out...

Comparing a 1% GST cut to a 0.5% income tax raise isn't a one-to-one comparison. The amount a person will save on the GST cut depends on how many goods/services they buy. And the GST must be charged on those goods. Keep in mind I'm not saying that a 1% GST cut is insignificant and the 0.5% income tax raise is monstrously huge. My point is actually that they are a lot closer in dollar values than either the Conservatives or Liberals would have you believe, and for people who are not purchasing a lot of GST taxable goods (i.e. those with less disposal income to spend on these things) then the 0.5% income tax raise can be more beneficial.

I just see the GST cut as being quite exaggerated. In the election the Conservatives were saying that a family with an income of $60,000 would save $400 per year with the 1% GST cut. (See here.) But for that to be true they would have to spend $40,000 on GST taxable goods.

( Previous GST Charges at 7% ) - ( New GST Charges at 6% ) = ?

( $40,000 * 7% ) - ( $40,000 * 6% ) = ?

$2,800 - $2,400 = $400

From where I stand, I don't see a family with an income of $60,000 spending $40,000 per year on GST taxable goods.

Having said all of that, I did go take another look at what I could find about the Canada Employment Credit. I still don't know exactly how it will work (receipts vs. no receipts?), but it does seem more positive than most people are giving it credit for.

I think these two articles may indicate what I'm trying to say here:

Article #1

Article #2

In the second article look for the quote from John Williamson about how the employment credit does make a difference.

The first article basically shows that, depending on your personal situation, you can end up paying more in taxes. You must take advantage of all, or maybe most, of the credits to come out ahead.

The bottom line is that the two tax plans really aren't that different in terms of the money you have at the end of the day. The Liberal plan made some people pay slightly more in taxes, but gave them that money throughout the year on their take-home pay. The Conservative plan has some people paying slightly less in taxes, but they don't see those savings until they get their tax return.

My personal preference is for more take-home pay and for tax cuts that apply across the board rather than multiple tax credits that you have to spend money to get. However, I do like the transit pass credit... but not for the tax-savings reason that the government seems to advance. I like the transit pass credit for the social policy reasons it embodies.

[Murray B.]

That was a telling comment, indicating his fear/paranoia of the media.

The Premier and the PM operate under totally different circumstances. Mr. Klien does not have to deal with the federal government's propaganda arm that has always been controlled by a certain opposition party.

Who can forget the mini-series (docu-drama) on the Arrow that attacked the reputations of Mr. Diefenbaker the Progressive Conservatives and the U.S. government?

Even if he is paranoid that does not mean that THEY are not out to get him because they clearly are.

Maybe if he wins a majority he can finally abolish that network which should have never been created in the first place.

[Canadian Blue]

I'd rather have a leader whose vision, values and respect for civil liberties are in tune with those of most Canadians than be governed by a left wingnut or socon.

How do you know most Canadian's agreed with C-250, or gay marriage for that matter. It appears it was more of a 50/50 split, so according to your definition of socon about 50% of Canadian's are social conservatives not fit for leading the country.

[normanchateau]

I'd rather have a leader whose vision, values and respect for civil liberties are in tune with those of most Canadians than be governed by a left wingnut or socon.

How do you know most Canadian's agreed with C-250, or gay marriage for that matter. It appears it was more of a 50/50 split, so according to your definition of socon about 50% of Canadian's are social conservatives not fit for leading the country.

Opposing C-250 and opposing marriage on the basis of gender do not, taken in isolation, make one a so-con.

For example, consider his position on marijuana. 69% of Canadians favour decriminalization of marijuana. So does the Liberal, NDP and BQ party. The Green Party favours outright legalization. Even 50% of Canadian Alliance voters in 2003 indicated that they favoured decriminalization. But Harper opposes it and would rather see teenagers have a permanent criminal record and potential jail term for possession of even a few grams of marijuana. His position on this is very clear. Even Joe Clark and Stockwell Day, have at various times indicated that they could see merit to decriminalization. But not so-con Harper.

Suppose this were the 1920's when marijuana was legal and alcohol was illegal. What do you suppose would have been Harper's position then? Make alcohol legal? I don't think so. He's a so-con and accordingly his decisions on such issues are more likely to reflect the status quo than societal change.

[Canadian Blue]

He was previously the leader of the Canadian Alliance and before that a member of the Reform Party of Canada and President of the National Citizens' Coalition, all considered "right of centre" by Canadian standards.

However, by US standards Harper would be considered actually further to the left on many domestic issues than any Democrat who holds a federal post other than Dennis Kucinich: he advocates continuation of single-payer universal health care, for instance, though he would permit private for-profit service providers (as would all US Democrats and Greens advocating similar health care in the USA). Some of his views derive more from the libertarian ideology he claims to hold personally, notably, he is not dead-set against marijuana decriminalization and seems to view this issue largely in terms of US-Canada relations.

On foreign affairs outside North America, however, Harper is, by left wing observers, considered to be a true neo-conservative. His views are sometimes compared to those of his colleague David Frum who tried unsuccessfully in the 1990s to "unite the right" and merge the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada with the Canadian Alliance, which Harper achieved in 2004.

The Canadian federal election, 2004 is often perceived as a battle between Harper and sitting Liberal Party of Canada Prime Minister Paul Martin. Jack Layton of the New Democratic Party of Canada won a seat in the House of Commons in the electoral district of Toronto-Danforth, and his party will likely play a role in the upcoming minority government. Harper had explicitly ruled out such a deal with Layton or the Bloc Quebecois, a regional Quebec separatist party, however in a statement released in the summer of 2004 following the election, all party leaders agreed to seek consensus on issues important to Canadians.

Maybe Harper is just more concerned about Canadian's losing their incomes instead of the right of a kid to smoke pot. I'd rather see Canadian families have an income, then a kid getting high off pot. Perhaps we can talk about decriminalization once a "friendlier" administration comes in.

[normanchateau]

I'd rather see Canadian families have an income, then a kid getting high off pot.

So would any sane person.

But Harper is the only leader of an elected Canadian political party who believes that a criminal record and potential jail sentence is an appropriate punishment for youthful possession of a few grams of marijuana. That criminal record is permanent and no help in obtaining future employment. This is so-con Harper's position and is out of tune with the view of most Canadians. Yet some rabid Harper supporters claim he's a libertarian.

[Canadian Blue]

I think you missed the point of my comment. Were you aware of the possible economic consequences of decriminalizing pot with regards to the US. The US warned Canada about economic consequences for decriminalizing pot.

NC your adding alot of spin to all your comments.

[Hydraboss]

I'd rather see Canadian families have an income, then a kid getting high off pot.

So would any sane person.

But Harper is the only leader of an elected Canadian political party who believes that a criminal record and potential jail sentence is an appropriate punishment for youthful possession of a few grams of marijuana. That criminal record is permanent and no help in obtaining future employment. This is so-con Harper's position and is out of tune with the view of most Canadians. Yet some rabid Harper supporters claim he's a libertarian.

...and anyone busted for pot SHOULD have a criminal record that follows them for the rest of their life. It's called consequences, and life is full of them. Unless you're a drug user...or murder someone with a baseball bat...or rape a child...or kill someone while driving drunk (in Canada, that is). Argue all you want about the dangers or merits of pot. The law says it's illegal, so if you break the law you should go to jail and get a criminal record.

Funny how this is a "so-con" belief until the news shows a story of someone getting house arrest for committing one of these crimes, or a suspended sentence that will end with the convict having no criminal record. Then people of ALL POLITICAL STRIPES whine and cry and shake their fists at the tv. "How can this happen???" I'll tell you how: There is no punishment in this country. No consequences. If you believe that there should not be any, then don't you dare get upset when one of these criminals moves in next to you.

[bk59]

I think you missed the point of my comment. Were you aware of the possible economic consequences of decriminalizing pot with regards to the US. The US warned Canada about economic consequences for decriminalizing pot.

NC your adding alot of spin to all your comments.

While the US reaction is something that should be factored in to the decision to decriminalize pot or not, I don't give it a huge priority. I think Canada should decide its own policies, not a foreign country. If we did everything the US wanted there never would have been a softwood lumber dispute.

...and anyone busted for pot SHOULD have a criminal record that follows them for the rest of their life. It's called consequences, and life is full of them. Unless you're a drug user...or murder someone with a baseball bat...or rape a child...or kill someone while driving drunk (in Canada, that is). Argue all you want about the dangers or merits of pot. The law says it's illegal, so if you break the law you should go to jail and get a criminal record.

Saying that the law says it is illegal therefore that ends the debate doesn't really make sense. I mean, it is Parliament's job to make, change or repeal laws. If all they did was leave legislation as it is now then no new laws would ever be passed.

Funny how this is a "so-con" belief until the news shows a story of someone getting house arrest for committing one of these crimes, or a suspended sentence that will end with the convict having no criminal record. Then people of ALL POLITICAL STRIPES whine and cry and shake their fists at the tv. "How can this happen???" I'll tell you how: There is no punishment in this country. No consequences. If you believe that there should not be any, then don't you dare get upset when one of these criminals moves in next to you.

In terms of pot, people in favour of decriminalization generally are happy when someone is acquitted of possession of a small amount (or given a light sentence) while those who want to leave things as they are "shake their fists". So in terms of this crime, people of all political stripes are not upset when light sentences are given.

As for the general statement about no punishment in this country, I really don't think that is true. The media will report the exceptions, but will never report the common sentences.

[normanchateau]

I'd rather see Canadian families have an income, then a kid getting high off pot.

So would any sane person.

But Harper is the only leader of an elected Canadian political party who believes that a criminal record and potential jail sentence is an appropriate punishment for youthful possession of a few grams of marijuana. That criminal record is permanent and no help in obtaining future employment. This is so-con Harper's position and is out of tune with the view of most Canadians. Yet some rabid Harper supporters claim he's a libertarian.

...and anyone busted for pot SHOULD have a criminal record that follows them for the rest of their life. The law says it's illegal, so if you break the law you should go to jail and get a criminal record.

Well then you and Harper are in complete agreement and you should definitely vote for him. You speak eloquently for the so-con position.

However, most Canadians are not so-cons. 69% of the Canadian population believe that marijuana should be decriminalized. The Liberals, NDP and BQ agree. The Greens want outright legalization.

[normanchateau]

The US warned Canada about economic consequences for decriminalizing pot.

It was the Bush administration which threatened Canada in this respect. There is now a Democratic majority

in the House and Senate which may take a different attitude:

"NORML's St. Pierre said that the strong showing in local [November, 2006] races demonstrates Americans' overwhelming support for more responsible pot policies. "What these results tell us is that citizens strongly support reforming America's marijuana laws, but that they prefer to do so incrementally," he said. "These successes on the municipal level, once again, affirm that a majority of US citizens don't want adults who use marijuana responsibly to face arrest or jail, and they do not want their tax dollars spent on policies that prioritize targeting and prosecuting marijuana offenders."

St. Pierre added that this year's election results also have potential federal ramifications, noting that California Democrat Nancy Pelosi, who now stands to be House Speaker, is a longtime supporter and former co-sponsor of medical marijuana legislation. "It is our hope that with new Democratic leadership in the US House of Representatives we will finally be able to move forward with legislation and hearings on both the physician-approved medical use of marijuana as well as the decriminalization of cannabis for responsible adults," he said."

In November, 2006, a number of initiatives relating to marijuana possession passed in various US states including Arkansas:

"In Eureka Springs, Arkansas, 64 percent of voters approved a citywide ordinance directing local law enforcement to issue a summons in lieu of a criminal arrest for adults found to be in possession of up to one ounce of cannabis and/or marijuana paraphernalia. The measure, sponsored by the Fayetteville/University of Arkansas chapter of NORML, is the first pot 'depenalization' measure ever approved in the state.

In California, local voters approved a trio of pot 'deprioritization' measures. In Santa Barbara, 65 percent of voters backed Measure P, which directs municipal police to make all law enforcement activities related to the investigation, citation, and/or arrest of adult cannabis users their lowest priority, and also appoints a community oversight committee to monitor police activity as it pertains to marijuana law enforcement. Santa Cruz and Santa Monica voters approved similar measures (Measure K and Measure Y) each by votes of 63 percent.

A separate pot deprioritization measure (Initiative 2) also passed in Missoula, Montana, with 53 percent of the vote.

Finally, in Massachusetts, voters in several House and Senate Districts approved public policy questions concerning the decriminalization of cannabis for personal use and the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes. Since 2002, more than 420,000 Massachusetts voters in 110 communities have approved similar non-binding resolutions."

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7084

Harper's position is so-con even by the standards of Eureka Springs, Arkansas.

[Canadian Blue]

Still probably won't change much since their are a large proportion of socon democrats. Besides that change happened what a week ago, and your criticizing Harper on a move made months ago.

If you feel so angry about pot get a petition, and set up protests.

[Hydraboss]

Norman, my post was not solely leveled at pot-related issues. More so the fact that it is a current law that, like many others, carries no consequences. People ignore it. I have never made a secret of my belief that while it is a law, it should be fully enforced. If the government changes that law (which I would not agree with) then so be it.

As for the so-con position (I guess that's me), Harper has been p*ssing me off for quite some time now. Will I vote for him again? Who the hell knows. Where is the "law and order" guy I elected? Where are the consequences for actions in this country? There are none.

bk59: while the press may only report on the exceptions to justice, there sure seems to be a hell of a lot of exceptions, and horrific ones at that. An exception should be just that...exceptional. It's not in this country. It's almost bloody daily.

Pot should be illegal and even posession should carry jail time. Capital punishment should be reinstated. Criminals should be punished. The youth criminal injustice system should be abolished...everyone goes to adult court and then the judge assigns the sentence. Like everyone else, I have my beliefs and you don't have to agree with them. And like everyone else, I will support and cheer for any move made and any statement made that supports those beliefs.

Your opposition to my beliefs and your freedom to do so is what makes us a democracy....

...and you wrong.

(I was kidding about the democracy thing, by the way)

[normanchateau]

Still probably won't change much since their are a large proportion of socon democrats. Besides that change happened what a week ago, and your criticizing Harper on a move made months ago.

So you're suggesting that Harper's opposition to decriminalization was solely to please the US and that now he'll change his position?

Then I suppose the other reasons why the Harper government opposes decriminalization are simply false, e.g.,

"Decriminalization of Marijuana

A Conservative government will not reintroduce the Liberal plan to decriminalize the possession of marijuana, and we will never endorse the NDP idea of legalizing it outright. I don't think it's a coincidence that we have seen a rapid expansion of the drug trade since this government first tabled its marijuana decriminalization legislation. It sent a signal to society, to police officers and to the drug industry that they were simply not serious about enforcing drug laws. Some people want to deal with the problem by simply surrendering. A Conservative government would not only make marijuana illegal, but will institute truth in sentencing in order to see drug offenders in prisons or rehabilitation centers."

Source:

http://www.publiceyeonline.com/archives/001129.html

[bk59]

bk59: while the press may only report on the exceptions to justice, there sure seems to be a hell of a lot of exceptions, and horrific ones at that. An exception should be just that...exceptional. It's not in this country. It's almost bloody daily.

Pot should be illegal and even posession should carry jail time. Capital punishment should be reinstated. Criminals should be punished. The youth criminal injustice system should be abolished...everyone goes to adult court and then the judge assigns the sentence. Like everyone else, I have my beliefs and you don't have to agree with them. And like everyone else, I will support and cheer for any move made and any statement made that supports those beliefs.

You may look around and see people never being punished, but I'm not sure you would find support for that position amongst the majority of Canadians. Do you have any statistics on sentencing that would show that there is a system-wide tendency for light sentencing? If you're saying that people are getting away with things almost daily then there must be some proof of that somewhere.

As for the rest of your post that I'm quoting above, let's just say that on many things we'll have to agree to disagree. We could have a whole thread on capital punishment, but you'll never convince me that killing people is a legitimate tool for seeing justice served. Likewise for the idea that youths should be tried as adults no matter what.