NDP wants to train more doctors

[Wayward son]

A person should not be penalized for working hard and for being wealthy. Any person who works hard for what ever salary should feel entitled to their income.

 

I am not sure what this even means? At what point does someone become penalized? What percentage of someone's income should the government be entitled to considering that without money going towards infrastructure, roads, schools, hospitals, legal system etc you may be keeping a higher percentage of "your own money" but 100% of sweet f' all is not as much as you would imagine. And if you think you are so talented that you would still be raking in the cash then I suggest a holiday to Somalia.

[<abstract>]

I am not sure what this even means? At what point does someone become penalized? What percentage of someone's income should the government be entitled to considering that without money going towards infrastructure, roads, schools, hospitals, legal system etc you may be keeping a higher percentage of "your own money" but 100% of sweet f' all is not as much as you would imagine. And if you think you are so talented that you would still be raking in the cash then I suggest a holiday to Somalia.

 

You are taking my quote out of context with what I wrote. I am not stating that everyone should keep 100% of their earnings (obviously).

[A-Stark]

i) Please explain how the NDP (or the Libs, or any other party) will ruin the country and the Conservatives won't.

 

ii) Canada has one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world, period. The only developed countries who have corporate tax rates lower than ours are Ireland and the United States, and we all know they're doing so well right now.

 

Sorry, but I just can't let this one go. The US has higher corporate tax rates. I'm forgetting the exact rate, but it's at least 25% and - I think - actually 35%.

 

iii) The Conservatives cannot keep a balanced budget or a low deficit. That is a fact.

 

And it's primarily because Harper is happy to introduce expensive inequitable tax credits (kids' art classes? income splitting?) which are non-refundable and hence by nature only benefit the well-off while cutting taxes for banks and oil companies. In the meantime, we will increase spending on purely non-productive prisons and fighter jets. More spending + lower taxes (and not good tax cuts either) = bigger deficits. This has been the legacy of Conservative governments in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and, of course, Ottawa.

 

iv)The system can become surprisingly good again and unstrained in a very short time if we begin implementing certain protocols (i.e. changes in pay structure for doctors, implement family health teams, national pharma plan, prioritize primary care over specialists, etc.)

 

I don't really agree. There are advantages and disadvantages to fee-for-service vs. other pay structures, and I wouldn't fee view any of a cure-all.

 

Having said that, family health teams and group practices are indeed the way of the future, and national pharmacare is a must. Long wait times for certain specialists are not really acceptable as it stands.

[Corie]

You are taking my quote out of context with what I wrote. I am not stating that everyone should keep 100% of their earnings (obviously).

 

Wayward_Son loves to take logical arguments out of context.

 

(Also to Wayward_Son) who said Harper turned Canada's biggest surplus into a deficit: Sure he did. And along with him every other leader in the developed world. Its called recession! How can anyone miss that? Then was the perfect time to up government spending on infrastructure, to create jobs so people can get by. Else, how are people going to feed themselves? Or worse, they can all vote NDP and recieve their generous social programs and foster laziness, entitlement and become leechers on hard working Canadians. Government accounts for roughly 20-30% of the national economy. In a recession, increasing government spending gives the economy a boost to prevent it from getting much worse. Look at the US and their deficit from this recession. Should they have spent more? It's hard to say but if Obama havn't spent that much, they'd be is deeper dodo with unemployment peaking at perhaps 15-20%! Logic aint it?

 

Now is not the time for NDP. The economy have recovered past the pre-recession level. We're doing the best out of perhaps all the other G8s. No more government spending is required. Its time to balance the budget or lean towards a slight surplus.The NDP's platform is outrageously expensive. Two ways to fund it is through debt or raising taxes. Take a look on their platform and see if you can addup any numbers. It's heavily in the red. You will end up paying for his spending spree.

 

Onto Harper. Prisons? For those that critize it, do you have any better idea what we will do with prisoners? Let them on the streets? Stuff them into inhumane tight quarters? Or bring back captial punishment and the death penalty? Building prisons is something that might be neccessary - you have to do something with the criminals. One can always legalize weed to reduce the number of prisoners and kill this underground drug economy. I think the revenue used from that can be used for education or other productive social services.

 

Now... the F35s... that should be better handled. The CF18 fleet is getting seriously outdated and old and ought to be replaced but I believe this procedure could be more transparent and better handled. It should be open biding rather than handing out contracts to one company without considering other options. It's also pricy.

[Corie]

There is plenty of government waste that could be cut to improve social programs that actually work' date=' and experiment with ideas from other countries. Do we really need all those new jets (maybe we can order half), do we need new prisons (maybe we can refurbish old ones and build additions on existing structures),[/quote']

You raise some interesting points. Your argument is quite valid.

did we need the HST?' date=' What about the [b']E-health scandal and those eco-fees?[/b]

I think thats more related to the Ontario Liberals. They need to get out and clean the corruption out of their party during Ontario's election this November.

[A-Stark]

Wayward_Son loves to take logical arguments out of context.

 

(Also to Wayward_Son) who said Harper turned Canada's biggest surplus into a deficit: Sure he did. And along with him every other leader in the developed world. Its called recession! How can anyone miss that? Then was the perfect time to up government spending on infrastructure, to create jobs so people can get by. Else, how are people going to feed themselves? Or worse, they can all vote NDP and recieve their generous social programs and foster laziness, entitlement and become leechers on hard working Canadians. Government accounts for roughly 20-30% of the national economy. In a recession, increasing government spending gives the economy a boost to prevent it from getting much worse. Look at the US and their deficit from this recession. Should they have spent more? It's hard to say but if Obama havn't spent that much, they'd be is deeper dodo with unemployment peaking at perhaps 15-20%! Logic aint it?

 

If you recall prior to the Dec 2008 prorogation, Harper and Flaherty presented a status quo pre-budget statement which offered no stimulus or acknowledgement of impending recession, and that the stimulus package emerged only at the explicit demand of the opposition, then it becomes rather unclear just who should be credited here. Oh, and Harper's main comment on the financial crisis was that it presented some good "buying opportunities".

 

But I suppose "we are all Keynesians" now. Frankly, I'm sure the NDP and Liberals are equally capable of coming up with a big package of vote-buying stimulus projects across the country - and one would hope they wouldn't have blown $1bn on the G8/G20.

 

Now is not the time for NDP. The economy have recovered past the pre-recession level. We're doing the best out of perhaps all the other G8s. No more government spending is required. Its time to balance the budget or lean towards a slight surplus.The NDP's platform is outrageously expensive. Two ways to fund it is through debt or raising taxes. Take a look on their platform and see if you can addup any numbers. It's heavily in the red. You will end up paying for his spending spree.

 

No more spending? Have you looked at the state of our infrastructure lately? (see transit, public) And we need an austerity package?

 

Onto Harper. Prisons? For those that critize it, do you have any better idea what we will do with prisoners? Let them on the streets? Stuff them into inhumane tight quarters? Or bring back captial punishment and the death penalty? Building prisons is something that might be neccessary - you have to do something with the criminals. One can always legalize weed to reduce the number of prisoners and kill this underground drug economy. I think the revenue used from that can be used for education or other productive social services.

 

Stop prosecuting drug possess, perhaps, or imposing mandatory sentences on judges?

 

Now... the F35s... that should be better handled. The CF18 fleet is getting seriously outdated and old and ought to be replaced but I believe this procedure could be more transparent and better handled. It should be open biding rather than handing out contracts to one company without considering other options. It's also pricy.

 

If you believe that, I trust you're not going to vote Conservative.

[Wayward son]

You are taking my quote out of context with what I wrote. I am not stating that everyone should keep 100% of their earnings (obviously).

 

That is why I asked you at what point would you consider it to be penalizing tax payers.

[Corie]

I think you may have mis-interpreted my first paragraph. Wayward_Son was critizing a deficit in a recession. I wasn't pointing fingers at anyone in particular. The government did its job there.

 

We can't just stop prosecuting for drugs... The laws against drug is there for a reason. For example, there is no theaputic benefit for taking cocaine, along with its addictive, dangerous and harmful nature to a member of society. The law must be upheld. Also, for less dangerous substances, minor possession isn't usually actively prosecuted in courts. Furthermore, Canada is also far to leanent on drugs and posession compared other countries.

 

Spending? Of course. But there is no need to go into a huge deficit to spend now. You took my first statement out of context there. The following sentence clarifies what I mean by "no more spending" in compartive terms. The NDP platform is a very ineffective/poor way to increase productivity. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for infrastructure. A balanced budget doesn't mean no spending, rather we spend how much we can afford. I'd much rather see infrastructure improvements rather than overly generous, debt-inducing NDP social programs which serves little purpose than discourage hard work while encourage leeching of the socal systems.

 

WRT your last comment. I believe it, but that's just one issue of many. I will say again (if I havn't made it clear already) that the NDP I will not tolerate.

[Wayward son]

Sure he did. And along with him every other leader in the developed world. Its called recession! How can anyone miss that?

 

Perhaps because it didn't matter that Bob Rae became Premier as the largest recession in Ontario history since the Great Depression was already well underway. If the recession excuse works for the one, it works for the other. Although even in that case Harper had put us into deficit before the economic downturn - not sure how you missed that - after wiping out the surplus as fast as he possibly could.

 

Take a look on their platform and see if you can addup any numbers. It's heavily in the red. You will end up paying for his spending spree.

 

I am more than aware of that. I am also not an NDP supporter. However I am well aware that I will pay even more for Harper's reckless spending although he is nice enough to ensure that for the most part governments 5 - 10 years down the road will be forced to pay for the checks he signs in the next couple years. And that spending is all on things that I don't think will add a speck of value to this country.

 

Onto Harper. Prisons? For those that critize it, do you have any better idea what we will do with prisoners?

 

I suggest we not follow the disastrously stupid "tough on crime" policy that has proven to be completely counterproductive and expensive in the United States - even Newt Gingrich now admits that their policy could not have been worse, and it is the policy that Harper is following. Crime has been going down since 1993. The murder rate peaked in 1973 (twice as high as it is today). We have seen that with non-violent offenders which make up the vast majority, keeping people in prison for shorter lengths of time and then putting them on probation (about 1/7th the cost of incarceration, and with far better outcomes) while they re-integrate into society has been successful. We changed course when Harper came into power, not based on evidence, but for ideology.

 

One can always legalize weed to reduce the number of prisoners and kill this underground drug economy. I think the revenue used from that can be used for education or other productive social services.

 

Good idea. However you support a party that will never support such a policy. You could provide the evidence to them that such a policy would make strong fiscally conservative sense, but that will hold no sway because they are not fiscal conservatives.

 

Now... the F35s... that should be better handled. The CF18 fleet is getting seriously outdated and old and ought to be replaced but I believe this procedure could be more transparent and better handled. It should be open biding rather than handing out contracts to one company without considering other options. It's also pricy.

 

I would argue that before we buy any new jets a new defence policy initiative should be brought up to see if these jets really represent what our military funds should be spent on. A lot of conspiracy theories surround the shutting down of the Avro Arrow program several decades ago. Those conspiracy theories are silly. The bottom line was that, with the expense of it, we looked at the program and realized that Arrow didn't actually fit with the modern warfare of the time. They were awesome, but essentially useless in any meaningful way. The cold war is over. I think that we should look at the conflicts like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and any evidence that can be brought forward about the likely military needs of the coming decades and decided if these new jets are actually going to provide any net benefit. I look at the Afghanistan, Iraq and Libyan conflicts and I can't see what beneficial role these new jets would play over much cheaper ones. Nor do I see how they are ideal for their perceived roles in the Arctic.

[Wayward son]

I think you may have mis-interpreted my first paragraph. Wayward_Son was critizing a deficit in a recession. I wasn't pointing fingers at anyone in particular. The government did its job there.

 

I have posted elsewhere on this board that I don't blame the Harper government for deficit spending in a recession. My comment was based on looking at the Bob Rae government deficits as examples of NDP reckless spending. They were in a recession, just as Harper was.

 

We can't just stop prosecuting for drugs... The laws against drug is there for a reason. For example, there is no theaputic benefit for taking cocaine, along with its addictive, dangerous and harmful nature to a member of society. The law must be upheld.

 

There is no therapeutic benefit for smokes or alcohol or twinkies either....

 

I'd much rather see infrastructure improvements rather than overly generous, debt-inducing NDP social programs which serves little purpose than discourage hard work while encourage leeching of the socal systems.

 

Which of the current new programs that the NDP is promoting do you feel will make people lazy?

 

I may have missed some, but this is what Global TV outlined as the NDP's promises:

- Hire more doctors and nurses

- Reduce the cost of prescription drugs

- Cap home heating costs

- Slash small business taxes

- Offer tax credits to small and medium-sized businesses for new hires

- Restore the corporate tax rate to 19.5 per cent

- Strengthen public pensions

- Cap credit-card rates at prime plus five per cent

- Limit the power of the prime minister to prorogue Parliament

 

Looking at those superficially I don't really see how any of those would discourage hard work or encourage leeching. It actually seems like small fries compared to those in the past when people felt that governments could enact single payer health care systems, wipe-out smallpox, build a railway system across the entire country, and send people to the moon. A generation or two ago people understood that they could tackle large problems to try to make the world a better place. Instead we live at a time when over the last 20 years nothing was done about climate change...but on the bright side we reduced the GST by 2 cents.

[Erk]

We can't just stop prosecuting for drugs... The laws against drug is there for a reason. For example, there is no theaputic benefit for taking cocaine, along with its addictive, dangerous and harmful nature to a member of society. The law must be upheld.

 

I have other stuff to answer from earlier, but no time to write a long post. I just want to refute this ancient myth quickly:

 

Portugal decriminalised *all* drug use in 2001, and has since observed no increase in drug popularity, and a significant decrease in secondary crimes and pathologies associated with drug use. There is no strong argument for the criminalisation of *any* of these substances. If drugs are decriminalised, everyone stands to benefit.

 

Primary papers: sociological effects: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1464837

legal ramifications: https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=9+Conn.+Pub.+Int.+L.J.+17&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=2b684c148391fd3e49a88b8456e122e8

Magazine articles: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

 

Arguing in favour of continued drug criminalisation is arguing in favour of disease, needless prosecution, and drug addiction and its host of problems. It might seem counterintuitive, but the evidence has been there for years now.

[Corie]

I may have missed some, but this is what Global TV outlined as the NDP's promises:

- Hire more doctors and nurses

- Reduce the cost of prescription drugs

- Cap home heating costs

- Slash small business taxes

- Offer tax credits to small and medium-sized businesses for new hires

- Restore the corporate tax rate to 19.5 per cent

- Strengthen public pensions

- Cap credit-card rates at prime plus five per cent

- Limit the power of the prime minister to prorogue Parliament

 

Looking at those superficially I don't really see how any of those would discourage hard work or encourage leeching.

 

Just because something else is bad for you and isn' illegal doesn't mean everything else thats worse for you should be legal. The line has to be drawn somewhere. There are some minor theraputic benefits to alcohol by the way, and it has become a much too important part of our culture and history to ever criminalize it lol. WRT Erk's comment about legalizng all harmful substances, let me remind you our culture in Noth America is quite different. Many European cultures frown down upon drugs to the point that much less of their teens do weed compared to Canada, whether its legal or not. It's just socially frowned upon even among teens!

 

Lets start with hiring more doctors and nurses. Much needed but must be done carefully. Look at our health care system now. More docs would accelerate the process to privatizing healthcare before any attempts to "fix" our healthcare system has been made. When our tax base shrinks due to the aging baby boomers, we may be working in a private healthcare system.

 

Reducing the price of prescription drugs: can I count on the government to foot the bills on prescription drugs my doctor needlessly prescribes me? How much will this cost tax payers?

 

Home heating costs is a good thing to be addressed. This one hurts low-income families too much.

 

Double public pensions?? Laziness policy there. A huge added cost with little incrase in productivity other than encourage retirement and less saving in RRSP. This is a populist policy to grab the senior vote. Would this also mean that all of us will see a double in the deduction on our part-time student paychecks for a pension fund I never intend to use? It's bad to encourage retirement given our demographic now.

 

Hike corproate tax rates while cutting small business rates: You do know cutting small businesses tax rates don't have a significant effect on job creation? Many people form small businesses to envade taxation though doctors can use this to their advantage. There is little effect in cutting small business tax rates - it'll only result in lower government revenue. Corporations do provide plenty of jobs on the other hand.

 

It's more the NDP's actions for buying up votes that bothers me, like offering to fund an arena in Quebec city to set up another NHL team?! Why should the federal government be looking at setting up NHL teams? I believe there are far better things to spend tax payers/debt money than using it to buy votes.

 

This'll be my last post regarding this topic - wasted enough time with the NDP. I don't see a NDP led Canada as the way to go.

[Erk]

WRT Erk's comment about legalizng all harmful substances, let me remind you our culture in Noth America is quite different. Many European cultures frown down upon drugs to the point that much less of their teens do weed compared to Canada, whether its legal or not. It's just socially frowned upon even among teens!

 

The difference between your statement and mine is that yours is a personal assertion of opinion; mine is a referenced comment on actual research related to a real-life study conducted by an entire country.

 

(I'd also argue that your opinion is the opposite of my personal experience: Europeans that I know tend to feel less strongly about drug use than Americans and don't frown anywhere near as strongly on it. However, I freely admit that's personal experience, not scientific fact.)

[Erk]

Here's a neat article.

http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2011/04/29/fiscal-record-of-canadian-political-parties/

Fiscal records of Canadian provincial and federal governments since 1980.

[A-Stark]

Just because something else is bad for you and isn' illegal doesn't mean everything else thats worse for you should be legal. The line has to be drawn somewhere. There are some minor theraputic benefits to alcohol by the way, and it has become a much too important part of our culture and history to ever criminalize it lol. WRT Erk's comment about legalizng all harmful substances, let me remind you our culture in Noth America is quite different. Many European cultures frown down upon drugs to the point that much less of their teens do weed compared to Canada, whether its legal or not. It's just socially frowned upon even among teens!

 

And there are substantial therapeutic benefits to opioids and benzos, but abuse of both cause far less morbidity and mortality than alcohol. Note that your cocaine example before is somewhat invalidated by its continued use as a local anesthetic. The Conservatives' drug policy is terrible in pretty much every respect, not just in their "get tough" boneheaded approach but in their continuing ideologically-motivated attacks on harm reduction and Vancouver's InSite in particular.

 

Lets start with hiring more doctors and nurses. Much needed but must be done carefully. Look at our health care system now. More docs would accelerate the process to privatizing healthcare before any attempts to "fix" our healthcare system has been made. When our tax base shrinks due to the aging baby boomers, we may be working in a private healthcare system.

 

I'm at a loss to understand what you mean here apart from repeating the usual media hysteria about demographics.

 

Reducing the price of prescription drugs: can I count on the government to foot the bills on prescription drugs my doctor needlessly prescribes me? How much will this cost tax payers?

 

The purpose of national pharmacare is not necessarily to provide any kind of unlimited universal drug benefit but to eliminate the patchwork of coverage that exists now, establish lower costs at the price-of-purchase, and reduce total spending for individuals and governments alike.

 

Double public pensions?? Laziness policy there. A huge added cost with little incrase in productivity other than encourage retirement and less saving in RRSP. This is a populist policy to grab the senior vote. Would this also mean that all of us will see a double in the deduction on our part-time student paychecks for a pension fund I never intend to use? It's bad to encourage retirement given our demographic now.

 

The retirement age is, what, 67 now? We shouldn't encourage early retirement necessarily but the CPP does not apply there.

 

Hike corproate tax rates while cutting small business rates: You do know cutting small businesses tax rates don't have a significant effect on job creation? Many people form small businesses to envade taxation though doctors can use this to their advantage. There is little effect in cutting small business tax rates - it'll only result in lower government revenue. Corporations do provide plenty of jobs on the other hand.

 

And there isn't a whit of evidence that cutting corporate taxes does anything to prompt either job creation or investment. Zero. Next...

 

It's more the NDP's actions for buying up votes that bothers me, like offering to fund an arena in Quebec city to set up another NHL team?! Why should the federal government be looking at setting up NHL teams? I believe there are far better things to spend tax payers/debt money than using it to buy votes.

 

Hey, I don't agree with this either, but if we can blow >$35bn on fighter jets of uncertain performance and questionable relevance (to say nothing of $1bn for a 3-day G20 meeting) then I'm not going to get overly upset about it.

[aaronjw]

Theres a difference between working hard and working smart AND hard.

 

My mom is a hard working person - worked 2 jobs to try and make ends meat (never mind she gambled a good portion of it away but I digress lo.) and when her family presented her with an offer to pay for her to go back to school and upgrade her nursing so she could become an RN, make more money and provide a better life for me she didn't take them up on the offer.

 

For my entire life I spent receiving handouts from my aunts and uncle, having to go hungry to school, washing my clothes by hand because we couldn't afford to launder clothes on a regular basis, and the list goes on.

 

My mom to this day will ask for handouts and for financial help. She has no savings and she honestly thinks she is entitled to have to have others help her and she's royally ticked if someone turns her down (like I do all the time).

 

She is an NDP'er. She's not lazy but she isn't smart and she (like a lot of NDP) think it perfectly acceptable for those who made somethi g of their lives (like me) to support her.

 

And having grown up how I did I know a LOT of people like her. You have to ask yourself if people are willing to vote for a party which has a largely socialized slant to their policies which are paid for by taxes of higher wager earners then just what kind people are doing the voting?

 

Just putting my personal experience spin on the table.

 

Btw, a monkey humping a football is more dignified than these 3 stooges we have to vote for (bloc doesn't get recognition in my eyes)

That picture isn't the general public, mm88, it's clearly someone far about the income level of an average Canadian. Giant house, hummer, 2-car garage... this is someone in the tiny grouping that has everything to gain from tax cuts to the wealthy. Practically nothing to lose from moderate taxation of the wealthy, too, but when has that stopped people like that from being greedy for more?

 

Maybe it's because I grew up in a poor family, with a father who worked so hard I never really saw him until I was old enough to work with him, but I also assume (somewhat unfairly) that person has no f*ing idea what it's like to "work hard", and feels entitled to his/her wealth under the assumption that he/she is somehow more fit to have it than someone who works 16 hours a day building the house she/he lives in; growing, selling, distributing the food he/she eats; operating the machinery that keeps his/her entitled life going.

 

I don't think becoming a doctor and making reasonable amounts of money for the first time in my life is going to make me forget that it's not how hard you work that defines your success. Most people work hard and do not achieve that kind of success. Those who achieve that success could not do so without those who work hard and do not achieve it.

 

 

Whew. All that and I'm not even NDP nor a strong supporter of them. Sorry. Rich people with entitlement issues make me angry.

[Erk]

A person should not be penalized for working hard and for being wealthy. Any person who works hard for what ever salary should feel entitled to their income. People have all the opportunity in the world to earn a decent living and to at least live confortably. .... Obviously taxation is on a sliding scale (and rightly so)' date=' however wealthy people feeling entitled to their income is not selfish, it is human nature and I can empathize with their sentiments. [/quote']My argument is not to penalise someone for working hard. However, I do think there is nothing wrong (and in fact everything right) with a well-designed sliding scale tax system where the wealthier pay more.

 

The problem I have with people like I am referring to is not that they make a lot of money. It is that they think that because they do, they are superior to the people who don't. This is not the case. The simple fact of capitalism is that pay is not commensurate with the importance of a job. Within the medical field we can see this: No offense to anaesthesiologists because I know their job is hard, but does their average income at 50% higher than surgeons mean they are better, superior doctors to the ones that do the cutting? Of course not. Likewise, a person who buys and sells property without ever seeing it may have an income an order of magnitude higher than a person who works more hours building the houses on that property. It doesn't mean they are better people, nor that the carpenter would be a whiny, lazy person for wanting social programs to help put his children through school. The slogan in mm88's photo implies that anyone who is unable to afford the basic necessities of life must not have worked hard enough.

 

Regarding everyone having the chance to make money, that's true to a degree, but unfortunately not everyone's life allows for it. Very few people choose poverty; some choose it due to laziness, but the vast majority of impoverished people I know, coming from that background, are willing to work hard and simply can't find the opportunity to do so. Some have had bad luck; some have been injured; some are just not very bright; some lack a particular ability to see an opportunity and go for it; some have priorities or mitigating circumstances that do not allow them to pursue opportunities provided.

 

Even at current tax rates' date=' Canadians enjoy a very high standard of living and generous social programs to help those who are down on their luck. There is no need to raise taxes on anyone to improve the quality of life of Canadians. There is plenty of government waste that could be cut to improve social programs that actually work, and experiment with ideas from other countries. Do we really need all those new jets (maybe we can order half), do we need new prisons (maybe we can refurbish old ones and build additions on existing structures), did we need the HST?, What about the E-health scandal and those eco-fees? Reorganizing the tax code and closing loopholes to big corporations could also help bring in more money. The problem isn't the well off feeling entitled to their life style, it is government waste and poor funding schemes to don't address the problems in our society.[/quote']

 

We agree fully here. I'm not actually a hard-line socialist; personally I think both left and right arguments have substantial validity, and really those who prescribe to one or the other are essentially following a religion. The instability of modern economics demonstrates that nobody really knows how the market works.

 

Theres a difference between working hard and working smart AND hard.

...

My mom to this day will ask for handouts and for financial help. She has no savings and she honestly thinks she is entitled to have to have others help her and she's royally ticked if someone turns her down (like I do all the time).

I don't disagree that there are people like this out there. They do not comprise the majority of "leftists", though. My parents are both extremely smart. However, my parents both came from dirt-poor backgrounds (my mother's family are alcoholics, and my paternal grandfather was quite literally a bum until he met my grandmother) and simply knew little to nothing about business and financial management, not even how to look into improving their lot in these ways - not while they were young enough to pursue those options readily. Over the course of my life they have sought education and improved substantially. However, pursuing a postsecondary education while trying to raise a family was not an option for either of them; they needed money to pay for their children. I'm grateful that they nurturing us a priority, as I was able to develop successfully enough to seriously pursue a medical education, and my sister is a successful accountant. I'm not saying we ate canned beans every night for my entire life... we had some good streaks where we were solidly in the middle class. However, overall, we skated above and below the poverty line until around the time I graduated from high school.

 

I'll try to quickly sum up the reasons for my emotion on this topic. I have been told by people with (for whatever reason) no understanding of what life is like from poverty that tuition must be higher, social funding of education lower, programs to help impoverished families cut back, and more. I am a product of these programs. Had these programs not existed, I would not presently be writing this; I would probably be covered in dirt digging a pit for a foundation instead of sitting at a biochemistry conference. I've no wish to sound arrogant here because I know I'm unremarkable amidst the people in this forum, but I do have a very good brain; it would have been massively wasted in an uneducated job or in trades*. That's almost word for word my father's story; his father was too addled (he was mentally handicapped) to educate himself or do well in business and too proud to accept help. It was not him who suffered; it was his five children.

 

Whew. I feel like that was incoherent... I had to back up and rewrite it a lot to try to keep out the emotions. If it doesn't come across sensibly let me know and I'll try to restate it clearer.

 

 

Final Note: Canada is presently just fine. That's why I am here writing this. However, if the programs that allow people like me to get where I am are not defended they will not persevere: the fervour and fear surrounding the NDP's rise to power is a perfect example of this. I'm not saying (necessarily) that we need to change our basic structure: I'm saying we need to maintain what makes us powerful and protect these programs.

 

 

 

 

*Not that I think trades are a job for stupid people. It's a totally different topic that more intelligent people need to pursue trades instead of Philosophy degrees.

[apache]

lol, i posted about portugal on the marijuana thread. there have also been many studies in the uk that showed drastic improvement in all indices you mentioned when heroin was mad legal for people who had failed on methadone.

 

also, to the person erk is responding too, for the record, portugal doesn't "encourage drug use", if you are caught with an amount of a drug concomitant with personal use, not amounts one would expect for trafficking, you are sent to a health tribunal where you are offered, but not forced the chance to go into rehab; this goes hand in hand with the research that shows that people who visit insite in vancouver are more likely to seek help for their addiction when they are being supported by nurses, mental health professionals etc.

 

on a more ethical aspect, if you want to go mountain climbing, motorcycling, heli-skiing or other dangerous hobbies i would suggest you extend the privilege to those who would like to get their adrenaline rush through a bump of cocaine once a week as it wouldn't traditionally be very conservative for a big government to dictate how their people should live their lives or what purpose those lives should have. the irony that the big government, highly regulatory socialist party advocates for people's right to make their own decisions; don't let the demonization of drugs fool you, if drugs could be made socially acceptable and profitable to the government they would be legalized instantaneously, it's only out of antiquity that alcohol is a legal substance, despite being far more dangerous than any pharmaceutical grade mdma (5 percent reduction in serotonin production despite regular use, as examined in the patients history through metabolites in the hair, which have the ability to trace type and quantity of drug used through years, versus well, korsakoff's syndrome, violence etc.)

 

anyhoo, politics itself is bull****, even the building of a simple roadway, requires the multi-disciplinary efforts of numerous experts, and a group of politicians, with no expertise in any of the fields they develop policy in, can give you one or two line answers that is generalizable through all communities, population densities, cultural traditions, infrastructures. bottom line is, things are complex, common sense isn't common, it only exists in the common man, who, usually is stupid and easily confused with simple intuitive arguments.

 

I have other stuff to answer from earlier, but no time to write a long post. I just want to refute this ancient myth quickly:

 

Portugal decriminalised *all* drug use in 2001, and has since observed no increase in drug popularity, and a significant decrease in secondary crimes and pathologies associated with drug use. There is no strong argument for the criminalisation of *any* of these substances. If drugs are decriminalised, everyone stands to benefit.

 

Primary papers: sociological effects: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1464837

legal ramifications: https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=9+Conn.+Pub.+Int.+L.J.+17&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=2b684c148391fd3e49a88b8456e122e8

Magazine articles: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

 

Arguing in favour of continued drug criminalisation is arguing in favour of disease, needless prosecution, and drug addiction and its host of problems. It might seem counterintuitive, but the evidence has been there for years now.

[apache]

THIS IS A DIFFERENT POST, READ IT

 

What is the benefit to prosecuting people for possession of cocaine? to send them to prison for a year and expose them to a culture where violence is accepted and even promoted, so they can be desensitized to such actions and come out as a violent offender, even if they were perhaps, say, a contributing member to society before.

 

who are you to dictate what is therapeutic to someone, have you used cocaine, can you describe the phenomenological transition to a state of higher acuity of perception and feeling of euphoria, why should your values become law? i'd also like to mention that much of the harmfulness of cocaine is the fact that it is often cut with methamphetamines for a higher profit margin and to make the drug more addictive. i'd also add that much of the violence that comes from the narcotics trade is the tremendous profitability of it for people who don't have much hope for a better life; this begs the question, why do they have no hope, is it because there are no after school programs for them, no guarantee that they'll be able to afford post-secondary education if they have the marks, or the perpetual violence they encounter in their neighbourhoods because of the drug trade, which only exists because of unheard of price inflation due to illegalization.

 

i'd also like to see your psychological evidence that investing in people's leads to a lack of hard work, i was the beneficiary of many government bursaries, was raised by a single parent on welfare, while another parent suffered from a severe mental illness and without the support of the government i would have ended up with a very anti-establishmentarian set of beliefs that would have been directed more maliciously because of the perception of social exclusion and learned helplessness (look up martin seligman) that would have lead to me chronically being a "parasite" and "disturbance" to society.

 

spending how much we can afford works in certain instances, but deficit spending is a very prudent decision if we can create cyclical income, by committing to education and increasing worker productivity, infrastructure to attract business and facilitate natural resource development etc. your outlook of spending for today is actually the one that is bankrupt in foresight, i'm not advocating for the ndp's spending platform but you have to realize that deficit spending can be advantageous when necessary.

 

one final issue i have with you, and many conservatives in general, is that you have an a priori assumption that society should function through your lens (implicitly rendered to be politically correct), that progress and quality of life should be measured my gpd, and that the importance and purpose of peoples lives should be measured by your standards. i alway's hear the term i have to "contribute" to society, presumptively in some economic fashion, right from the first grade on, and that the people we should look up to are those who are "traditionally" successful, as indoctrinated into us by our educational and reward structure. well **** that, the purpose of my life is to be happy, to enjoy the company of family and friends, i have diverse and exciting experiences, i'm not canadian, i don't identify with any nation, and i don't owe anyone an explanation.

 

We can't just stop prosecuting for drugs... The laws against drug is there for a reason. For example, there is no theaputic benefit for taking cocaine, along with its addictive, dangerous and harmful nature to a member of society. The law must be upheld. Also, for less dangerous substances, minor possession isn't usually actively prosecuted in courts. Furthermore, Canada is also far to leanent on drugs and posession compared other countries.

 

Spending? Of course. But there is no need to go into a huge deficit to spend now. You took my first statement out of context there. The following sentence clarifies what I mean by "no more spending" in compartive terms. The NDP platform is a very ineffective/poor way to increase productivity. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for infrastructure. A balanced budget doesn't mean no spending, rather we spend how much we can afford. I'd much rather see infrastructure improvements rather than overly generous, debt-inducing NDP social programs which serves little purpose than discourage hard work while encourage leeching of the socal systems.

 

WRT your last comment. I believe it, but that's just one issue of many. I will say again (if I havn't made it clear already) that the NDP I will not tolerate.

[Erk]

It is good to know I am not the only one around with my set of beliefs and a history like mine, Muse. A toast to you.

[apache]

same to you, many people find it hard to conceptualize others views, but when you've been in a welfare office, been the worst student in the class, the best student, had to beg for bank loans, had have the bank beg to give you loans, known the homeless, the affluent, stayed at the fairmont for weeks at a time because of a discount, and at the dirtiest hostels imaginable, you get a sense that very little separates the "winners" from the "losers" in society. i think the reason many affluent people are prejudiced against the poor is a subliminal fear they could easily find themselves in the same position, of course, if the poor are just lazy, then they regain their sense of control and have nothing to worry about.

 

It is good to know I am not the only one around with my set of beliefs and a history like mine, Muse. A toast to you.