Federal Election Thread

[mdDave]

Wow, your overblown and intentional misconstruing of my post really proved me wrong.

 

Rather than blindly attack wording, have you actually done any research into the recent CIHR budget cuts? What about NSERC? I'd be game for intelligent discourse on the topic, if you have reason to think this is a good time for Canada to deflate research budgeting while other countries (USA, UK) are increasing.

 

Or, you know, you could highlight three words from this post and pretend they represent everything I've said. Whatever floats your boat.

 

no no no.

YOU claim research funding will be wiped out, I call you out on it and MY post is overblown?

I have neither patience, time nor will to either seriously discuss this or investigate this further. I don't have a lot of info on this and I won't be voting. I have too much to worry about now.

My point was, stop it with the fear mongering. "Totally destroyed emission control", "wipe out research spending", "nuclear safety (lol?)". Just stop it.

It doesn't serve any good, it makes you look silly.

 

PROTIP: using actual numbers makes you seem more informed and readers will actually think about what you wrote instead of just being "yeah sure whatever man".

[obi]

We need a conservative majority.

 

Sorry but it's the lesser of two evils. The liberals (especially you ignatieff) cannot run this country and if they get a liberal minority it will be even worse with all the divides on every bill.

 

The NDP, Bloc, Green party etc. are all useless parties that need to dissolve and find their place with the cons. or libs. They will never get even a minority government and all they do is take up seats preventing a majority government. The biggest failure in political policy in this country is that nobody is really accountable for any decision because none of the stuff Harper has done can go through without someone else agreeing with him. Its Harper's fault AND somebody else's fault. Harper shifts blame slightly to the left, they push it back slightly to the right and the people are stuck being like.... er wtf.

 

Either way this election better come out as a majority so that once decisions get made, a certain political party is accountable for them and we know exactly why the country is going in the direction its going and no more blame shifting can occur. So all in all if i think we need a majority i think we need a conservative majority, because a liberal majority would not be able to sustain itself. Their campaign is based on gaining voters, they won't be able to follow through with their promises.

 

if this is tl;dr don't worry its tl;didn't proofread so its probably not very well articulated anyway.

[Erk]

PROTIP: using actual numbers makes you seem more informed and readers will actually think about what you wrote instead of just being "yeah sure whatever man".

 

Sorry, I generally assume Canadians will take the effort to educate themselves on their own country, and don't see it as my responsibility to cite references on every tongue-in-cheek but heartfelt forum post I make.

[Erk]

We need a conservative majority.

I'll agree with you that we need a majority. Personally, I think a conservative majority will destroy everything Canada stands for, but we need to stop these biannual elections. That will not happen this election... what Canada desperately needs, completely regardless of political standing, is to move away from antiquated "first past the post" voting, so that Canadians can actually elect a majority government based on the popular vote. Alternative voting would be all right for this (proportional representation would be better but harder to enact).

 

If we had an electorate that worked on popular vote and elected the cons in majority, I would be perfectly willing to stfu about them... they'd have been rightfully selected by the majority of Canadians.

 

Sorry but it's the lesser of two evils.

I'm no fan of the libs, but I can't see how you could conceivably choose the cons as the lesser of any evils. I'm trying to avoid partisanship here in favour of electoral reform observations though, so I'll move on.

 

The NDP, Bloc, Green party etc. are all useless parties that need to dissolve and find their place with the cons. or libs. They will never get even a minority government and all they do is take up seats preventing a majority government.

Given that I consider the conservatives to be outright evil and the liberals to be slimy, scumsucking backstabbers, I can't get behind this at all. A 2-party system is a massive fail of democracy, only a shade better than a 1-party system. The only reason you see it as necessary is because our electoral system doesn't allow votes for minority candidates to be pushed to the forefront, forcing a division when there are two strong parties in one wing with entirely different policy.

 

The biggest failure in political policy in this country is that nobody is really accountable for any decision because none of the stuff Harper has done can go through without someone else agreeing with him. Its Harper's fault AND somebody else's fault. Harper shifts blame slightly to the left, they push it back slightly to the right and the people are stuck being like.... er wtf.

Hm. I think I actually agree with you entirely on what you're trying to say, though we read different things about it. We have the most secretive government in Canadian history. That's a bigger problem than the minority government, in my opinion, towards prevention of accountability.

 

The cons have managed to push through quite a lot of stuff without a majority. They do, however, refuse to talk about it and fire people who do. Look at Keen's firing (2008), one of my favourite examples; there are others, but I am not going to go hunting because I'm doing my best to restrain myself.

 

Either way this election better come out as a majority so that once decisions get made, a certain political party is accountable for them and we know exactly why the country is going in the direction its going and no more blame shifting can occur.

Most of the blame I want to lay can be laid firmly at one party's feet.

 

Anyway, my point is: as a con supporter, would you say you would also support an electoral system that would ensure majority governments instead of all this constant infighting and collapse of parliament? If so check out http://www.fairvote.ca - this should be an issue that everyone supports, regardless of their political leanings.

[blind_synergy]

To me, the Cons represent by far the biggest threat to the economy; they've positioned themselves with the supply-side economics nuts, yet there isn't a single soul calling them on it. It's been said before, but I'll reiterate it in my own words: The central tenants of supply-side economics are myths that were concocted by Republicans to justify massive tax-breaks and increased spending, as happened during the Reagan era. They thought that greatly lowering taxes would stimulate economic and job growth to the point where they would ultimately bring in MORE money through taxes (a la the Laffer Curve). This didn't happen in the past and it won't happen now; some small portion of the saved money will indeed be reinvested and used to hire more workers and increase production whereas the rest of it will simply float around companies' coffers and executives (latest example: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/corporate-tax-cuts-dont-spur-growth-analysis-reveals-as-election-pledges-fly/article1972599/). This in direct counterposition to money collected through taxes, which is used provide services and employ workers.

[Erk]

To me, the Cons represent by far the biggest threat to the economy; they've positioned themselves with the supply-side economics nuts, yet there isn't a single soul calling them on it. It's been said before, but I'll reiterate it in my own words: The central tenants of supply-side economics are myths that were concocted by Republicans to justify massive tax-breaks and increased spending, as happened during the Reagan era. They thought that greatly lowering taxes would stimulate economic and job growth to the point where they would ultimately bring in MORE money through taxes (a la the Laffer Curve). This didn't happen in the past and it won't happen now; some small portion of the saved money will indeed be reinvested and used to hire more workers and increase production whereas the rest of it will simply float around companies' coffers and executives (latest example: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/corporate-tax-cuts-dont-spur-growth-analysis-reveals-as-election-pledges-fly/article1972599/). This in direct counterposition to money collected through taxes, which is used provide services and employ workers.

 

Quoted for truth. I mentioned this earlier.

 

Any Con promises of spending in a field you support are based on the assumption that there will be money to spend. The current conservatives are not fiscally conservative; they have driven us into debt more than any liberal government, and the liberals have a pretty miserable track record to compete with.

[blind_synergy]

Quoted for truth. I mentioned this earlier.

 

Any Con promises of spending in a field you support are based on the assumption that there will be money to spend. The current conservatives are not fiscally conservative; they have driven us into debt more than any liberal government, and the liberals have a pretty miserable track record to compete with.

 

Well, that's really the kicker, isn't it? The Cons aren't fiscally conservative. They just spend their money on different things than the liberals do, and I'd probably be more inclined to prefer the liberal spending (I'd love to have awesome military equipment but that can't be a priority on my list when there are more important things like healthcare, education, and poverty to worry about). The Cons especially have their heads screwed on backwards on things like justice and drugs (Why does safely smoking marijuana in my own home make me a criminal?).

 

At this point, the fastest way out of the budget deficit is probably just to raise taxes and not spend it. But budget deficits aren't the demons that people think they are; most economists agree that they're necessary during economic recessions along with stimulus spending.

 

I think at this point I'd personally like to see an NDP minority.

[Wayward son]

It baffles me that a party claiming economic conservativism would be so blind to economics; I've always been generally on the conservative side fiscally, which is part of why I'm so disgusted with their party.

 

The conservative embrace of modern right wing economics isn't really economic conservative in any traditional sense. Here is how it works:

most Canadians like having most of the social programs we have. However, the Conservatives hate those same programs being public and want them private so rich people can make lots of money, relatively risk free, off safe investments.

 

So what do you do when you come into minority power 5 years ago with a massive budget surplus, program spending that is considered adequate by most people and a federal debt that is being paid down quickly? You can't cut or eliminate social programs because the public won't allow that to happen with the coffers full of money. You can't continue reducing the debt because that lowers interest payments on the debt which frees up more money to cover social programs. There is only one way forward and that is to eliminate the surplus. Right wing governments typically do that through tax cuts, military spending and more money for law enforcement and prisons.

 

Once that surplus is wiped out all the sudden there is a fiscal crisis that must be dealt with through cutting program spending - even better if there is a massive deficit...because guess what? We still need tax cuts for the rich and the corporations...as those will increase jobs (even though the cutting in half of the corporate tax rate over the last ten years hasn't done that in Canada). That means we must cut social spending....it's all that left...and we deserve that because we must have been living beyond our means....although oddly a few years early everything was fine. After we spend a couple years attempting to cut "redundancies" and not replacing workers who retire without that really amounting to close to the amount of cuts that it was claimed it would, then that is when you are "forced" to make real cuts to government programs and privitize programs. Of course you could say that by then we will have wiped out the deficit and will have room to save those programs...but we won't....because you make sure that today you incur expenses that will become due 5 years down the road like say jets and prisons.

 

It would only be better if we did what Reagan did. 1. Cut taxes for the rich like crazy. 2. Make up for that short fall in two ways a) running a massive deficit and increasing the social security contributions like mad...but cap it so that people making more than 100,000 grand don't have to pay more than those making less. 3. Tell people that their social security payments are being invested so that when they retire 30 years down the road there will be sufficient funds to cover what they will be owed. 4. Spend those social security contributions immediately to cover budget costs and more cut taxes. Essentially have the lower and middle classes cover the tax cuts of the rich. 5. Sleep soundly knowning that 30 years down the road you will long dead when people start retiring and the current government worries about covering the social security payments because those contributions were not invested but instead spent over the past 30 years. 6. Celebrate that the shortfall you created 30 years in the future will help lead to a budget crisis that will cause people to demand government axe tons of social programs. And don't forget to blame the lack of available social security funds on poor people...preferably racial minorities.

[blind_synergy]

Deregulation (I'm thinking in terms of consumer and environmental preotection) is something that always bothers me and the Cons seem pretty high on. In what world is it a good idea to have companies police themselves? It seems like a recipe for disaster.

 

I may have this wrong, but I heard Ron Paul is greatly in favour of eliminating licensing for doctors and having the free-market decide who's the most qualified (rich people get good doctors, poor people get doctor Nick). Retarded or what?

[Erk]

On another note, I like this following ad. They make a lot of these but they seem to be restricted to the internet which doesn't target actual voters (old people):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP1qHX7qOeg&feature=channel_video_title

 

Man, I hate that ad. Could it get any more sensationalised? My knee-jerk reaction is to disbelieve it because it is so over-the-top. This from a dude who will vote for anything as long as it is non-conservative

 

This is the kind of political ad I like; if a political party advertised with that kind of attitude (minus the smear, I think parties shouldn't smear each other, that's for citizens) I'd listen to what their ads had to say.

 

Aw man that link got broken because of the word filter. Replace the **** in the url with the S-word.

[seeking1]

I may have this wrong, but I heard Ron Paul is greatly in favour of eliminating licensing for doctors and having the free-market decide who's the most qualified (rich people get good doctors, poor people get doctor Nick). Retarded or what?

 

This is why I hate both of the Pauls and why I substantially disagree with libertarianism as a political movement.

 

While I do agree with some libertarian ideas (i.e. re-evaluate drug laws, enforce human rights, reduce violence), I cannot agree with their in-space views of regulation and licensing.

[Wayward son]

I may have this wrong, but I heard Ron Paul is greatly in favour of eliminating licensing for doctors and having the free-market decide who's the most qualified (rich people get good doctors, poor people get doctor Nick). Retarded or what?

 

I doubt that Ron Paul has said that he is in favour of eliminating licensing (although he is such a nut that nothing should surprise me about him), but certainly his son, Senator Rand Paul, is against his specialties certification system...so much so that he set up his own board to "certify" (with his wife and her father). I would imagine that Ron Paul is also supportive of that stance.

 

However, if either one of those two knobs was really in favour of libertarian free markets for everything (instead of just for poor people) then they would favour the end of licensing for doctors and a complete opening of the borders to foreign doctors or anyone else who wants to call themself doctor. Let the free market decide if people really want that surgery done by an American surgeon that was properly trained, or if they are fine with the surgery being done by a foreign but still properly trained surgeon, or if they are ok with the surgery being performed by a homeopath who is calling him/herself a surgeon (should he or she be allowed to refer to themselves as a medical doctor or surgeon? Why not? The free market will sort those things out for better or worse - although you can't judge the decision of the free market - it must be correct), or if they are ok with a high school drop out calling himself a doctor and performing the surgery in his parent's garage.

 

The same goes for the Chicago stock exchange. Those guys are the biggest proponents of free markets that you will ever find. Try walking onto the floor there to just start selling or buying shares...not going to happen. They have lots of regulations and protections to make sure that their own careers are prosperous...but that is ok because they are educated and rich (and helped *%$ up the economy of the entire world). It is the poor and the environment that are not allowed to have protections and beneficial regulations.

 

Even that however is not completely true. Free market capitalism means:

 

Almost no protections and regulations allowed for poor people in the third world. Screw them...it is their own fault for being born there.

 

Some protections and regulations allowed for poor people in the first world - for instance we don't legally allow young children to work in a dangerous sweatshop in Canada (and when those laws were in originally enacted there were howls of protest from free market advocates because not allowing 4 year olds to lose fingers in a dangerous job which is paying them 10 cents an hour is interfering with the free market). We also regulate immigration numbers. Similarly we regulate what dangerous chemicals workers can be exposed to...and at what amounts and for how long...rather than just letting the market decide what is best....at least for those who survived.

 

Lots of protections and beneficial regulations for those who are well off, and/or well educated, and/or run a business, including doctors (where did the Conservative supporting posters - 40% according to this thread, many of whom you would assume have to be free market supporters - go to in that thread about allowing nurse practicioners to prescribe? Seriously, let them prescribe and we will see if the market feels that your extra years of schooling was worth it. Maybe it will...maybe it won't). And, of course don't worry about bankrupting a major bank with stupid and risky investments because the taxpayers will bail you out.

 

There is no such thing as a free-market. And as soon as people realize that there is no such as a free-market and that the advocates of such are actually just idealizing a fairy tale then there can be an intelligent discussion which recognizes that there will always be some regulations and protections. Therefore any advocacy of increased or decreased protections or regulations can be looked at based on its own merits instead of based on the fantasy that regulations and protections are automatically bad because they go against the "free market."

[A-Stark]

But one of things he has said about healthcare is true. Before medicare in the US was introduced, more people were able to get healthcare and even the poorest of the poor, too because charity hospitals were high in number. He also rings true for the gold standard and eliminating the federal reserve. And I doubt anyone could argue against his desire to just ablate some of the departments in the federal gov't (education, energy, homeland security, commerce, etc.).

 

What does medicare in the US - insurance for the over 65 crowd - have to do with any of this? Even the poorest of the poor got healthcare? When did that fairy tale occur?

 

And the gold standard? It wasn't sustainable 90 years ago and is hardly adequate for the kind of liquidity required for the global financial system. In any case, the problems that exist are on the fiscal and securities side of things.

 

To take one example, among the institutions under the purview of the Dept of Energy are the entire US nuclear industry, National Laboratories at Los Alamos and Oak Ridge, and the US nuclear weapons program.

 

I'm not sure how that could be "ablated".

 

Regardless, I think his son (Rand) is a much more reserved type and would make a great president. The congress will stop him from going crazy and he knows the limitations of some of his ideas. I doubt he'll be president but anyone is better than Obama (other than Palin). What the US needs is a Ron Paul-type (small gov't) who still understands that a bit compassion and pragmatism is needed.

 

Yes, because Congress is *always* responsible and would never do anything inadvisable or harmful. Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative" - that turned out well, didn't it?

[Wayward son]

I think his son (Rand) is a much more reserved type and would make a great president.

 

Newspaper headline about Rand Paul: New hero of Tea Party Rand Paul is so Conservative he scares former VP Cheney.

 

Yes, that is exactly what the United States needs.

[apache]

wow, one of the best posts i've read on pm101

 

I doubt that Ron Paul has said that he is in favour of eliminating licensing (although he is such a nut that nothing should surprise me about him), but certainly his son, Senator Rand Paul, is against his specialties certification system...so much so that he set up his own board to "certify" (with his wife and her father). I would imagine that Ron Paul is also supportive of that stance.

 

However, if either one of those two knobs was really in favour of libertarian free markets for everything (instead of just for poor people) then they would favour the end of licensing for doctors and a complete opening of the borders to foreign doctors or anyone else who wants to call themself doctor. Let the free market decide if people really want that surgery done by an American surgeon that was properly trained, or if they are fine with the surgery being done by a foreign but still properly trained surgeon, or if they are ok with the surgery being performed by a homeopath who is calling him/herself a surgeon (should he or she be allowed to refer to themselves as a medical doctor or surgeon? Why not? The free market will sort those things out for better or worse - although you can't judge the decision of the free market - it must be correct), or if they are ok with a high school drop out calling himself a doctor and performing the surgery in his parent's garage.

 

The same goes for the Chicago stock exchange. Those guys are the biggest proponents of free markets that you will ever find. Try walking onto the floor there to just start selling or buying shares...not going to happen. They have lots of regulations and protections to make sure that their own careers are prosperous...but that is ok because they are educated and rich (and helped *%$ up the economy of the entire world). It is the poor and the environment that are not allowed to have protections and beneficial regulations.

 

Even that however is not completely true. Free market capitalism means:

 

Almost no protections and regulations allowed for poor people in the third world. Screw them...it is their own fault for being born there.

 

Some protections and regulations allowed for poor people in the first world - for instance we don't legally allow young children to work in a dangerous sweatshop in Canada (and when those laws were in originally enacted there were howls of protest from free market advocates because not allowing 4 year olds to lose fingers in a dangerous job which is paying them 10 cents an hour is interfering with the free market). We also regulate immigration numbers. Similarly we regulate what dangerous chemicals workers can be exposed to...and at what amounts and for how long...rather than just letting the market decide what is best....at least for those who survived.

 

Lots of protections and beneficial regulations for those who are well off, and/or well educated, and/or run a business, including doctors (where did the Conservative supporting posters - 40% according to this thread, many of whom you would assume have to be free market supporters - go to in that thread about allowing nurse practicioners to prescribe? Seriously, let them prescribe and we will see if the market feels that your extra years of schooling was worth it. Maybe it will...maybe it won't). And, of course don't worry about bankrupting a major bank with stupid and risky investments because the taxpayers will bail you out.

 

There is no such thing as a free-market. And as soon as people realize that there is no such as a free-market and that the advocates of such are actually just idealizing a fairy tale then there can be an intelligent discussion which recognizes that there will always be some regulations and protections. Therefore any advocacy of increased or decreased protections or regulations can be looked at based on its own merits instead of based on the fantasy that regulations and protections are automatically bad because they go against the "free market."

[larva]

Not much talk of healthcare in this election campaign so far. Funny, since the Health Care Accord expires in 2014, and this election could very well determine who gets to negotiate it.

 

Here is a White-Coat Black-Art podcast featuring a debate on the issue with candidates representing the conservatives, liberals, and NDP:

 

http://www.cbc.ca/whitecoat/2011/04/15/election-show/

 

The conservatives are refusing to give any information on how they plan to tackle this, despite it consistently being the #1 issue to Canadians. Hmmmmm.

[Clever]

Voting for the bloc

[Wayward son]

The conservatives are refusing to give any information on how they plan to tackle this, despite it consistently being the #1 issue to Canadians. Hmmmmm.

 

Meh...Stevie tells us that we are not supposed to think about or mention the expenses for the new jets coming in 2015 because that is way far in the future (fiscal conservatives apparently no longer care about costs to be paid in the future). I am sure the same goes for health care in 2014. Just relax, chill out...chances are by then you will be an inmate in one of our new super-prisons anyways!

[RyanMaverick]

Meh...Stevie tells us that we are not supposed to think about or mention the expenses for the new jets coming in 2015 because that is way far in the future (fiscal conservatives apparently no longer care about costs to be paid in the future). I am sure the same goes for health care in 2014. Just relax, chill out...chances are by then you will be an inmate in one of our new super-prisons anyways!

 

Your name makes me start singing Kansas everytime.

[Erk]

"What will be the test is whether there is then any party in opposition that's able to form a coalition or working alliance with the others. And I think we have a political system that's going to continue to have three or four different parties or five different parties, and so I think parties that want to form a government are eventually going to have to learn to work together.''

-- Stephen Harper, 1997 [source]

 

This whole election has been getting more and more hilarious and sad to me.

[NLengr]

It's awful. Very few substantial issues are being discussed. Today CBC radio had a debate amoung candidates for a hotly disputed riding in my area. The main debate point that came up? Gun registry. Seriously, that's what they wanted to focus on. Not the debt, not healthcare, not the economy, not the TWO military actions we are involved in overseas.

 

Its ridiculous.

[Erk]

It's awful. Very few substantial issues are being discussed. Today CBC radio had a debate amoung candidates for a hotly disputed riding in my area. The main debate point that came up? Gun registry. Seriously, that's what they wanted to focus on. Not the debt, not healthcare, not the economy, not the TWO military actions we are involved in overseas.

 

Its ridiculous.

 

Truer words, my friend. It is similar in all elections. In Calgary municipals the biggest issues were overspending on a footbridge and city council's slow action on a medium-priority traffic tunnel of debated necessity... while the city falls into debt, congestion rises, suburbs sprawl, and countless other real things go wrong.

 

Politicians love to focus on trivial, idiotic issues and let the real, difficult things stew.

 

I actually do find that the green party candidates try to steer topic towards things of relevance more often. Shame they're such a small party and the media are so happy to completely ignore them.

[kylamonkey]

Wayward son- your post was fantastic, thanks.

 

I'll start reading this thread a little more in the next few days. I'm just consumed with exams at the moment. Plus, my riding is pretty much between the Cons and the NDP, and I'm not going to vote Conservative, so my interest this election is pretty minor.

 

Regarding the long gun registry- as a long gun owner, I can tell you that it is NOT difficult to register a firearm, it is NOT an invasion of my privacy, I am NOT doing anything wrong, so I really don't have anything to worry about. That's how I feel about it. If you want to read some anti-long-gun stuff, try huntingbc.ca. I tried, I really tired to use that forum as a hunting resource but I felt like the whole forum was swallowed up by nutcases, politically speaking, so I can't even use it.

[NLengr]

From medical point of view the registry is great. Used it multiple times when I am in the ER making decisions on discharging mentally ill patients.

[kylamonkey]

From medical point of view the registry is great. Used it multiple times when I am in the ER making decisions on discharging mentally ill patients.

 

Wait... physicians can access the registry?

 

edit:

I didn't know this. The article is about a year old but is still pertinent:

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/EdmontonHome/20100429/registry-doctors-100429/

 

If you want to read a thread on huntingbc indicative of the more right-wing ideas behind the gun registry, here's one. WARNING, it may make your head hurt:

http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?65531-Gun-registry