Conservatives would cut GST: Harper

[d_rawk]

Oh, absolutely. That's why I qualified it with "economic libertarianism" ... his social views preclude him from across-the-board libertarian.

“I'm very libertarian in the sense that I believe in small government and, as a general rule, I don't believe in imposing values upon people.†(National Post, March 6, 2004)

One would be forgiven for questioning the last bit.

Economic conservatism, Harper says during an interview in his Calgary office, is libertarian in nature, emphasizing markets and choice. Libertarian conservatives work to dismantle the remaining elements of the interventionist state and move towards “a market society for the 21st century.†(Toronto Star, April 6, 1997)

Those are just from a quick google. I think there are others.

I've read a lot of complaints from some of his supporters that he "used to be so libertarian" but now gets caught up in these social-conservative debates.

Mike Harris, of course, avoided all the social-conservative traps. The Libertarian Party of Ontario lost a lot of supporters at the time who bled over to the PCs to get behind him.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

I think of Bill Maher as being the sort of libertarian I could have a decent conversation with. For the most part though, the term conjures images for me of people holed up in shacks in Montana waiting for the apocalypse.

Or, somewhat less hysterically, it makes me think of Herbert Spencer (so antithetical to Marx in every way that they're even buried across from one another in Highgate in London), who was beloved by big industry in the UK and the US for wanting to pull government out of everything but police and the military (even garbage collection), and argued that there was no point in squandering resources on such absurdities as taking medical care of the poor because it's better for the gene pool if they die off. It was Spencer, apparently, and not Darwin, who coined the phrase "survival of the fittest", making social Darwinism politically respectable for the rest of the 19th and on into the 20th century (and this would include all the eugenics campaigns that were so popular even in the US and Canada).

I do think we bear some responsibility to strangers (but then maybe that's just my "herd morality" talking). As I understand it, when we organise ourselves to do so, that's called "government", and funding it, "taxes". I'm ok with that. The human instinct to exploit and pillage one another is to strong and persistent to ignore and to leave in the hands of people with private economic power whose main drive is to exploit and pillage.

[Birdy]

i too think we bear some responsibility to strangers, as much as ayn rand would wince at me saying so. i guess that is my more socially liberal side coming out; however, there are some stragglers out there that do completely take advantage of the current system and my thoughts on darwinism surely apply to those particular peeps. in my quest for a minimalist government i ponder how we can achieve the same aid for the TRULY disadvantaged without tax payer money and without government control, ie. a system of voluntary and not-for-profit agencies that work in the same capacity say as HRDC, continued tax breaks for low-middle income families and single parent families, and an abolition of all government restriction on voluntary day care centres. Couple these with a more fiscally responsible government that doesn't squander away its money on useless and futile policies and rather puts that money towards grants for NPOs to get off the ground and to become sustainable on their own, very well could work.

doc i agree with you that there are people out there with the aim to exploit and pillage the less fortunate, but then there are people who aren't. exploiting and pillaging another person ultimately makes that person a victim and that should be the concern of the police and not the government. perhaps we should focus on making the police system more adequate in dealing with these kinds of things..

d-rawk- sorry i didn't tag onto the economic-libertarianism.. you're right about mike harris though.. he did steer clear of the social conservative policies/philosophies and that's why he got such a clear and decisive majority government. i honestly think a majority of members of the liberal party tend to agree with economic-libertarianism as well.. not quite the extent that i may, but it truly does make sense... i guess thats why mcguinty has failed to fulfill his promises he made during his stab at the conservatives.. cuz actually, deep down, he's kind of "for them".

agh.. who knows?

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

there are some stragglers out there that do completely take advantage of the current system and my thoughts on darwinism surely apply to those particular peeps

[d_rawk]

i honestly think a majority of members of the liberal party tend to agree with economic-libertarianism as well..

You'll find no argument from me about that!

[Calamity Jane]

there are some stragglers out there that do completely take advantage of the current system and my thoughts on darwinism surely apply to those particular peeps

From Utah Philip's site (anyone else know this tune' date=' from the album Ani Difranco put out....?)

[b']The Two Bums

"This is a poem from George Milburn's book, The Hobo's Hornbook. You can also find it in a lot of old I. W. W. pamphlets and literature. It sums up a great deal of what I feel. It talks about the bum on the rod and the burn on the plush, which is just a simple way of saying that the kind of system we live in now demands that there be a poor people, demands that there be people out of work so that there will always be people willing to work for any wage.

Sure, a lot of railroad burns are parasites, but, like the poem says, they're just fleas who get an occasional bite, and you look at what those parasites at the top are chewing off. I know that there's a lot of talk these days about the welfare Cadillac; middle class people talking about those welfare gobblers down on the bottom who are afraid to do an honest day's work, and they're all driving big Cadillacs.

And you hear over and over again, "Nobody ought to get something for nothing. " I've got to agree. You've got to work to eat.

I look at a factory. I see that everybody associated with that factory puts something in and they take something out. The workers put in their sweat and their skill, and they take out wages. The salesmen put in their skill and ability, and they take out commissions. The managers and foremen and people in the offices put in theirs, and take out salaries. But there's one group of people who take out more than they put in, and that more is called profit. I can't think of any other way to define it. That's a bunch of people who are getting something they didn't work for, and it's a whole lot.

If we're really concerned about people getting just what they earn, if we're really concerned about people not getting something that they didn't put in time and sweat for, let's start with the major offenders, and get rid of them. Then we'll gradually work our way down to the petty chiselers. It just makes sense."

The bum on the rod is hunted down

As the enemy of mankind;

The other is driven around to his club

And feted, wined and dined.

And they who curse the bum on the rods

As the essence of all that is bad

Will greet the other with a winning smile

And extend him the hand so glad.

The bum on the rods is a social flea

Who gets an occasional bite;

The bum on the plush is a social leech,

Blood-sucking day and night.

The bum on the rods is a load so light

That his weight we scarcely feel,

But it takes the labor of dozens of men

To furnish the other a meal.

As long as you sanction the bum on the plush,

The other will always be there,

But rid yourself of the bum on the plush

And the other will disappear.

Then make an intelligent, organized kick,

Get rid of the weights that crush;

Don't worry about the bum on the rods,

Get rid of the bum on the plush!

[Birdy]

cj i totally agree with what you're saying, and i think society is starting to as well. ie, the fall of conrad black, the fall of enron, martha stewart, etc. for once "justice" is being served to those who commit the crime and it's not coming from the top down, as it shouldn't.

but you know what? a chiseler is a chiseler.. let's say that chiseler is on the bottom, he's just chiseling with what he's got.. give that man a few million and put in his hands so much power, he'll chisel even more. if you're an evil person, you'll do evil whatever your situation is. money isn't the only persuasive power out there.

i think in general we need to focus on all the chiselers out there. it's only fair.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

We are all pimps and whores. There aren't really any alternatives available once you have a system that predicates survival on the flow of little green pieces of paper. Some of the whores get beaten up and ripped off more than others. They tend to be the ones with fewer options, because, as Mr. Phillips says, there's only so much to go around, and some people are sitting on a big pile of it with all the machinery of the state set up to keep it that way.

If the system were set up justly and equitably... well, among other things, religions around the world would look considerably different than they do today (think of the so-called Axial Age religions - Zoroastrianism, prophetic Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity, etc. - all with what Vatican II phrased "a preferential option for the poor"). You also wouldn't have systems in place where, say, crack users in the US (statistically, prominently black) get way more prison time coke users (statistically, prominently white). White collar criminals, similarly, get soft time whenever they're caught, while those don't live under that canopy can rot in hell as far as a lot of judges (and voters/taxpayers) are concerned.

Birdy, I agree - taking stuff without being offered it is wrong. The problem at hand, it seems to me, is that the two main contenders for the title right now, the Liberals and Conservatives, have each been caught in different times and places with their hands in the till, and there's nothing to convince me that the Tories won't be just as corrupt if they get another turn at bat. The difference is that they are considerably more mean to people who don't have as much on their own plates, or whose denigration can scare up more votes (see immigrants, gays, etc.).

There's a meanspiritedness to the Tories that I find very, very distressing; it sure ain't the party it was a long time before they dropped the "Progressive". Up here in the Ottawa Valley now, I get exposed to a lot of rancour against people who are "different" that I never saw much of in Toronto, which has gone a long way to helping me understand how civilised places can turn into violent madhouses. And my fear is that the Tories will get in simply from people voting reactively out of spite.

[ggrtrhhrtgg]

are you serious??? Darwinism???

I am going to assume that you are refering to the idea of "survival of the fittest." How can you determine who are the "fit" when the playing field is uneven?

I guarantee you that your tax money goes towards the betterment of our society, ON A WHOLE. Why not just relax and take pride in the fact that some of the money you earn, actually helps people survive.

The concept of sharing is real good.

[Lazlo]

The concept of sharing is real good.

Especially venereal diseases.

[Birdy]

There's a meanspiritedness to the Tories that I find very, very distressing; it sure ain't the party it was a long time before they dropped the "Progressive". Up here in the Ottawa Valley now, I get exposed to a lot of rancour against people who are "different" that I never saw much of in Toronto, which has gone a long way to helping me understand how civilised places can turn into violent madhouses. And my fear is that the Tories will get in simply from people voting reactively out of spite.

tell me more about the meanspiritedness you talk of.. the rancour. unfortunately, i think for that party a lot of 'wrong' people get attracted to it for the 'wrong' reasons, ie, white supremacists, fanatical Christians, etc. all jumping ship because certain conservative policies kind of mesh, in a taken out of context kind of way, with their lunacy. the aim to preserve the past has really, really inhibited the party's ability to grow into the future and to accept what that future has to bring.

truthfully, i'm guilty of buying into the tax cut and hoping for a minimalist government. socially speaking, i'm the furthest thing from conservative, but then again, the furthest thing from liberal as well. this time around, i've decided to focus on the economics of it all.

[Birdy]

are you serious??? Darwinism???

I am going to assume that you are refering to the idea of "survival of the fittest." How can you determine who are the "fit" when the playing field is uneven?

I guarantee you that your tax money goes towards the betterment of our society, ON A WHOLE. Why not just relax and take pride in the fact that some of the money you earn, actually helps people survive.

The concept of sharing is real good.

yes the concept of sharing is a good one. there's no disputing that. i'm disputing the concept of "coerced" sharing. if you read back in my posts you'll notice that. you will also notice that i agree that tax payer money does benefit society as a whole, but i'm trying to introduce the thought that perhaps we can benefit society as a whole, collectively and voluntarily, outside of government control. too, i should have clarified.. social darwinism was what i was referring to.. elements of what 'survival of the fittest' means in today's Canada- not in its most literal and brutal sense. haha- i've been catching a lot of slack for that one.. i'm definitely not that evil. sorry to burn your eyes sugarmegs

in the end numerodos, it's not about worrying where my money goes and who it is taking care of, it's about the essence of free will and what i believe to be true humanity. haha, the image of a globe and little stick figures linked arm and arm surrounding that globe keeps flickering in my mind.. jesus.. i need to smoke another one.

[ggrtrhhrtgg]

ok, I understand what you are saying... Now I can understand how voluntary assistance, over as you say coerced assistance is justifiable. However, if you consider the social makeup of our neighbours to the south, I believe and correct me if I am wrong, that they are a prime example of a society that reflects your ideas. I realize that it should be voluntary, but, unfortunately, when you live in a competitive society, where there are more and more ways for you to spend your money on yourself, and less opportunity to consider those that are in need... I think the fact that we do have a Government that controls the movement of part of our earnings, and that these monies are distributed to specific social programs that not only benefit the less fortunate, but, also the comfortable and wealthy as well is necessary.

We do have the ultimate say in the matter because we are a democracy, and we are entitled to vote which ever way we choose. I choose to vote for any party but the Conservative party because they to me reflect social darwinism-- I want this country to remain peaceful, to remain a welcoming place for outsiders where they can come to our country and have a fighting chance to survive and live comfortably, to remain a place where the less fortunate are provided with substantial assistance...

let me ask you this--- forget the G.S.T. for a moment...

Do you want a two-tier health care system?

p.s. I thoroughly enjoy discussing politics and my ideas, and eventhough they clash with others, I hope you don't ever percieve my critism, or difference to be dis-respectful...

[Birdy]

ok, I understand what you are saying... Now I can understand how voluntary assistance, over as you say coerced assistance is justifiable. However, if you consider the social makeup of our neighbours to the south, I believe and correct me if I am wrong, that they are a prime example of a society that reflects your ideas. I realize that it should be voluntary, but, unfortunately, when you live in a competitive society, where there are more and more ways for you to spend your money on yourself, and less opportunity to consider those that are in need... I think the fact that we do have a Government that controls the movement of part of our earnings, and that these monies are distributed to specific social programs that not only benefit the less fortunate, but, also the comfortable and wealthy as well is necessary.

We do have the ultimate say in the matter because we are a democracy, and we are entitled to vote which ever way we choose. I choose to vote for any party but the Conservative party because they to me reflect social darwinism-- I want this country to remain peaceful, to remain a welcoming place for outsiders where they can come to our country and have a fighting chance to survive and live comfortably, to remain a place where the less fortunate are provided with substantial assistance...

let me ask you this--- forget the G.S.T. for a moment...

Do you want a two-tier health care system?

p.s. I thoroughly enjoy discussing politics and my ideas, and eventhough they clash with others, I hope you don't ever percieve my critism, or difference to be dis-respectful...

i love talking politics and philosophy too .. i grew up in a very political family—we had statues of john a. macdonald and saint thomas aquinas in our garden! lol.. and i won’t perceive your criticism of anything other than what it is..

onwards to health care.. i’m kind of scared to get into it on this board! yikes.. fingers crossed... I do support a two-tier health care system. It just makes the most sense to me. Canada is the only developed country that DOES NOT have it. If you live within a relatively close driving range of the US, then you could argue that we already DO have it. the completely public system is driving our doctors south of the border and making it increasingly harder to attract doctors into the public system. hah my family doctor that i had for sixteen years, is now a TEXAN! so yes in fear of waiting in ridiculously long lines in emergency rooms, in fear of the commodore 64 pulling up my info (someone else’s line i stole.. sorry don’t know who to credit), in fear of the brain drain, i do favour two tier health care.

perhaps instead of taxation, people could have the choice to set up a voluntary medical savings account... one that actually compounded interest. maybe even this particular savings account could exist in the form of a public health care bond, who knows.. what i do know is that our current system is falling to shambles, and has been even before the days of mike harris’ cuts. my family doctor became a texan under the auspices of bob rae.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

This probably isn't worth arguing over here. I've never seen anyone who's argued in favour of either position on healthcare change their minds. If you have the money to deal with a health problem, then the two-tier system is just peachy. If you're broke, then you get the second-rate care, and/or just die, wishing you were worth more so you could get care equal to what affluent people get.

[Birdy]

This probably isn't worth arguing over here. I've never seen anyone who's argued in favour of either position on healthcare change their minds. If you have the money to deal with a health problem, then the two-tier system is just peachy. If you're broke, then you get the second-rate care, and/or just die, wishing you were worth more so you could get care equal to what affluent people get.

but wouldn't you say that our current health care system is second-rate care? i definitely would. i called to book a check up with my family doctor last february... i'm scheduled for march of 2006. and thats not even remotely the tip of the iceberg. i'm lucky i even have a doctor.

obviously i don't think we should jump into a two-tier system without changing a few things outside of the traditional health care realm, but i think everyone can agree that something has to be done, soon.

[Birdy]

Jack Layton yesterday reversed his long-standing position that he would crack down on private health-care clinics.

Layton softens stand on two-tier medicine Can't stop growth, NDP leader admits Parties' differences blurring on private vs. public care

This means that the Liberals and the NDP are both committed to ensuring that public money goes only to the public system, as outlined in the Public Health Care Protection Initiative. We have to wonder why Jack Layton would have chosen to force an early election on this issue? I'm getting anxious for the official party platforms to come out.

Yesterday on CBC Sunday - the conservative representatives said that they won’t put any money into Health Care to help fix wait times while at the same guaranteeing shorter wait times in the future. Instead the Conservative party suggests that we should allow patients to travel to different jurisdictions for the care they need. The problem with this is that they were unable to name a single place that does not have a problems with wait times AND they have no plan for paying for the cost of transporting people from place to place. At the very end of the program the conservative representative said that they intend on closing ALL of the private health care clinics.

i wonder how much time, effort and money will go into enforcing the closure of all private health care clinics. i also wonder how we could possibly go about keeping our citizens from obtaining first-rate health care across the border- the fact that the conservatives should even have the mention that we should "allow" patients to travel outside of Canadian government jurisdictions to get care that could possibly save their lives, is scary as hell and brings up images of Cuba and Soviet Russia to mind.

[Tooly]

i dont see how they would be able to improve our healthcare system when they're planning on cutting tons of money from tax revenue

im sure as HELL not voting for harper

[Birdy]

well whosever jurisdiction it falls under, i still don't think we can dictate to people by what means they can receive care that could save their lives. operative word being "dictate".

nor is this by any means a solution. the conservative's idea of health care solves absolutely nothing, considering we have created this state of dependence. it seems as if they're backpeddling to cover those who do shop for doctors.

i'm actually really surprised at jack layton and am seriously very anxiously awaiting his platform... ndp'ers everywhere must be so divided over this..

i honestly really do think we're on the verge of a big change with regard to health care..

the future should be interesting.

Edited December 5, 2005 by Guest

[Freak By Night]

HA! This just came to our office.

Harper Thinks Middle Income People Earn $90,000

Conservative leader Stephen Harper today told the media:

"I tend to think of you know people up to 80 to 90 thousand dollars as being middle income in this day and age . I don't think most people would consider $70,000 to be high income." (Stephen Harper, December 5, 2005)

Fact:

The average adult wage in Canada is just under $32,000, according to Statistics Canada.

And the average household income at $64,900, well below Harper's $90,000 definition of what it means to be "middle income in this day and age."

We now understand why Harper's recent policy announcements on the GST and child care favour higher income Canadians.

He actually thinks he's aiming at the middle!

I'd like to see the quote in its original context. Where was it from?

[ollie]

but wouldn't you say that our current health care system is second-rate care? i definitely would. i called to book a check up with my family doctor last february... i'm scheduled for march of 2006. and thats not even remotely the tip of the iceberg. i'm lucky i even have a doctor.

That's incredible! I could probably get in to see my family doctor this afternoon if I really wanted to. In my experience our health care system is first-rate. I don't understand where the jarring discrepancies come from.

[Birdy]

sugarmegs, out of curiosity, where do you work?

ollie- i think it's the discrepancy between small towns and big cities.. crazy doctor shortages around these parts.. seriously, there are waitlists to join to get a family doctor. it's ridiculous.

[Mr. Photogeek]

but wouldn't you say that our current health care system is second-rate care? i definitely would. i called to book a check up with my family doctor last february... i'm scheduled for march of 2006. and thats not even remotely the tip of the iceberg. i'm lucky i even have a doctor.

That's incredible! I could probably get in to see my family doctor this afternoon if I really wanted to. In my experience our health care system is first-rate. I don't understand where the jarring discrepancies come from.

That does seem weird...My doctor called last week to tell me he is retiring in two weeks. I called my wife’s doctor who said she is not accepting patients but her partner is. I talked to his receptionist on Thursday and have an appointment for tonight (Monday). No problem. My wife can usually get in to see her doctor the day she calls (if it is important). On the other hand I have had several specialist appointments in the past and have had to wait upwards of 3 months to get in. For example, last I checked, our area only has 2 gastroenterologists, so waiting lists are long. Not sure whos fault that is...

[Birdy]

wow that's crazy.. getting in to see a doctor around here is like pulling teeth.. even if you do get a scheduled appointment, you have to wait an hour or so cuz they're always running behind. go to google and type in : doctor shortages, canada and see what pops up. if you didn't already know of this, you'll be surprised.

[ggrtrhhrtgg]

two tier health care system---hmmmmmm...

Birdy-- I realize this is a loaded question, but do you believe in equality?